UK could "ban" social media Watch

eez
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#21
Report 3 weeks ago
#21
(Original post by Retired_Messiah)
I mean... no. There's very little to stop someone who harrases you irl from doing it over the internet as well once you get home. Once you get a gang of people doing that it's not as easy as "lmao just shut ur eyes, close the screen haha"
thats not what im saying. social media harassment is a myth. sure, it can happen in person too but if it's exclusively happening over the internet it takes 3/4 clicks to prevent it. people need to stop blaming social media, its harmless.
0
reply
Decahedron
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#22
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#22
(Original post by Notoriety)
He didn't use the word "ban". He said: "If we think they [social media companies] need to do things they are refusing to do, then we can and we must legislate."
When asked by Marr if this legislation could include banning he said yes, watch the video.
0
reply
Decahedron
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#23
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#23
(Original post by eez)
cyber bullying is a myth, its easy to dodge it yet people still go back for more? i guess people will do anything for attention nowadays. blaming social media is wrong.
This has nothing to do with cyber bullying.
0
reply
eez
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#24
Report 3 weeks ago
#24
(Original post by Decahedron)
This has nothing to do with cyber bullying.
i know, but, just making the point.
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#25
Report 3 weeks ago
#25
(Original post by Decahedron)
When asked by Marr if this legislation could include banning he said yes, watch the video.
Well then, there you go. BBC might have done a better job by putting it in the text of the article, rather than the second video.

What he is saying isn't incorrect, though, is it? If they had a series of non-compliance, presumably against a host of issues rather than just this one, there would be real impetus to block these sites to a UK audience. I don't think "but I like watching cat videos", or that these sites are integral to your life, means they are beyond reproach or sanction.
1
reply
Obolinda
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#26
Report 3 weeks ago
#26
(Original post by eez)
cyber bullying is a myth, its easy to dodge it yet people still go back for more? i guess people will do anything for attention nowadays. blaming social media is wrong.
This isn't even about cyber bullying. It's about suicidal and self harm content.

It's hard to dodge cyber bullying when ppl make whole nasty accounts on you, it rapidly spreads and it's coming from many ppl. Then when you block the person, they keep on making new accounts.
Last edited by Obolinda; 3 weeks ago
1
reply
Decahedron
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#27
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#27
(Original post by Notoriety)
Well then, there you go. BBC might have done a better job by putting it in the text of the article, rather than the second video.

What he is saying isn't incorrect, though, is it? If they had a series of non-compliance, presumably against a host of issues rather than just this one, there would be real impetus to block these sites to a UK audience. I don't think "but I like watching cat videos", or that these sites are integral to your life, means they are beyond reproach or sanction.
It isn't against any law to post the type of content that he is talking about, as far as I'm aware. But please correct me if I'm wrong.

I would rather we had an open internet than a goverment sanctioned internet.
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#28
Report 3 weeks ago
#28
(Original post by Decahedron)
It isn't against any law to post the type of content that he is talking about, as far as I'm aware. But please correct me if I'm wrong.

I would rather we had an open internet than a goverment sanctioned internet.
When he said he'd legislate, I presume he meant changing the law in some way. That is what legislation generally involves.

We don't have an open internet and lots of harmful stuff is proscribed in many, many ways. E.g. Google's GDPR fine of tens of millions, imposing a GDPR standard on the Internet. I think the idea that the Internet is beyond control, i.e. the mentality of this thread, is more than naive.
0
reply
CurlyBen
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#29
Report 3 weeks ago
#29
(Original post by Decahedron)
It isn't against any law to post the type of content that he is talking about, as far as I'm aware. But please correct me if I'm wrong.

I would rather we had an open internet than a goverment sanctioned internet.
I think that's what the government would prefer as well, but (as with more or less any freedom) it needs some self-regulation. My take on it is that the government are getting frustrated that social media companies are failing to adequately address harmful content and the threat to legislate is to get them to take the issue more seriously.
0
reply
Decahedron
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#30
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#30
(Original post by Notoriety)
When he said he'd legislate, I presume he meant changing the law in some way. That is what legislation generally involves.

We don't have an open internet and lots of harmful stuff is proscribed in many, many ways. E.g. Google's GDPR fine of tens of millions, imposing a GDPR standard on the Internet. I think the idea that the Internet is beyond control, i.e. the mentality of this thread, is more than naive.
The GDPR standard is not in applied everywhere on the internet nor will it be enforced everywhere because it is practically impossible. Much like how copyright laws aren't applied everywhere.
0
reply
Decahedron
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#31
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#31
(Original post by CurlyBen)
I think that's what the government would prefer as well, but (as with more or less any freedom) it needs some self-regulation. My take on it is that the government are getting frustrated that social media companies are failing to adequately address harmful content and the threat to legislate is to get them to take the issue more seriously.
The Conservative government would love a sanctioned internet with backdoors in every piece of encryption. They don't understand how difficult it is to police social media sites given the sheer number of posts being processed every second. They lack the basic understanding of how technology works.
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#32
Report 3 weeks ago
#32
(Original post by Decahedron)
The GDPR standard is not in applied everywhere on the internet nor will it be enforced everywhere because it is practically impossible. Much like how copyright laws aren't applied everywhere.
So you think GDPR standards will be enforced against the big players, like Google and not the small one-man bands? That is probably true, but all the social media companies are big players. Also, GDPR only concerns EU-data so there is no need for it to apply everywhere. Just as a UK-based law -- banning content promoting suicide to children -- would not need to be applied in the US or Niger.

If your opposition is to the Internet being regulated at all, you're completely wrong and have consumed too much American "free speech" literature.
0
reply
Decahedron
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#33
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#33
(Original post by Notoriety)
So you think GDPR standards will be enforced against the big players, like Google and not the small one-man bands? That is probably true, but all the social media companies are big players. Also, GDPR only concerns EU-data so there is no need for it to apply everywhere. Just as a UK-based law -- banning content promoting suicide to children -- would not need to be applied in the US or Niger.

If your opposition is to the Internet being regulated at all, you're completely wrong and have consumed too much American "free speech" literature.
Technically GDPR would need to applied to any website that can be accessed from the EU, which is impossible.

I am well aware that we do not have "free speech" in our law and nor should we. But I don't believe that anything that could be said legally offline should be banned from being said online.

I'm in favour of increased protection for children online, but that should not limit my consumption of anything online unless of course it is illegal.
0
reply
CurlyBen
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#34
Report 3 weeks ago
#34
(Original post by Decahedron)
The Conservative government would love a sanctioned internet with backdoors in every piece of encryption. They don't understand how difficult it is to police social media sites given the sheer number of posts being processed every second. They lack the basic understanding of how technology works.
To be fair I don't think many governments are in favour of highly secure communications for criminals. It's also not really the job of the government to understand the technology - their role is to say "this type of content is unacceptable, it needs to be removed within an acceptable time frame". It's then up to the technology companies to work out how to do that. Ideally the technology companies would be sufficiently pro-active to put acceptable solutions in place before legislation is required, but current progress suggests that won't be the case. As an analogy there are huge numbers of financial transactions every second, but that doesn't mean banks aren't expected to monitor for fraud or money laundering.
0
reply
Decahedron
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#35
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#35
(Original post by CurlyBen)
To be fair I don't think many governments are in favour of highly secure communications for criminals. It's also not really the job of the government to understand the technology - their role is to say "this type of content is unacceptable, it needs to be removed within an acceptable time frame". It's then up to the technology companies to work out how to do that. Ideally the technology companies would be sufficiently pro-active to put acceptable solutions in place before legislation is required, but current progress suggests that won't be the case. As an analogy there are huge numbers of financial transactions every second, but that doesn't mean banks aren't expected to monitor for fraud or money laundering.
The irony is the Government actually uses Whatsapp because of its security.

A government cannot pass effective legislation if they don't understand what they are legislating against. If they pass a law saying any offending content needs to be removed with an hour of posting and then this proves impossible all social media would be have to be blocked. Who does that help?
0
reply
CoolCavy
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#36
Report 3 weeks ago
#36
As if they care about mental health, suicide or self harm. If they did they would make the crisis service actually useful and stop pelpeo getting to crisis so regularly by actually cutting waiting lists for therapies, psychiatrists etc.
Lots of things that can be used for suicide or self harm are daily life things though so where do you draw the line. A noose itself is used for boats so can you take down a video on how to tie a noose when the uploader could say it's for boats.
1
reply
CurlyBen
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#37
Report 3 weeks ago
#37
(Original post by Decahedron)
The irony is the Government actually uses Whatsapp because of its security.

A government cannot pass effective legislation if they don't understand what they are legislating against. If they pass a law saying any offending content needs to be removed with an hour of posting and then this proves impossible all social media would be have to be blocked. Who does that help?
They need some understanding, sure, but their role should be to determine the outcome, not the solution, and therefore they don't need the same level of technical knowledge.
It wouldn't be impossible, it would be expensive and potentially inconvenient or detrimental to their business model. After all, Facebook seem to be managing it in Germany. As for who it would help, potentially everyone not exposed to harmful posts! I'm not advocating for that to be the solution and in reality I doubt it will be, but that doesn't mean social media companies are doing enough to deal with the problems their platforms can create.
0
reply
Decahedron
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#38
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#38
(Original post by CurlyBen)
They need some understanding, sure, but their role should be to determine the outcome, not the solution, and therefore they don't need the same level of technical knowledge.
It wouldn't be impossible, it would be expensive and potentially inconvenient or detrimental to their business model. After all, Facebook seem to be managing it in Germany. As for who it would help, potentially everyone not exposed to harmful posts! I'm not advocating for that to be the solution and in reality I doubt it will be, but that doesn't mean social media companies are doing enough to deal with the problems their platforms can create.
Within an hour would be impossible, within 24 hours seems pretty reasonable to me, but that would have been passed with knowledge of what is possible.

They do a pretty good job in my experience, if you report something that breaks terms of service or the law it is generally removed that week.
0
reply
DarkChaoz95
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#39
Report 3 weeks ago
#39
(Original post by Decahedron)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47019912

"Social media firms could be banned if they fail to remove harmful content, the health secretary has warned. "

First it was encryption, now it is social media :lol:
This made me laugh. No way this proposal is ever going to see the light of day.
0
reply
DrMikeHuntHertz
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#40
Report 3 weeks ago
#40
Ban everything!
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you have a food intolerance or allergy?

Yes - a food intolerance (36)
12.41%
Yes - a food allergy (33)
11.38%
Yes - an autoimmune disorder (i.e coeliac, colitis) (9)
3.1%
Yes - I have an intolerance and allergy (9)
3.1%
No (203)
70%

Watched Threads

View All