Social Media

[Stive Pesley]

44 minutes ago, JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta said:

It's amazing how quickly a thin veil of anonymity can cancel that statement out.

If social media forced everyone on it to verify themselves and display their full name most of the internet trolls would shrink back in to silence because they are too cowardly to put their name to the absolute arse gravy they come out with.

I agree with this as a solution for anonymous trolling, but I know plenty of people with genuine reasons for valuing their anonymity on the internet. Just a quick look at my friends list on FB and I have a teacher, a minor celeb, a mental health worker and a policeman. None of them want to be on FB under their real name for obvious reasons.

So it ends up in the same place - freedom of speech = a platform for nobheads and right to privacy = a platform for anonymous trolls

[StringerBell]

5 hours ago, JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta said:

It's amazing how quickly a thin veil of anonymity can cancel that statement out.

If social media forced everyone on it to verify themselves and display their full name most of the internet trolls would shrink back in to silence because they are too cowardly to put their name to the absolute arse gravy they come out with.

And then many a truth wouldn’t be spoken.

 

[StringerBell]

5 hours ago, StivePesley said:

I agree with this as a solution for anonymous trolling, but I know plenty of people with genuine reasons for valuing their anonymity on the internet. Just a quick look at my friends list on FB and I have a teacher, a minor celeb, a mental health worker and a policeman. None of them want to be on FB under their real name for obvious reasons.

So it ends up in the same place - freedom of speech = a platform for nobheads and right to privacy = a platform for anonymous trolls

Women and apostates in the Middle East are groups who value anonymity too. It annoys me when people say we shouldn’t have anonymity when in some parts of the world that would be a death sentence.

I did reply to your other post but phones playing up and it deleted. I’ll try again after tea.

[eddie]

16 minutes ago, StringerBell said:

And then many a truth wouldn’t be spoken.

 

You forgot the inverted commas around 'truth'.

[McRainy]

18 minutes ago, eddie said:

You forgot the inverted commas around 'truth'.

So did you. 

[eddie]

14 minutes ago, Lambchop said:

So did you. 

You mean I forgot them around 'forgot'.

[StringerBell]

39 minutes ago, eddie said:

You forgot the inverted commas around 'truth'.

You believe in Allah now? You’re a funny atheist.

[eddie]

7 minutes ago, StringerBell said:

You believe in Allah now? You’re a funny atheist.

Sorry, I don't follow you (in more ways than one). Please show your working.

[McRainy]

17 minutes ago, eddie said:

You mean I forgot them around 'forgot'.

There’s always the possibility that more inverted commas might be discovered in the future. 

[StringerBell]

1 minute ago, eddie said:

Sorry, I don't follow you (in more ways than one). Please show your working.

The very post above yours is about how anonymity is valuable to many apostates in the Middle East, and that it can be the difference between life and death for them. And they don’t speak truth in inverted commas.

Is it so difficult to just say, yeah, in a freeish society people should be allowed to be anonymous on the internet? And that its wrong to suggest otherwise? Eh “Eddie” in inverted commas?

[LesterRam]

What's social media?

[StringerBell]

7 hours ago, StivePesley said:

Clearly the notion of controlling social media is counter-productive. You argue well for free speech, but that is just as counter-productive

On social media there are words, controversial words, REALLY controversial words and then threatening/deeply and deliberately offensive words.

Are these really ALL ok?

Surely there isn't a single person on the internet that doesn't want it to be a nice place where everyone stays the right side of the line?

Yet there are an awful lot of people out there who don't think twice about posting abuse onto the social media of those they don't agree with. Dogmatically arguing for free speech and trying to take down anyone who you perceive as trying to control social media lays out an open goal for those that seek to abuse

What is your answer?

Free speech is counter productive? Wut.

My answer is people get called nasty names etc. If they don’t like it they can use the block button.

You talk of a line? The line is - is it illegal? If so, ring the police (Although legal vocabulary is shrinking by the year). If it’s not illegal, oh well. How many people died?

Companies like Twitter can do what they want, but the pro-free speech company from 10 years was a hell of a lot more likeable than the selective censors they’ve become.

I’d link the famous Tyler the Creator tweet but it’s got some controversial words in.

[Stive Pesley]

14 hours ago, StringerBell said:

Free speech is counter productive? Wut.

I mean in the same terms as anonymity is - see my other post. Valuing free speech is really important, but some people lack the emotional intelligence to know which thoughts should stay in their head.

14 hours ago, StringerBell said:

My answer is people get called nasty names etc. If they don’t like it they can use the block button

Works to a degree, but it doesn't stop others seeing the comments, thinking it's acceptable and joining in. It soon creates a toxic atmosphere. The block button didn't save Jo Cox's life did it?

14 hours ago, StringerBell said:

You talk of a line? The line is - is it illegal? If so, ring the police 

You taught your dog to do WHAAAAAAt?

My hope is that we're in a new age - humans have to learn to use this great power we've been given more responsibly. I don't think we always appreciate what a culture shock it is to us to suddenly be able to communicate globally at will on the first thing that pops into our head. I don't know how long it will take, but we have to get there. As much as I disagree with the Nazi Pug thing, then one good to come out of it is that maybe it makes some people stop and think for a second before they post something on the internet

 

 

[StringerBell]

16 minutes ago, StivePesley said:

I mean in the same terms as anonymity is - see my other post. Valuing free speech is really important, but some people lack the emotional intelligence to know which thoughts should stay in their head.

 

I don’t know by what metric we’re valuing the productiveness of free speech here. I value freedom, and not just my own. That means people I think are idiots should be free to speak, anonymously if they feel it necessary.

 

45 minutes ago, StivePesley said:

Works to a degree, but it doesn't stop others seeing the comments, thinking it's acceptable and joining in. It soon creates a toxic atmosphere. The block button didn't save Jo Cox's life did it?

I don’t follow? Are you saying that guy was inspired by people online? If anyone incited violence then that was your line being crossed. 

People might join in? If it’s a bad idea not many do. I’d prefer people put their ideas on the table and have enough faith in our society that we can encourage people to talk freely and the best ideas will win out. Not this pessimistic idea that we can clamp down on the bad ideas. Either way, the good/bad ideas can potentially rise to the fore so essentially it’s about whether you value freedom or not.

45 minutes ago, StivePesley said:

My hope is that we're in a new age - humans have to learn to use this great power we've been given more responsibly. I don't think we always appreciate what a culture shock it is to us to suddenly be able to communicate globally at will on the first thing that pops into our head. I don't know how long it will take, but we have to get there. As much as I disagree with the Nazi Pug thing, then one good to come out of it is that maybe it makes some people stop and think for a second before they post something on the internet

 

 

I’m not really sure I want that though. I mean it depends on what it is they’re saying, but broadly speaking I want people to express themselves. In ‘real life’ we’re having to censor ourselves and quite often that’s a big shame. You’ve already alluded to the fact I’ll have to keep my mouth buttoned at work. But who agrees with everything on a personal level they have to agree with on a professional level? Even though I stand by my views I wouldn’t want to have to explain them to my boss. I can speak my mind online so should the same restriction be placed on me online as they essentially are in the workplace? Again, people are talking of sacrificing freedom when we have already sacrificed so much of that.

[Ewe Ram]

This is worrying as it means I’ll have to have real friends again. 

I got abuse on Twitter after the Cardiff cancelled match. I reported him, blocked him and got a message thanking me and that his account had been removed. That’s all you have to do, don’t feed them. 

[McRainy]

13 minutes ago, StringerBell said:

I’d prefer people put their ideas on the table and have enough faith in our society that we can encourage people to talk freely and the best ideas will win out. Not this pessimistic idea that we can clamp down on the bad ideas.

Essentially agree with this, but I also don’t think abuse should be tolerated. That is the law in everyday society, and social media shouldn’t be a way to circumvent it. If it’s not ok to ridicule someone for being disabled, for example, then the disabled person should be able to go online without being abused. Freedom cuts both ways. 

Again, I agree with your point about anonymity, and think it is actually one of the great things about social media, that people can feel free to discuss things with strangers that they wouldn’t feel comfortable sharing with their family and friends.

The question, really, is how you police the abuses. Ideally it should be self regulating, in that people who are continually ***** rapidly find themselves ignored and alone.

On a forum such as this, though, I think it’s necessary to prohibit personal abuse. It just makes the whole thing pleasanter for everyone. If I followed you round the forum insulting you every time you logged on, is that just my freedom of speech? You are quite at liberty to avoid it by logging off, but then I’m effectively denying you access to something you enjoy. 

[Day]

20 minutes ago, StringerBell said:

I don’t know by what metric we’re valuing the productiveness of free speech here. I value freedom, and not just my own. That means people I think are idiots should be free to speak, anonymously if they feel it necessary.

The problem being the platforms people choose anonymously exercise their full rights to freedom of speech are on privately owned platforms. 

Take Tommy Robinson being banned off Twitter, agree with him or not he’s using a privately owned service that could wipe you off the platform with no appeal. He has no rights there.

It’s no different to a landlord in a pub refusing to serve someone a drink and asking them to leave. 

[StringerBell]

16 minutes ago, David said:

The problem being the platforms people choose anonymously exercise their full rights to freedom of speech are on privately owned platforms. 

Take Tommy Robinson being banned off Twitter, agree with him or not he’s using a privately owned service that could wipe you off the platform with no appeal. He has no rights there.

It’s no different to a landlord in a pub refusing to serve someone a drink and asking them to leave. 

I don’t disagree, although there is still a conversation to be had about the freedom people have to express themselves in a world in which private companies have such an influence. People rightly point out the influence of Murdoch, well there’s a conversation about Zuckerberg et al too. Especially when they claim they’re impartial when they’re not.

I like this forum but if I had to leave I’d find alternatives. When everyone in Silicon Valley are singing from the same hymn sheet in terms of what they censor where do you go? There’s gab and Minds I suppose. 

[Stive Pesley]

43 minutes ago, StringerBell said:

 broadly speaking I want people to express themselves. In ‘real life’ we’re having to censor ourselves and quite often that’s a big shame. You’ve already alluded to the fact I’ll have to keep my mouth buttoned at work. But who agrees with everything on a personal level they have to agree with on a professional level? Even though I stand by my views I wouldn’t want to have to explain them to my boss. I can speak my mind online so should the same restriction be placed on me online as they essentially are in the workplace?

I suppose you have to ask yourself why you are happy to express certain opinions online anonymously but wouldn't express them face to face in front of real people. Quite often (but not always) that''s a big hint that your opinions aren't really socially acceptable an/or you don't have the courage in your convictions to defend yourself.

I don't mean that personally BTW - I enjoy reading and considering your views when you are in straight-forward mode (not so much when you're in deliberate liberal-trolling mode )

[TroyDyer]

I am sure this is a double edged sword for the Government. On the one hand if Social media disappears then we'll only have the Government mouth piece media to tell us what to believe. But on the other hand, they won't be able to snoop on us in that Orwellian way, that they love so much. 

Must be a tough one.