Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I take that wink was towards myself. Well you can't please everyone.

Someone will always find ways be offended when there's discussions / debates on forums etc. But to go out of your way to just flame and troll is another matter.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

No, I've no issues with anything you said, sorry if I gave that impression.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Ah no worries, an easy mistake I will admit. :)

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

He posted how he disagrees with her commentating. :rolleyes:

I see (well hear) his point in some cases, they are high pitch screetches that are painful to listen too.
However, there are some that are ok as well, I have no idea about Eni Aluko, as I dont recognise the name.

I notice he then got "abuse" (dont know what), but no one seems to mind that ... :erm:

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Apparently, because it was a high profile ex footballer who refused to take down his messages, this encouraged others to pile on due to the phenomenon mentioned earlier. Sheeple went on to make racist, sexist remarks and threatened her family.

Reports to X were ignored by them.

These selfish people are also probably
aware that these days it won't usually be them that carries the can, but the site
owners and their moderators who face sanctions including fines, or even jail time, due to their posts.

---------- Post added at 17:17 ---------- Previous post was at 17:10 ----------

Nothing wrong with politely/respectfully saying that you don't care for her style of commentating. It's when it becomes insulting, libellous, racist, sexist, threatening etc that crosses the line.

Barton is fully entitled to take action against any abuse against himself if he so wishes.

I think he's a football manager now, so you'd think that his employers would want to do something if this reflects badly on them, brings the club into disrepute etc.

People seem to think that they can do/say anything they want outside of work, but a lot have found out the hard way that this is not the case.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I’ve listened to him on several interviews and his position is that many, if not most, of these female “pundits”….not hosts..are nothing more than diversity hires and that their knowledge, and analysis, of the man’s game is poor. And that they’re there to fulfil a quota, taking a job away from other ex-professional footballers better qualified.

I personally think he has a point.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Although I don't disagree the same is true of male pundits.

People are getting appointed based on their ability to generate social media clicks.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

That's totally fine if this is how he feels, it was the innapropriate remarks, racism, sexism and threats that followed that are the problem and why he's being taken to court.

---------- Post added at 20:30 ---------- Previous post was at 20:15 ----------

In todays 'Sunday Morning With Laura Kuenssberg' at about 0:34

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001x0sm

The parent of a girl who ended up killing herself after online bullying went to see the PM earlier this week in connection with the campaign to ban smartphones for under 16's.

The father of another girl who was literally bullied to death also wants a specific law to ban cyber bullying. Mariano gives a moving interview about losing his daughter (and wife shortly afterwards) and how appallingly her school dealt with the situation.

As usual one, or a small group of people starts doing it, nothing effective or nothing at all is done about it. This gives rise to the phenomenon of others feeling that they have permission to join in and so it snowballs. They do it to disempower people by grinding them down, strip them of any confidence or self esteem and the poor girl ended up committing suicide.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

What did he say that was “racist”? Or “sexist” …….although I don’t think it’s illegal to be misogynistic, at least not yet.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

In todays 'Sunday Morning With Laura Kuenssberg' at about 0:34

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001x0sm

The parent of a girl who ended up killing herself after online bullying went to see the PM earlier this week in connection with the campaign to ban smartphones for under 16's.

The father of another girl who was literally bullied to death also wants a specific law to ban cyber bullying. Mariano gives a moving interview about losing his daughter (and wife shortly afterwards) and how appallingly her school dealt with the situation.

As usual one, or a small group of people starts doing it, nothing effective or nothing at all is done about it. This gives rise to the phenomenon of others feeling that they have permission to join in and so it snowballs. They do it to disempower people by grinding them down, strip them of any confidence or self esteem and the poor girl ended up committing suicide.

Later on in the morning a new term 'antifans' was explained. It's where former fans of celebrities, influencers etc have gone off them for some reason and start mercilessly criticising them for how they look, what they wear, how they walk etc.

The conclusion was that those who constantly criticisise others are jealous.

What sort of a nasty waste of time life are some people leading? The internet has given us lots of wonderful opportunities, but it has a nasty side to it that needs sorting out.

---------- Post added at 20:59 ---------- Previous post was at 20:55 ----------

It's all explained in the programme.

Whether something is illegal to say or not, if it amounts to harrassment it becomes illegal. The definition of what is harrassment is when an individual feels harassed. This was reiterated on this mornings political programmes on BBC1.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I asked you. I haven’t watched the programme nor intend to.

According to you, as you said it, what has he said that is racist and sexist?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

From about 0:06 there is an interview with the Disinformation & Social Media Correspondent at the BBC;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/
m001x0xl

Marriana Spring explains that her role covers everything bad on social media, including trolls, conspiracy theories & the part that algorithms play in encouraging people to go to sites that are harmful.

---------- Post added at 04:24 ---------- Previous post was at 03:49 ----------

This is the story of Molly, a 14 year old girl, and her father Ian Russell. It looks at how the introduction of the non-chronological feed by Instagram may have altered the course of his daughters life.

7% of 13-15 year old children have seen self harm content over the previous 7 days. During the same period over half of all Instagram users had had a bad experience.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001x0xl

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

What is 'harmful'? And what constitutes a bad experience?

Are things like 'You've Been Framed' kind of stunts that go wrong self harming like parkour, skate boarding etc? Is comparing yourself to air brushed models a bad experience? As for conspiracy theories, well is that bad? Some are fun, some are stupid, and some can make a person to have an open mind. Also what are these harmful sites?

The only things I can think of that is classed as self harming are things like cutting and not eating etc. It's all too vague.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Yes, as well as sites that encourage suicide or provide details of how to do it.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I would sign up for this if it was able to remove Trolls from forums.