Police to get tough on internet trolls.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Mythica

Because I don't know who you are. If you're like any of the other numerous groups I watch and who I guess we are talking about when we mention stings or paedophile hunters then I know exactly how these groups work. Again, it's no top secret, the teams give it away themselves anyway.

OK

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Damien

GDPR won't go or if it does we'll likely have something similar. Firms should already be abiding by it, a lot of them will still want pan-European access so might as well keep it and the U.K already had the Data Protection Act so was quite good on it.

Besides the fact Facebook are against it should be a warning sign there is something to it. The job of the Government is to protect its people and not shareholders of Facebook.

The public can have their data protected in a much less bureaucratic way than this. The government will continue to protect data, but it will not insist on businesses doing cartwheels to show they abide by it or require every single website to place warning signs on their use of data.

[RichardCoulter]

It was on Channel 5 this morning and in the Daily Mail that websites are also going to be required to provide users with the tools required to block unverified (ie anonymous) posters as it's believed that, when people believe that they can post what they like online anonymously, it brings out the worst in people.

In order to verify oneself something like a photo ID driving licence will be needed.

Twitter has already brought in a system where unverified users can all automatically be blocked by users.

There was also talk of a requirement where legal, but nevertheless potentially upsetting material, will have to be masked so that users can choose not to be subject to such posts. An example given, which sounds odd to me, is racist content.

They are also talking about five years imprisonment for those who post inappropriate content.

[Carth]

What a load of shite that will turn out to be . . . farcical in the extreme

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Carth

What a load of shite that will turn out to be . . . farcical in the extreme

What are the reasons for your assertion?

I think it will be beneficial in both cutting down on posts that are and will become illegal and preventing offence from posts that, whilst legal, are offensive.

Victims of trolling, bullying, harrassment, abuse, stalking, discrimination etc will welcome this added protection.

I imagine that those who carry out the above, as well as paedophiles, scammers etc will be pretty annoyed about this development.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I think it will be beneficial in both cutting down on posts that are and will become illegal and preventing offence from posts that, whilst legal, are offensive.

Do you read what you write ?
If its legal, there is no reason at all to prevent it being posted.
As I have pointed out many many times now "offensive" is subjective.
Anyone can say they think something "offensive" simply because they disagree with it (or even no reason at all).
Just because some over sensitive snowflake says they take "offence" at something does not mean people should not be able to post.
If its legal, well ... then its legal.

upsetting material, will have to be masked so that users can choose not to be subject to such posts.

No one forces anyone to read anything, people can already choose not to read things, or choose not to use social media at all.

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by Paul

Do you read what you write ?
If its legal, there is no reason at all to prevent it being posted.
As I have pointed out many many times now "offensive" is subjective.
Anyone can say they think something "offensive" simply because they disagree with it (or even no reason at all).
Just because some over sensitive snowflake says they take "offence" at something does not mean people should not be able to post.
If its legal, well ... then its legal.

No one forces anyone to read anything, people can already choose not to read things, or choose not to use social media at all.

Please do not take this as an attack as I really do not want any more trouble but can you not see a benefit of a proper block system? Obviously not blocking mods or admin but users that wind you up. Surely that would be of benefit to all members of the forum

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

Please do not take this as an attack as I really do not want any more trouble but can you not see a benefit of a proper block system? Obviously not blocking mods or admin but users that wind you up. Surely that would be of benefit to all members of the forum

Of course you should be allowed to block certain posters or certain material you don’t want to see (if that is even possible), but the proposal goes much further than that.

Freedom of speech is important in a democracy, and you ban it at your peril.

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

Please do not take this as an attack as I really do not want any more trouble but can you not see a benefit of a proper block system? Obviously not blocking mods or admin but users that wind you up. Surely that would be of benefit to all members of the forum

Thats not what the proposal is, there is a big difference between someone choosing to block what they can read, and preventing perfectly legal posts.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Paul

Do you read what you write ?
If its legal, there is no reason at all to prevent it being posted.
As I have pointed out many many times now "offensive" is subjective.
Anyone can say they think something "offensive" simply because they disagree with it (or even no reason at all).
Just because some over sensitive snowflake says they take "offence" at something does not mean people should not be able to post.
If its legal, well ... then its legal.

No one forces anyone to read anything, people can already choose not to read things, or choose not to use social media at all.

I read and understand what I write within the confines of my abilities- no need for sarcasm in the circumstances. My facilitator thinks that you've misunderstood what was said.

The proposal is to prevent the sight of something that an individual may find offensive or upsetting, not stop it from being posted. For example a victim of child sex abuse may find discussion of this triggering and/or upsetting.

Whilst it would be unreasonable, almost criminal, to prevent discussion of such an important subject it'rs perfectly reasonable to expect some people to find it too much to cope with.

In short, legal posts would be masked for them Referring to such people as "snowflakes' is, at best, unhelpful.

It's not correct that people can always choose to stay away from material that they find offensive, as the material they find offensive may be unexpected. For example, this is why warnings are given at the start of television programmes.

A programme about child sex abuse would obviously be easy to avoid, but it might unexpectedly turn up during a soap.

---------- Post added at 21:51 ---------- Previous post was at 21:40 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Of course you should be allowed to block certain posters or certain material you don’t want to see (if that is even possible), but the proposal goes much further than that.

Freedom of speech is important in a democracy, and you ban it at your peril.

I'm not sure how they'll mask legal material that some find offensive. I imagine that they will use key words in the case of written text. They have the technology to identify certain images*, so I suppose tihey'll use this too.

*I recently watched a YouTube video where a man bought a new mobile phone and couldn't manage to transfer some illegal images from the old to the new one.

He was caught because the material was picked up when he tried to email them to himself.

[Carth]

Have you ever thought of moving to China . . or North Korea?

I believe the internet there is almost at the standard you seem to require

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Carth

Have you ever thought of moving to China . . or North Korea?

I believe the internet there is almost at the standard you seem to require

No, because those places inhibit free speech (the North Korean version of Facebook is something to behold). Free speech, however, should not mean saying whatever one likes regardless of its effects on other people.

Would you prefer a continuation of the situation where people are encouraged to commit suicide, children are groomed by paedophiles, minority groups are harrassed/insulted/discriminated against etc etc?

[Carth]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

No, because those places inhibit free speech (the North Korean version of Facebook is something to behold). Free speech, however, should not mean saying whatever one likes regardless of its effects on other people.

Would you prefer a continuation of the situation where people are encouraged to commit suicide, children are groomed by paedophiles, minority groups are harrassed/insulted/discriminated against etc etc?

To tell you the truth, I don't see any of that . . probably because I don't use Twitter, Facebook, TikTok, Snapchat or any other of the platforms where most of the crap seems to be happening. Maybe closing those down would help?

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Would you prefer a continuation of the situation where people are encouraged to commit suicide, children are groomed by paedophiles, minority groups are harrassed/insulted/discriminated against etc etc?

You have a very warped sense of the world.

Firstly, none of these things is new, or unique to the internet.
They existed long before the internet ever came along, and long before social media sites and forums existed.

Secondly, they are the result of a very small minority of users.
Facebook has 2.9 BILLION users, Instagram 815 Million, twitter has 290 million.
The vast majority of these do none of the things you mention.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Paul

You have a very warped sense of the world.

Firstly, none of these things is new, or unique to the internet.
They existed long before the internet ever came along, and long before social media sites and forums existed.

Secondly, they are the result of a very small minority of users.
Facebook has 2.9 BILLION users, Instagram 815 Million, twitter has 290 million.
The vast majority of these do none of the things you mention.

Yup, they did and laws existed to deal with them. Although rather late, laws are now catching up with the increased ways that modern technology facilitates the ability to carry out such acts online.

I agree that the vast majority of people don't do anything inappropriate on the internet and won't be impacted by the Online Harms legislation, but these aren't the people that need to be dealt with. The vast majority of people aren't armed robbers, but legislation is in place to deal with the minority who are.

---------- Post added at 06:50 ---------- Previous post was at 06:46 ----------

Originally Posted by Carth

To tell you the truth, I don't see any of that . . probably because I don't use Twitter, Facebook, TikTok, Snapchat or any other of the platforms where most of the crap seems to be happening. Maybe closing those down would help?

It would be a shame to see them close as many people use such sites properly and enjoy them. The only way I can see them closing (to the UK) is if the owners refuse to comply with the new requirements that our Government demands. I can't see this happening as all they seem to be interested in is money.