Policing social media is not a lot different from policing people's conversations and gatherings. You either have a mostly free society or you have a mostly locked-down one. Which would you prefer? That said, social media providers can and do act upon complaints and upon transgressions of their T&Cs. I'm sure that as social media becomes a mature medium, it will migrate away from an uncontrolled free-for-all and become a more moderated and monitored service. In many ways I think this will be a shame.
There's definitely a problem for social media in that it offers freedom with little accountability. I'm all for accountability. Own what you say.
I think we all understand the OPs perspective, but its not a solution. Turkish, north Korean and China's government would disagree.
ok. what about child porn. thats not freedom of speech. not being a tecky and have no idea how things move around the web and have know idea if its possible to intercept. if the powers that be go to far with monitoring you vote em out.
Good example. The people who create, buy, and sell child porn on the web are committing offences for which they are often caught and punished. The internet service providers who transmit that material down their wires are not committing offences and are not held responsible for what passes through their systems.
Admittedly perhaps my OP citing liability was worded incorrectly, or at a point where my blood was boiling once again about these barbaric groups hiding behind 'gods will' I guess as opposed to being liable for anything, I think more than that it should simply be a matter of 'who's side are you on' and just do the right thing. The child porn reference for example, obviously we all know it's the most disgusting thing imaginable and quite rightly the people involved in distribution, manufacturer etc are hunted down online regularly. But what about people siding with paedophilia, openly discussing it online? Do they get cut off from services etc? I don't know, it's not exactly an analogy I even feel comfortable making. But I guess what im saying is IF they do get banned from using services such as Twitter then it's not because they've actually been caught or proven to have done anything, it's because it's simply the right thing to do by removing the ability to openly discuss it using the forum / service provided. Whilst not really the same thing I just feel that giving these people (isis sympathisers and / or supporters) an opportunity to show support and recruit people online isn't right, it may be hard to admit but they don't deserve the same rights in my view. That's doesn't mean I agree with outright policing and censorship of all things, but I'm fairly sure that collectively nearly all people other than isis or their partners want them stopped.
I agree... up to a point... Three problems arise though. Firstly - By "cutting them off" they are handed yet another example of how "the west" are oppressing them, which could be used as propoganda. Look at what's happening in the US at the moment with Trump and his cronies; the ridiculous fanatical anti-Muslim garbage talked by GOP candidates is actually handing a massive propaganda opportunity to Daesh (IS/ISIS/ISIL...). Secondly - who decides what is or isn't acceptable? Censorship is a dangerous and slippery slope to start down. The "ban them all" culture is not something I am particularly comfortable with. Who monitors and controls those who are "doing the right thing"? Thirdly - Moving them off the open media forums will just push them into "the dark internet". At present people can see what they are saying, and hopefully decide that they are wrong. The authorities can see and track their communication. Pushing them into the less open parts of the internet would take both of those things away - it would certainly make them harder to find and track. The world appears to be full of nutcases at the moment - and becoming polarised towards opposite ends of an increasingly extreme spectrum. Daesh worry me (as I'm sure they worry a lot of people), but so does the potential of a 69 year-old racist, sexist, egotistical neo-nazi being elected as president of the USA. The world needs more tolerance, and less extremism - I'm just not sure how we go about achieving that...
Let's try a simpler example - murder. There are people who have committed murders, been convicted and sentenced, and are later let out of prison on parole. Do you think these murderers should not be allowed to post on Twitter or Facebook? Or use the telephone? What about criminologists who want to discuss the motives and methods of murderers, or statistics of murder rates? Or politicians who want to propose changes to the laws about murder? It seems to me it would be wrong to censor discussion of murder, real or fictional, and equally wrong to censor discussion of any other type of crime.
As far as the law is concerned, anyone who distributes or transmits images of child abuse is committing an offence; therefore the ISPs are also just as guilty.............they are in fact aiding and abetting the commission of criminal offences.
No they're not. It is deliberately and knowingly transmitting the offending images which constitutes the offence. Operating a copper cable (for example) over which other people are transmitting material of which you have no knowledge is not an offence - no mens rea. As I explained above, if you and I conspire together over a BT telephone line to commit a crime, we are offenders but BT is not.
This is maybe a side issue but here goes anyway. At the moment people like me think that social media and the internet in general is good exactly because it is not heavily censored. If social media offered transparency, so no place to hide, then accountability would be automatic. If there was transparent then, nutters apart, it would be self-censoring because people could easily be held to account for what they say and if you use the internet unlawfully then you are open to prosecution. For example, how many of these chicken-shit fucker trolls who hide behind anonymity would spout their malevolent shite if their victim and the law had access to their name and address? How many people would be willing to voice their opinion or pedal their garbage globally if the world knew where they lived? Flip side is that the intolerant and overly quick to judge might form a mob, pick up their pitch forks and flaming torches and come burn your castle down.
Alternatively: How much weight should be given to the words of some faceless troll? They are not held accountable for their words therefore how much is their spiel really worth? If it is easy to do an Internet drive-by and insult someone with impunity, so why should any consideration be given to what has been said? It's just noise without context. I've have had people insult me on forums and will no doubt continue to be so insulted but the only time I take real umbrage is if the other person is someone I know. That can hurt, because there is context and meaning behind it. Some random guy though? Why should I care? Some messages can mean something only when they are from a known source - context. Some messages mean something no matter who posts it - universal truths. We should take responsibility for what we post but we all need to take responsibility for how we react to such things. We are not entitled to never be offended, it is not a right. All you can control is how you react to people, you cannot control how they act (up until a certain point, of course, where legality is concerned). Just an alternative take on the issue.
Without wanting to hijack the thread into a troll debate I need to say that there is a difference between being insulted once or twice and being systematically hounded over months or even years by a pack of trolls. Loz, it's great that you adopt this attitude because it means that you have good sense of self and that makes you robust, but some people don't have that and it's not their fault. They are not equipped to deal with abuse, let alone deliberately cruel and systematic abuse, and have been driven to committed suicide because of it. They are vulnerable and fragile and trolls seek them out. Sorry, this is off topic.
This is normal thread drift and well within the umbrella of the title (by Ducati Forum standards, certainly ). Systematic abuse is horrible, it can destroy young lives and I do wish there was a way of preventing it which doesn't mean incorporating the necessary censorship. The answer is to educate people in order to reduce their vulnerability to such abuse whilst making potential abusers aware of the damage they can do. More draconian methodologies will create more harm than they prevent, in my opinion.
talking about public information story's remember this guy? Reginald Molehusband - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia i found something completely off the wall which i wont post here. :Hilarious::smileys: but might be more relevant to the oldies, nukes and the way they where programmed back then. bit O.T sorry. :smileys:
