Society's view on computers & the internet.

[Nitefly]

Wasn't there a thread on here recently of people saying 'I have no friends'?

Seems like some enjoy conforming to expectations.

 

[FoxEye]

People go on about freedom, especially Americans, but why does it really matter, for example it's the law to wear a seat belt, so we have lost our freedom not to wear a seat belt, all that does is force people to make the right choice and wear a seat belt. As long as it is for the best I don't see the problem.

Who gets to decide what the 'right choice' is, and how much decision making are you prepared to relinquish to the govt? Would you like the govt to determine what food your children should be eating? To enforce it via legislation? It'll be for their own good, of course. And necessary because you can't be trusted to make the 'right choice'.

Is that officially the case or just an imagined assumption? What legislation allows the Social Services to request such information from the ISPs?

I'll just repost what I read from the blog. I can't vouch for its accuracy, but it's damn scary, and definitely plausible.

A social worker called in on Radio 5 saying they would use information about whether parents had the porn block removed to determine if the were responsible enough to care for children.

On Radio 2 yesterday, Cameron was asked whether Government departments would have access to the lists of people who had the block removed. Cameron wouldn’t give a straight answer.

This whole thing is sinister and yet another way the Government treats its citizens as guilty criminals.

Source: http://order-order.com/2013/07/23/claire-perrys-website-hacked-by-porn-prankers/

Edit: It is even more plausible given the recent case of children being taken away from a couple who were UKIP supporters - because they were UKIP supporters.

 

[RDM]

I'll just repost what I read from the blog. I can't vouch for its accuracy, but it's damn scary, and definitely plausible.



Source: http://order-order.com/2013/07/23/claire-perrys-website-hacked-by-porn-prankers/

Edit: It is even more plausible given the recent case of children being taken away from a couple who were UKIP supporters - because they were UKIP supporters.

But it seems somewhat less plausible when it isn't happening for people that have removed the porn block on their mobile phones.

 

[mattyjim123]

Your solution to being bullied on Ask.fm was not "Seek psychiatric help" but "stop logging on to ask.fm". That isn't really a solution as it effectively excludes someone from a social resource because they are being bullied. The fault doesn't really lie with them, surely the "common sense" bit should actually lie with the people doing the bullying? Why do they not have to exercise it whilst the victim does? We shouldn't really be getting to the place where someone needs to seek psychiatric help for being bullied, we should be stopping the bullying.

I understand your point, and you say that we should stop the bullying. So does that lie with the bully being persecuted, or the website being persecuted? At the moment it seems like the latter. If the website was seen as just a place for anonymous bullying, then surely the general pattern would be is that people simply wouldn't use the site? What I feel is that the website shouldn't be held to blame, it is the bullies, but that doesn't seem to happen.

Quite frankly, I don't see not using a website such as ask.fm as being socially excluded really. I don't see it as true social interaction. How is answering the random questions of a nameless, faceless person who you may not even know, social interaction? That's not mutual social interaction, that's social interrogation.

 

[RDM]

I understand your point, and you say that we should stop the bullying. So does that lie with the bully being persecuted, or the website being persecuted? At the moment it seems like the latter. If the website was seen as just a place for anonymous bullying, then surely the general pattern would be is that people simply wouldn't use the site? What I feel is that the website shouldn't be held to blame, it is the bullies, but that doesn't seem to happen.

Surely it is both? But then how do you take the bullies to task if you are not allowing the monitoring of websites or allowing users to easily report abuse? Do not the providers of such services also have a duty of care to their users?

Quite frankly, I don't see not using a website such as ask.fm as being socially excluded really. I don't see it as true social interaction. How is answering the random questions of a nameless, faceless person who you may not even know, social interaction? That's not mutual social interaction, that's social interrogation.

It is a social networking site, there are social elements to it. Social interaction with your peers is pretty important, be they local or remote and in an increasingly networked world what constitutes a friend is changing pretty rapidly. Regardless I see effectively punishing the victim as inherently wrong.

 

[mattyjim123]

Surely it is both? But then how do you take the bullies to task if you are not allowing the monitoring of websites or allowing users to easily report abuse? Do not the providers of such services also have a duty of care to their users?

Correct me if I am mistaken, but doesnt Ask.fm have a report button. Shouldn't this then let it be up to the victim, and other people reading the posts, to report the question, and stop the bullying? Then surely it is the victim's, and other witnesses' responsibility to stop the abuse?

It is a social networking site, there are social elements to it. Social interaction with your peers is pretty important, be they local or remote and in an increasingly networked world what constitutes a friend is changing pretty rapidly. Regardless I see effectively punishing the victim as inherently wrong.

Social interaction with your peers is important, but is it really interacting in a way that really is important? surely interaction should be mutual, where you can communicate to somebody, that is not anonymous, and that you can also ask them questions? If people wanted true social interaction, would they really use Ask.fm? Wouldn't they use a Social Networking site like Facebook, Twitter, or even simple face to face conversation?

Also, I don't understand how got to the conclusion that it is punishing the victim.


I have to say, all opinions on the matter aside, I do like a good debate, and I thank you for continuing this with me, and sharing ideas. You have opened my mind up to perhaps a few different ideas on the matter.

 

[V F]

People go on about freedom but it isn't important, what matters is that people remain safe.

Sometimes they aren't even safe from themselves.

Surely it is both? But then how do you take the bullies to task if you are not allowing the monitoring of websites or allowing users to easily report abuse? Do not the providers of such services also have a duty of care to their users?

Imagine it, getting reported for somebody disagreeing or losing a discussion on the internet. It's that pathetic now it would actually happen.

 

[Judgeneo]

An excellent blog, thanks for linking to it. I agree on pretty much every point.

To those in this thread saying that a nationwide web filter would stop cyber crime. As someone working within computer security, this is an unlikely outcome. Threats evolve far too quickly for blacklists to be effective, are not effective at all against phishing, and other threats have their own means to infect users. Often relying on people not knowing how to use computers.

 

[Caged]

A guy who claims to run a network and then requires people to manually set proxies whilst taking some sort of perverse pleasure in withholding information until asked is doing more harm than people who aren't bothered about anything more than using an iPad to check email and mess about on Facebook. I really liked the part where he was advocating that people use phones that don't work so they can learn about them.

And just lol that there aren't separate filters enforced for staff and students.

 

[RDM]

Correct me if I am mistaken, but doesnt Ask.fm have a report button. Shouldn't this then let it be up to the victim, and other people reading the posts, to report the question, and stop the bullying? Then surely it is the victim's, and other witnesses' responsibility to stop the abuse?

They may have a report button but they didn't really do anything with it until lots of companies started pulling advertising after the bad press from a number of suicides. Again however you seem to be putting the responsibility on shopping bullying purely on the victim. If a school is responsible for bullying on it's premises why is a website not responsible for bullying on the services it offers?

Social interaction with your peers is important, but is it really interacting in a way that really is important? surely interaction should be mutual, where you can communicate to somebody, that is not anonymous, and that you can also ask them questions? If people wanted true social interaction, would they really use Ask.fm? Wouldn't they use a Social Networking site like Facebook, Twitter, or even simple face to face conversation?

Cyberbulling is also rife on Facebook and Twitter, however they, and ask.fm, are now a part of the average teenager's life.

Also, I don't understand how got to the conclusion that it is punishing the victim.

Because all of your "solutions" so far have been about actions the victim can take and what sanctions they have to endure rather than those actually responsible and the companies making money and allowing it to happen.

It seems to be blaming the victim for allowing themselves to be bullied which I just see as wrong.

I have to say, all opinions on the matter aside, I do like a good debate, and I thank you for continuing this with me, and sharing ideas. You have opened my mind up to perhaps a few different ideas on the matter.

My opinions on this have changed somewhat since working in a school. Having access to more information about what happens, how it happens, how kids use these sites and how it impacts people. I am responsible for tackling bullying in my classroom, these companies should be responsible for tackling bullying on their websites.

 

[RedvGreen]

Filtering sites stops the casual browsers and those without technical ability.

For those who are more dedicated to their interests and hobbies, it will be an initial speedbump, but then turn into a trivial task to circumvent.

 

[beamer]

What company or sector do you work in?

I think you view might be biased by the target audience for the software you develop.

I've developed a wide range of software for a wide range of users - the high paying mainframe wizard jobs are all still there, in fact demand for "lateral thinkers" in these roles is increasing rapidly as a result of retirement and significant mistakes in hiring.

Mass market appeal doesn't mean low paying roles, unless the employees accept it - a billion copies at a £1 should give the same pay as a single bespoke billion pound piece of software - both require good strong but differing skillsets which should be equally valued.

I see this from both sides.

On the one hand the guy is right and people treat computers like they treat cars, "Herp Derp, I dun gon on the internetz and now its broked plz fix mr nerd man" which with cars is ok because you need to prove you can at least safely use one before you are allowed one and you have to have your hardware (the car) checked annually to ensure it is in good working condition. So the analogy is less reasonable as its sort of to not know how a car works as there are laws that limit the amount of damage it is possible to do (imagine if there was no driving test or MoT).
We should be encouraging kids (and adults) to learn how computers work and how to be safe online because computing cant afford to end up in the same situation as cars are now. Computer Licences? Annual hardware tests? Speed limits? Road signs? ok so the last two are car specific but imagine computing with more legislation to restrict what can be done.

On the other hand though I see groups of programmers and technicians pretty much going out of their way to maintain this aura of mystery around what they do. I'll admit that I (as a software engineer) am terrible for it, "Well if you cant use command line tools then you shouldnt be using my program" etc etc. The trouble is that all this has done is make computing swing the other way so now it is accessible to everyone! It used to be that programmers and technicians were revered. Yes they were massive nerds and mostly totally socially inept, but they were paid stupid amounts of money because they were the only ones who knew how to maintain the mainframes or develop new programs. Now we get paid less money and told to fix things that should never be broken because totally inept people are allowed to use systems they refuse to even attempt to understand.

Kick MS out of schools. Roll out Linux. Save money. Become better people. ???. Profit.

 

[RedvGreen]

What company or sector do you work in?

I think you view might be biased by the target audience for the software you develop.

I've developed a wide range of software for a wide range of users - the high paying mainframe wizard jobs are all still there, in fact demand for "lateral thinkers" in these roles is increasing rapidly as a result of retirement and significant mistakes in hiring.

Mass market appeal doesn't mean low paying roles, unless the employees accept it - a billion copies at a £1 should give the same pay as a single bespoke billion pound piece of software - both require good strong but differing skillsets which should be equally valued.

It isn't unique to software engineering, but in fact is rife across the whole of any industry remotely connected to Computers/Software/Web Development/Cyber Security etc.

It is too easy to brand a person in this sector as a 'geek' or 'IT person' regardless of your expertise. Sadly, Human Resources and public perception like this as it saves them bucket loads of cash in salaries, and offers amazing value for money too when you consider that most people in my team have top degrees, postgraduate degrees, 5-10yrs experience in the sector and many restricted training qualifications (unique to Military/Police).

If you stick 'Supervisor' or 'Manager' in your job title, you walk away with about +£15k more than the people you are watching, despite them having more quals and experience than yourself.

Technical roles rarely pay fairly; if you want to get on, stick to Management (MBA) or HR.

 

[beamer]

No different to the outsourcing that's gone on for the past 10-15 years. The quality of work has fallen faster than the salary cost did - prices remained pretty stable, profits soared, though customers get much poorer value for money. You pay peanuts, you get monkeys.

Most Indians and Chinese are frustrating to work with too - you have to stick to written comms and only ever response is "yes" then weeks later you get asked really basic questions on the work again. Number of times we've proven work wasn't completed at all or properly ...

I don't blame them at all though, if I had 10s of alternative companies within commuting distance offering same or better pay and/or I had earned enough to buy a house or 3 outright in my country from 10 years of 45 hour weeks, I would be exactly the same.

It's reached a natural end now anyway ... salary costs once comms issues and rework are properly factored in, are well beyond western salary costs and the lower level managers have finally realised they go once there's no-one left to managed ;0)

 

[mattyjim123]

@RDM, I feel we are going round in circles here, so I believe we should agree to disagree. I think we both have a good argument from 2 different sides, and it has opened my mind up to other ideas.

For now, I feel this thread should be laid to rest.

Thanks to anybody who contributed!