Social Media

[StringerBell]

36 minutes ago, Lambchop said:

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. 

I don’t agree with the current laws around people being abused but that’s another story. It isn’t the law that people shouldn’t be abused, or least no law that is enforced. If that were the case we could have people arrested every week at work. 

I could put you on ignore if I had such a problem with you insulting me.

 

[StringerBell]

21 minutes ago, StivePesley said:

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 )

It’s not always that bough is it? It’s also because the unreasonable progressives have institutional power and are prepared to abuse it.

[AndyinLiverpool]

As David will know, GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) is coming on 25th May. The online world is about to change significantly. What companies do with other people's information is going to be much more stringently monitored and fines for losing it massively increased (4% of annual turnover). Some companies will find that it's just easier and cheaper to shut down all this social media **** than to have someone employed to keep it safe. Might be what Wetherspoons is doing.

[Day]

6 minutes ago, StringerBell said:

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. 

Honestly, freedom of speech does not exist if we are talking of complete freedom, be it online or in the street. Laws simply prevent it. Even Gab is not free from terms of usage itself https://gab.ai/about/guidelines

It's a nice dream to have, but that's all it will ever be, a dream. 

I would say this though, we live in a world that gives us more of a voice now than ever before, even within those Silicone Valley hymn sheets. Pre internet, those disturbing images from Syria would never have be seen, football conversations would be limited to work and pub.

There was no way to communicate with the world on the scale we see today with the technology in our hands where ever we are, we should be grateful for what we do have. 

[McRainy]

16 minutes ago, StringerBell said:

I don’t agree with the current laws around people being abused but that’s another story.

I wonder if you are consistent on this; you do seem to get a bit uppity when I blame white men for things. 

I don’t think people should be attacked for who they are. Disagree totally with everything I say, give the most diametrically opposed view possible, that’s fine, but if you say my view doesn’t count because I’m female, or whatever, that’s discriminatory.

It may not hurt me personally, I can block you as you say, but you are still then contributing to a culture of prejudice. If we don’t oppose that sort of thing, women wouldn’t have the vote, black people would be slaves, gay people wouldn’t be able to shag each other, etc. 

As I said, freedom cuts both ways, and some limitations on personal freedom create more freedom for others. 

[StringerBell]

7 minutes ago, David said:

Honestly, freedom of speech does not exist if we are talking of complete freedom, be it online or in the street. Laws simply prevent it. Even Gab is not free from terms of usage itself https://gab.ai/about/guidelines

It's a nice dream to have, but that's all it will ever be, a dream. 

I would say this though, we live in a world that gives us more of a voice now than ever before, even within those Silicone Valley hymn sheets. Pre internet, those disturbing images from Syria would never have be seen, football conversations would be limited to work and pub.

There was no way to communicate with the world on the scale we see today with the technology in our hands where ever we are, we should be grateful for what we do have. 

I’d rather look forward than back with some kind of historical relativism. Or across the pond. If we had it in a constitution as they do in America we’d be much  more free than we currently are. Our version of the constitution is our royalty and I don’t remember the Queen coming out in defence of the Nazi pug guy. there are also some who think the validity of the Syria images is up for debate.

This reminds me of those adverts with John Hurt “some say the internet is a good/bad thing”

 

[StringerBell]

16 minutes ago, Lambchop said:

I wonder if you are consistent on this; you do seem to get a bit uppity when I blame white men for things. 

getting uppity isn’t the same as demanding a law be enforced against a person with a view you don’t like. Have I ever demanded dcfcfans take action against you? Or reported you to the police?

22 minutes ago, Lambchop said:

I don’t think people should be attacked for who they are. Disagree totally with everything I say, give the most diametrically opposed view possible, that’s fine, but if you say my view doesn’t count because I’m female, or whatever, that’s discriminatory.

Which, out on the street at least, they should be free to do. I think social media should reflect the street and not an office.

19 minutes ago, Lambchop said:

It may not hurt me personally, I can block you as you say, but you are still then contributing to a culture of prejudice. If we don’t oppose that sort of thing, women wouldn’t have the vote, black people would be slaves, gay people wouldn’t be able to shag each other, etc.  

Your sentence starts in the present tense and ends in the past tense, thereby conflating two time periods. It is not true that if we don’t oppose that sort of thing now (I’m presuming by restricting freedom of expression, and hello Father Ted ?) people will start to lose their rights.

[Day]

40 minutes ago, StringerBell said:

I’d rather look forward than back with some kind of historical relativism. Or across the pond. If we had it in a constitution as they do in America we’d be much  more free than we currently are. Our version of the constitution is our royalty and I don’t remember the Queen coming out in defence of the Nazi pug guy. there are also some who think the validity of the Syria images is up for debate.

This reminds me of those adverts with John Hurt “some say the internet is a good/bad thing”

 

Is America the best example to use, what with their freedom to buy weapons which has seen 1624 mass shootings in 1870 days. 

I mean it’s not all bad, I approve of their unrestricted use of cheese. 

[McRainy]

11 minutes ago, StringerBell said:

Your sentence starts in the present tense and ends in the past tense, thereby conflating two time periods.

I know, it was a typo, but I decided not to edit it because the struggle against prejudice has to be constantly renewed.

Apologies for the clumsy sentence. 

[Stive Pesley]

1 hour ago, David said:

Pre internet, those disturbing images from Syria would never have be seen, football conversations would be limited to work and pub.

There was no way to communicate with the world on the scale we see today with the technology in our hands where ever we are, we should be grateful for what we do have. 

Grateful yes, but also mindful and wary

I always use this example of the pub, as you did too. Pre-social media (I won't call it pre-internet) there would always be the one guy in the pub who would like the sound of his own voice and would love upsetting people by loudly airing his controversial/offensive opinions regardless of his audience. Eventually he'd get barred and move on to another pub, until he just got bored or there were no more pubs. But it was never more than a mild annoyance "oh Old Racist Trev is ranting about the muslims again in the Snug - shall we head to the lounge?"

Social Media gives these type of people a platform to seek each other out, flock together and amplify their voice. Until it becomes ubiquitous. Again a double-edged sword as that is inherently useful in most situations. We can't have it both ways. That's what we have to work out a way to deal with.

Brexit is a really good example, as clearly there were enough people with that opinion to win the referendum, but not enough concentration of them in any one place to ever get a single UKIP MP elected.

[McRainy]

8 minutes ago, StivePesley said:

Brexit is a really good example, as clearly there were enough people with that opinion to win the referendum, but not enough concentration of them in any one place to ever get a single UKIP MP elected.

That’s as much to do with the vagaries of the electoral system. Similarly with the ‘narrow’ majority for Brexit; break it down by constancy and Leave would have about two thirds of the country. 

[StringerBell]

15 minutes ago, Lambchop said:

I know, it was a typo, but I decided not to edit it because the struggle against prejudice has to be constantly renewed.

Apologies for the clumsy sentence. 

People often really say this though. I think it’s because they like to somehow inherit the glory of victories of historical movements.

[McRainy]

15 minutes ago, StringerBell said:

People often really say this though. I think it’s because they like to somehow inherit the glory of victories of historical movements.

Or, more likely, that discrimination is not yet a thing of the past. 

[StringerBell]

11 minutes ago, Lambchop said:

Or, more likely, that discrimination is not yet a thing of the past. 

No and it likely never will be. But the era of Jim Crow laws is. So we don’t need to restrict people’s freedom just in case history will rewind. Old Racist Trev is not going to take people’s rights away.

[McRainy]

6 minutes ago, StringerBell said:

Old Racist Trev is not going to take people’s rights away.

Old Racist Theresa is though. 

The thing that confuses me about your allegiance to freedom is how selective and imbalanced it is. You seem more concerned about someone’s right to call their dog a nazi than someone’s right not to be deported because of where their parents came from. 

[StringerBell]

30 minutes ago, Lambchop said:

Old Racist Theresa is though. 

The thing that confuses me about your allegiance to freedom is how selective and imbalanced it is. You seem more concerned about someone’s right to call their dog a nazi than someone’s right not to be deported because of where their parents came from. 

Racist Theresa?

And no that’s not an example of imbalance or being selective. That’s 2 separate issues.

An example of that would be complaining about sexism one minute and complaining about men the next. Or complaining about racism one minute and complaining about white people the next.

Not that we have anyone who does that on here.

 

[Stive Pesley]

23 minutes ago, StringerBell said:

Racist Theresa?

And no that’s not an example of imbalance or being selective. That’s 2 separate issues.

An example of that would be complaining about sexism one minute and complaining about men the next. Or complaining about racism one minute and complaining about white people the next.

Not that we have anyone who does that on here.

 

Or complaining about identity politics and collectivism one minute and then complaining about muslim child abusers the next?

Have i done that right?

[StringerBell]

2 minutes ago, StivePesley said:

Or complaining about identity politics and collectivism one minute and then complaining about muslim child abusers the next?

Have i done that right?

Nope. 

You are not required to be a collectivist in order to study social trends.  I don’t think they ask that if you want to take a sociology course but give it time.

[McRainy]

1 hour ago, StringerBell said:

An example of that would be complaining about sexism one minute and complaining about men the next.

I don’t complain about men, that’s something which you say I do, as a way of distracting from the argument. 

If I say that a woman is sexually assaulted by a man every ten minutes, that’s not sexism, it’s a statistic. If I suggest that there is an underlying problem with the way women are stereoyped, that isn’t sexism either, it’s a reflection on social and cultural attitudes. If I discriminate against you because I assume that, as a man, you are probably a rapist, that’s sexism. See the difference?

For someone who claims to love free speech, you are very quick to close an argument down when someone is saying something you don’t like. 

[StringerBell]

35 minutes ago, Lambchop said:

I don’t complain about men, that’s something which you say I do, as a way of distracting from the argument. 

If I say that a woman is sexually assaulted by a man every ten minutes, that’s not sexism, it’s a statistic. If I suggest that there is an underlying problem with the way women are stereoyped, that isn’t sexism either, it’s a reflection on social and cultural attitudes. If I discriminate against you because I assume that, as a man, you are probably a rapist, that’s sexism. See the difference?

For someone who claims to love free speech, you are very quick to close an argument down when someone is saying something you don’t like. 

Yeah that’s not all you say though is it?

As well as talking about how universally privileged people are you complain about equality of outcome constantly, which in order to be addressed would necessitatie the discrimaintion against oh what’s the point.