Should these extremely large and profitable companies be liable for allowing terrorist organisations such as ISIL a platform for recruitment? I personally think so, in fact I think it's frankly pathetic that they hide behind the 'free speech' thing. Maybe it's just me but when I hear of extremists openly having access and use of these services I can't help but be ashamed of the companies that turn the blind eye. I wonder how the CEO'S would feel if their son/daughter/wife/mother were ever caught up in a tragic terrorist event, orchestrated with the use of their own technology. ISIL want to live in the dark ages, I say that we should let them have it and remove all access to western based technology asap
If they have any brains, they will not be using phones, fixed computer IPs & gps technology. Blowing up entire familes is fine with you? Because one member wants to get rid of the vile americunt menace continually causing strife inside their nation?!?! You might not be aware that americunts do follow up drone attacks on the people/community/family offering help to survivors of missile attacks. But i think you do & because of some sick logic you wish there entire ethnic group 'the death-culture treatment' of usa_naziland. I suppose we should start with the basics, who invested/trained ISIS damodici? Did it involve nato-troops, usa troops & saudis?? Is this 'terrorist group' a remarkable simliar excerise repeated time & time again by westerners.
What's the difference between that lot and the guns and bombs that we make, that they also use. If all we had were rocks, they'd still throw them at as. We can't live in the dark ages because some people use things for ill. It's also not right to say that people shouldn't be allowed private conversation. Unfortunately these things will always happen and we just have to fight back in means that aren't as self mutilating as abolishing electronic communication and freedom of speech.
Frankly your conning yourselves, wasting preious time & energy on conversing about a group of people that even if they are 'defeated'. Usa_naziland & the uk_nazi's will orchestrate another bunch of ill at ease rebels to cause more trouble in some region. so they can complete some objective/steal oil at ridicilously low price/sell or use bombs; getting allied soliders killed so tehy can glorify our way of life?!?! why do i bother, nvm.
It's a cost of freedom, "allowing" violent organisations to use such facilities for their purposes. The real issue is should Government be allowed to spy on all conversations (by compelling service providers to keep and turn over logs of all interactions) in order to keep tabs on bad guys. That's the tricky question.
I'm sorry but is that bizarre tirade aimed at me? Firstly it's clear that you don't like Americans (or is it just the American government), that's fine if not a little continously overstated by the term 'Americunt' ...... Genius play with words there.....genius ompus: I myself am not overly fond of the American government either, but I honestly haven't got a clue what you're on about. I was simply saying that I'm staggered by the fact that known terrorist organisations can openly and actively use such known brand services such as Twitter, Facebook and WhatsApp without cause of concern their accounts won't be shut down by the companies themselves. That's hardly a glowing review of American foreign policy or battlefield tactics is it.
Should BT be held liable if ISIS use their telephone services to organise terrorist attacks? Should the Royal Mail be held liable if ISIS terrorists send material to one another by post? Should Transport for London be held liable if terrorists use a TfL bus service on their way to committing an atrocity? The fact is these are universal public services available to everyone, just as the internet is. And everyone includes murderers, rapists, fraudsters and terrorists. When criminals utilise public services in the commission of their crimes, responsibility lies with the criminals not with the public service providers. It is unreasonable to expect public service providers to monitor all their millions of users in detail and take action to exclude those who use the service for nefarious purposes; and it is even more unreasonable to blame the service providers for not doing so.
well that 'may not be true, they only close down accounts that incite violence/ hatred directly, not the ones used to preach their dark age ways or the ones used to recruit. thats what I've read but perhaps its wrong, below just one example and partly what caused me to start the thread. We can't blame Twitter for Isis propaganda Basically a Woman is attempting to sue twitter because of them allowing known ISIS supporters/members to use its service, only blocking accounts that have tweeted something with a direct link to a known act of terror. Recruiting seems to be fine, spreading the 'wonderful' word that is ISIS also seems to be fine. I just think a line needs to be drawn. Lets face it, its not just one country that classifies the users to be supporting, or part of a worldwide terrorist organisation....every country pretty much agrees on ISIS being a terrorist group, thats partly why I'm so shocked as to why these services still allow the use.
Pete1950 has it right. Attacking platforms, technology and infrastructure is folly. People fall into the trap of doing so very frequently; usually the preserve of grandstanding politicians. The twitter case is another example of this folly.
Whilst i see your point i do think its not quite the same comparison. For example, a Tweet is almost an open forum, viewable by the world if you like, very nice if you want the word to spread A facebook post admittedly is a little less open(dependant on user privacy settings) but still something where you can reach mass market and quickly to your 'members' WhatsApp is possibly the most private of them all and you could argue its only spreading information to a more private collection of individuals, but that can still be on mass and still cause huge harm to civilian life if that message is the orchestration of an attack. So when comparing the use of a Letter delivered by Royal mail, or a single telephone call handled by BT's exchange is not really the same thing. It would be impossible for Royal mail to screen every letter sent, theres no software involved to aid with the process of spotting known key words, therefore its not right to expect action from them as their hands are tied. BT im not sure of the legal implication of continuous wire taps or even if its possible, However having a forum (Facebook/Twitter) and known supporters being pointed out by either the general public or other groups is far easier to address and manage. Its just like this forum, you can report a member and admin will no doubt look in to whats been said (if they're not out riding), then they make a judgement on whether they remain a member. The power is there and it seems very little is being done. Twitter and Facebook usage are not a divine right to anybody, its a service they provide for free and can ban you without warning or explanation (see their terms) Its not water, housing or food so by removing users affiliated with ISIS or 'possibly' being affiliate with ISIS shouldn't be too much of a concern. Therefore ill stand by the fact that in a lot of cases they really are turning a blind eye as they could do something about it and without legal repercussion, they just choose not too.
Folly it may be, but if its directly generating new recruits and people are dying on the streets of the world by the hand of them then surely if something can be done to stifle that 'message' or recruitment process surely it should be taken. Again, they are nothing more than a forum with no divine right of usage, people can be banned from either service without reason or notice. Why not just do the right thing?
They survived but it was at least harder for them, now it seems its fine for them to flourish out in the open and nobody really cares unless the fights at their front door
Let's start by saying this is just how I feel about it and isn't based on anything particularly substantial. But then again, does anyone else have more than that to bring? Taking a step back - people recruit though social media because it works. Maybe if we looked into why potential recruits feel so disenfranchised with the West and aggrieved enough to want to kill the people they grew up with then we would understand why recruitment works. Then, maybe, we could address the problems at the potential recruit level. But then again, maybe not. People have to be open to argument and, unfortunately, unquestioning belief doesn't leave people open to much. That makes these people easy to manipulate and behind the recruitment campaign is, in all likelihood, a small number of highly manipulative, power hungry maniacs who care nothing for human life and either have an insatiable need for power and money or, if they are genuine in their beliefs, then they can tolerate no view but their own. The issue is not with social media, it's a people problem. Stopping access to social media won't make any difference as Ducati dad's question highlights. Another thing, forcing social media companies to police things is a dangerous step because it brings up the question of who gets to decide what should be censored and what is OK? As soon as you allow the imposition of power over freedom then you open the door to manipulation and corruption. It just happens. Here's a radical thought. Rather than shut down the recruitment threads, why not engage with them? Put up reasoned argument to counter dogma. It doesn't have to be a one sided thing.
Good points all well made, I agree with that in theory. I think my position comes from the pessimistic view that many of them are so far gone in terms of radicalisation that engaging with them openly on a forum where their peers could be present isn't likely to gain much ground. In private perhaps, but on an open forum its likely those even with a 2nd thought would buckle to peer pressure Im by no means racist, anti muslim, anti anything really. Im happy for people to do what they wish to do as long as its not hurting anybody. The problem is that ISIS wants to hurt any non believer, that means pretty much everybody i know. You are correct that addressing the issues needs to be done and I'm sure people are already trying to engage with 10000's of Muslims worldwide on this very thing. The issue still exists however that 'We' (the non believers) seem to be making it easier than necessary for those already radicalised due to our free speech and non censorship views.
One of the main things ISIS and similar fanatics want to do is suppress free speech and impose censorship. The question is whether you agree with them in that, or oppose them. As it is, anyone who posts or publishes something advocating violence or conspiring to commit criminal offences is thereby committing an offence. They can and should be prosecuted for it. But the question raised in this thread is whether those who operate the forms of communication merely used by the criminals should themselves be "liable" on account of their public services being exploited by criminals. The answer is plainly no.
Some interesting points from boths sides of the argument, clearly illustrating that this is a complicated subject. I don't agree with cencorship in social media, but neither do I agree with social media being used for illegal means by terrorists/criminals. The question of who, exactly, should police the social media is a very complex one. I don't presume to have an answer - I don't believe there is a simple answer. I do, however, have one question - WTF is GunZenBomZ talking about ? This kind of weird ranting adds nothing useful to the debate...
