Social media bosses could be liable for harmful content

[[FnG]magnolia]

I didn't say we had seen it in this thread. But we frequently see it in others.
I'd say it's actually often more insulting than the comments that trigger it.

But you'll take my point that those two words were not raised by me but by you? I get what you're saying, in a wider context.

Anyway,

will have the power to impose substantial fines against companies that breach their duty of care and to hold individual executives personally liable.

Thoughts?

 

[Dis86]

But you'll take my point that those two words were not raised by me but by you? I get what you're saying, in a wider context.

Anyway,

Thoughts?

Of course. But I had to say them to illustrate my point in this instance that some people will too readily take offense and bandy such terms about, incorrectly applying them to others. It's those people, who if given power or control over what's acceptable and isn't, will become very dangerous.

 

[chroniclard]

They do need to do something about disinformation and propaganda, case in point Leave campaign Brexit lies that duped millions.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Of course. But I had to say them to illustrate my point in this instance that some people will too readily take offense and bandy such terms about, incorrectly applying them to others. It's those people, who if given power or control over what's acceptable and isn't, will become very dangerous.

No, I get that, dude. I disagree with you but I get it.

Do you have an issue with the intent of the idea? Does it check off the boxes which are 'yeah - good idea' or 'nah'?

 

[Dis86]

No, I get that, dude. I disagree with you but I get it.

Do you have an issue with the intent of the idea? Does it check off the boxes which are 'yeah - good idea' or 'nah'?

I think it's a brilliant idea in theory. I think in practice however it's terrifying.

It's an incredibly easy path to stymying free speech and I think could be used to silence those with dissenting opinions.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Genuine question - why would you go straight to the worst outcome?

e: sorry, for context, having said "It's a brilliant idea".

 

[FoxEye]

Genuine question - why would you go straight to the worst outcome?

The government doesn't have a stellar record policing the internet.

Why would you expect anything other than the worst outcome? Either it will cost millions and achieve nothing, or it will have unintended consequences.

Almost guaranteed.

 

[kindai]

Well for this to be fair, the execs would need to have plenty of warning and be found to be failing to implement changes.

So every 6 months a new head honcho takes the spot and resets the "plenty of warning clock".

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

The government doesn't have a stellar record policing the internet.

Why would you expect anything other than the worst outcome? Either it will cost millions and achieve nothing, or it will have unintended consequences.

Almost guaranteed.

Which government? I know that you dislike any type so perhaps that's redundant.

Well for this to be fair, the execs would need to have plenty of warning and be found to be failing to implement changes.

So every 6 months a new head honcho takes the spot and resets the "plenty of warning clock".

So, a measure? That seems pretty reasonable to me.

 

[Dis86]

Genuine question - why would you go straight to the worst outcome?

e: sorry, for context, having said "It's a brilliant idea".

Because I'm a realist. I'd love to be optimistic but having seen what those in authority do it's hard to be anything but pessimistic. We've already had the example of humberside police actively pursuing and threatening a man who committed no crime.

We have countries worldwide with blasphemy laws where you will be executed for 'insulting'a religion. We have countries where stepping on an image of the monarch will land you in prison (Or worse). What are these things if nothing but a twisted attempt through censorship to exert control over people with differing opinions?

 

[FoxEye]

Which government? I know that you dislike any type so perhaps that's redundant.

Perhaps you can point to an example of any government policing the internet effectively for the benefit of its people?

I'll give you as long as you need...

 

[Yadda]

The government doesn't have a stellar record policing the internet.

Why would you expect anything other than the worst outcome? Either it will cost millions and achieve nothing, or it will have unintended consequences.

Almost guaranteed.

I used to be pessimistic but I gave it up. There was just no future in it.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Because I'm a realist. I'd love to be optimistic but having seen what those in authority do it's hard to be anything but pessimistic. We've already had the example of humberside police actively pursuing and threatening a man who committed no crime.

We have countries worldwide with blasphemy laws where you will be executed for 'insulting'a religion. We have countries where stepping on an image of the monarch will land you in prison (Or worse). What are these things if nothing but a twisted attempt through censorship to exert control over people with differing opinions?

Ok, that's powerful and I mean that.

What positives can you see from the proposed ideas?

 

[kindai]

So, a measure? That seems pretty reasonable to me.

I dont know, what question am I answering?

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Perhaps you can point to an example of any government policing the internet effectively for the benefit of its people?

I'll give you as long as you need...

Because we haven't been able to fix it before is barely a reason to extend our ignorance.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

I dont know, what question am I answering?

So every 6 months a new head honcho takes the spot and resets the "plenty of warning clock".

That one. I was agreeing with you.

 

[FoxEye]

Because we haven't been able to fix it before is barely a reason to extend our ignorance.

I already addressed this.

Like I said there's no reason not to keep trying to improve.

But there's also no reason to slap fines on companies if they fail to get it 100% right overnight.

I'm fairly sure it's not possible at this time to prevent all "harmful" content being shown on the internet.

The "ignorance" is when the government comes in and starts demanding this.

 

[Dis86]

Ok, that's powerful and I mean that.

What positives can you see from the proposed ideas?

Passively being subjected to something you find horrendous (someone posting a video of the mosque shooting for example) vs actively seeking such things out because of morbid curiosity is a very different kettle of fish.
I certainly think the first is wrong and should be policed but I don't think the second is. However harmful is not something I do think should be policed. Illegal, definitely, harmful, no.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Passively being subjected to something you find horrendous (someone posting a video of the mosque shooting for example) vs actively seeking such things out because of morbid curiosity is a very different kettle of fish.
I certainly think the first is wrong and should be policed but I don't think the second is. However harmful is not something I do think should be policed. Illegal, definitely, harmful, no.

That's a negative dressed up as a positive but I think you're talking about a bigger issue.

Let's get into it.

Do you think social media should have constraints? Yes or No.

 

[Dis86]

That's a negative dressed up as a positive but I think you're talking about a bigger issue.

Let's get into it.

Do you think social media should have constraints? Yes or No.

Yes.