Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen
Thing is, most people go for the free speech thing all the time and feel they can say anything they want and not have to limit what they say to what's right or wrong. Social media has been like that for years, op3nly being discriminatory, abusive or down right racist.
So whether anyone may or may not have any mental issues just complicates things further. People believe they are right all the time and don't have to answer for anything. So having online safety bills or rules is just pointless in some respects. Most big social media sites have points in their t&Cs that what people post is their responsibility and the site doesn't take and ownership of what is posted by users.
The Internet is just a mess.
|
Yes, I agree. Some people are used to just saying whatever floats into their mind without thinking or caring about the consequences for others (and now
themselves).
The Online Safety Act now puts the responsibility for what's posted firmly onto site owners and moderators and supercedes any previous t&c's that conflict with this.
It's very selfish for people to post innapropriate things because they can now also get other people into trouble by way of fines or even imprisonment, even though these individuals didn't post the offending material, agree with it or even 'like' it.
In fact, the law now expects those responsible for the administration of websites to be proactive in dealing with innapropriate posts, even before they have been brought to their attention or flagged up in some way.
I remember during the consultation a gentleman saying "If this goes through, people will have to think about it before
they post something" and that's exactly what it's designed to do.
---------- Post added at 21:58 ---------- Previous post was at 21:43 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by peanut
Dealing with such issues is straight forward from a site owner's / moderators point of view. Such as warnings, deleting, breaks, and then banning. It's when the person with the issues can't handle the responses due to their own actions / posts which is more of an issue. Then the threats of legal actions and cries of discrimination just makes it all worse for everyone.
|
Yes, it may prove to be difficult to deal with a neuro diverse person in the same way as a non neuro diverse person in order to prevent innapropriate posts being uploaded to comply with the Online Safety Act and run a website in a proper manner because, if a person is disabled, adjustments have to be made to reflect their disability.
I did think that any relevant disabilities could be highlighted upon sign up, but jfman makes some fair points as to why this isn't such a good ides.
Some laws do conflict though. For example, a man built a structure without planning permission, so the local authority ordered him to demolish it.
Meanwhile, a number of bat's had made their home in the building. Another part of the council threatened him with legal action if he did demolish the structure as it would disturb the bats.
In the end the solicitor advised him to leave the building intact as the consequences for disturbing the bat's was more severe than the punishment for ignoring an order from the council to demolish a building built without planning permission.