To think the internet should be a little more controlled...

[jobhunter7]

It shouldn't be possible to access hardcore pornography so easily...
It shouldn't be so easy to troll people...
There should be more controls before things go live to the entire universe...

@Emeraldshamrock

I believe you should/will have to verify sm accounts with valid ID in the future. It would definitely makes those horrible trolls from being so brash as a keyboard warrior. Too many rational individuals are pushed toward suicidal thoughts by trolling.

For every single social media website? Even the ones outside the UK?

The problem I have is the likes of Twitter who are earning 100s of millions of dollars and people are talking about "but how would they manage it, they would have to charge " no they earn 100s of millions, they would be forced to have a form of corporate responsibility to its users and do everything possible to ensure their site is ran ethically and with its users best interest at heart, if it can't earn a profit whilst conducting an ethical business, close it down.

You have other companies who have to spend millions in ethically running their businesses, this should be the same.

[quote greencrosscode]@StanfordPInes

It would be presumably cheaper to have the voting as there is on this thread and just not the posts...[/quote]
Ok. How will that work for the rest of the internet then?

‘Hi. Has anyone got a really good chocolate brownie recipe?’

Yes 75%
No 25%

Thrilling.

Just stick to voting yourself on MN and see how that works out.

@Tigger001

The problem I have is the likes of Twitter who are earning 100s of millions of dollars and people are talking about "but how would they manage it, they would have to charge " no they earn 100s of millions, they would be forced to have a form of corporate responsibility to its users and do everything possible to ensure their site is ran ethically and with its users best interest at heart, if it can't earn a profit whilst conducting an ethical business, close it down.

You have other companies who have to spend millions in ethically running their businesses, this should be the same.

But the whole beauty of the internet is that it is free.

If site like MN had to pay for moderators right from the start they would never have got off the ground. And MN is just one that has become successful. I’m willing to bet that nearly everyone has a story about a small forum that has helped them find a solution to a problem, helped support a hobby, proven an interesting read.

Even with that mind... there does seem some difference between broadcasting an adult movie and letting people upload footage of teenage girls being raped without moderating it and letting the world to see and making money out of this...

I’m not sure I completely follow what you’re proposing, OP? I thought you wanted ALL of the nasty stuff banned/controlled – legal and illegal?

I know this is a side point but wouldn't it also maybe perhaps be in the interest of adult content makers as well if there were more controls as i am assuming half of what is on the internet is not being shown by the actual copyright owners anyway... and they are losing money from this...

There was an interesting but horrific documentary on Channel 4 some time ago called Generation Porn. I recall they spoke to the British father and son (ugh) who ran one of the most popular sites, based in Eastern Europe for easier, cheaper ‘access' to women to exploit (I’m not going to advertise them by giving the site’s name) and they said it’s basically a numbers game. They worked out that if a very tiny percentage of viewers – maybe one in 100,000 - paid to subscribe or buy whatever premium content/benefits (and I use that word very loosely) they were hawking, they would continue to make a fortune. However, they needed their stuff to be seen far and wide by as many people as possible, on as many platforms as possible (it seems that every video has their 'niche' brand on it) - so that the tiny percentage of profitable customers would be caught up in their nasty net. Like a filthy version of junk mail, where they really couldn’t care less about the 9,999 leaflets that get binned unread – expect and build it into their business model - as long as one person responds and goes on to make them money.

We should just know exactly who the people are doing the trolling.
ID would be a good start for authenticating your use.

Countless women have found sites like MN immensely helpful throughout the years – with support, encouragement and wise advice to help them get out of dangerous, violent relationships and other situations. They are just one tiny group of people on just one website who would often feel far too threatened to dare posting if they had to put their identifiable personal info out there. Even if websites promise to keep it confidential, there are such things as hackers….

Sorry, this was a quote and should have been bolded:

I know this is a side point but wouldn't it also maybe perhaps be in the interest of adult content makers as well if there were more controls as i am assuming half of what is on the internet is not being shown by the actual copyright owners anyway... and they are losing money from this...

Oh. And Twitter didn’t turn a profit until 2018. edition.cnn.com/2019/02/07/tech/twitter-earnings-q4/index.html

But the whole beauty of the internet is that it is free.

If site like MN had to pay for moderators right from the start they would never have got off the ground. And MN is just one that has become successful. I’m willing to bet that nearly everyone has a story about a small forum that has helped them find a solution to a problem, helped support a hobby, proven an interesting read.

No, the Internet is not free, certain aspects and sites maybe free but you pay for your connection, you pay for your subscriptions to certain sites.

Sadly as the times changes a business model has to change with that and if a major issue has been identified with certain aspects of the Internet, those providers need to adapt and provide an ethical response to that. You can't just throw your hands in the air and say it's not their problem, because it very much is.

MN now charges for a "premium package" to help afford their moderators and protect its users and I'm sure they don't earn anywhere near what the key players in the market.

New start ups would then have to factor that cost in to their business costs, as every other business does, if it proves the business is not visible when their customers are being kept safe, then it's a non starter.

Oh. And Twitter didn’t turn a profit until 2018. https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/07/tech/twitter-earnings-q4/index.htmll*

But they do now, a massive one, in the climate we are talking about where the issues are being raised.

Tigger001 The only issue is a lack of resilience amongst the general population.

The way to deal with that is not to use censorship and control but to teach people how to deal with life.

The only issue is a lack of resilience amongst the general population.

Are you saying people with poor mental health or are suicidal from trolling and bullying are just not resilient enough ?

The internet is not free. Adverts on this website for example.

Off you all trot then and set up all these expensive to run subscription only websites that require you to give your details with proof of ID and employ a host of moderators. Let’s see how long that lasts.

Off you all trot then and set up all these expensive to run subscription only websites that require you to give your details with proof of ID and employ a host of moderators. Let’s see how long that lasts

Im not sure there is the demand for anymore? Twitter, instagram and facebook have the monoply really, so not really an issue.

The issue is the ones that are currently part of the problem and how they need to be accountable and responsible for their massive platforms.

Are you saying people with poor mental health or are suicidal from trolling and bullying are just not resilient enough ?

Tigger001 I’m saying that if you bring children up without emotional resilience, allowing them to wallow in snowflake, woke, cancel culture, this is what happens.

If someone cannot handle words on a screen from a random stranger then something has gone very wrong and their situation needs professional help, not censorship on everyone else.

We can’t be teaching our children that if they don’t like or can’t handle something we just get rid of it, that’s an awful message to send and leads to the entitled generation we see today.

I feel the laws we have in the UK are not to just control us but to protect us as well.

I do not agree with emilyfrost's method of expression - the 'woke, resilience, snowflake, cancel culture' bullshit is Daily Mail speak and I can't be doing with it.

But people do need to take some responsibility for their own emotional wellbeing. Everything has an off switch. Just close the tab and don't go back.

@greencrosscode

I feel the laws we have in the UK are not to just control us but to protect us as well.

I’m sure they think that in North Korea too

But people do need to take some responsibility for their own emotional wellbeing. Everything has an off switch. Just close the tab and don't go back.

But why should an individual have to remove themselves from a situation where someone is abusing them surely the abuser should be the one removed ?

Are we teaching our children this is ok ?

Tigger001 I’m saying that if you bring children up without emotional resilience, allowing them to wallow in snowflake, woke, cancel culture, this is what happens.

Ahhh right as soon as I hear "woke" and "cancel culture" having to use such ridiculous catchphrases rather than answering a simple question makes me know and be thankful we won't agree.

If someone cannot handle words on a screen from a random stranger then something has gone very wrong and their situation needs professional help, not censorship on everyone else

We are not talking about censorship as others have explained, it's about being accountable for your words and how you use them to others, not opinions, targeted trolling and bullying as you would do in playground or a workplace.

We can’t be teaching our children that if they don’t like or can’t handle something we just get rid of it, that’s an awful message to send and leads to the entitled generation we see today

No we absolutely can't, but that doesn't translate into a debate about trolling and bullying and how that is not acceptable and those cowards doing it from behind a screen should be shown for who they are and death with.
We also can't teach our children it acceptable to be abused, and that they need to toughen up to that abuse, no they need to call it out and it be dealt with.

@Tigger001

But people do need to take some responsibility for their own emotional wellbeing. Everything has an off switch. Just close the tab and don't go back.

But why should an individual have to remove themselves from a situation where someone is abusing them surely the abuser should be the one removed ?

Are we teaching our children this is ok ?

In an ideal world, of course the abuser should be removed. I'd like to see a lot more of that in real life - both my DDs were bullied at school (we were lucky, school dealt with it very well).

But the practicalities of that approach online would bring with them an enormous cost - both in financial terms and in terms of the amount of privacy and individual freedom we would have to surrender. And then of course you'd have the risk of all the information handed over to support monitoring processes falling into the wrong hands, or being abused by governments. We already have a government legislating to curtail our freedom to protest. I'm not on board with giving them even more power. I do not trust them one bit.

In this instance, the ideal approach which we would take in real life cannot be safely replicated without dystopian consequences.

But the practicalities of that approach online would bring with them an enormous cost - both in financial terms

Which these companies can afford to absorb the cost of, they are earning 100 million dollars. Other companies need to pay to conduct ethical businesses, why do you believe these should be exempt ?

and in terms of the amount of privacy and individual freedom we would have to surrender. And then of course you'd have the risk of all the information handed over to support monitoring processes falling into the wrong hands, or being abused by governments

What freedom are you surrendering by authenticating who you are on a social media site ?
The information is already held and could already be hacked if someone wanted to do so, if these companies are made to have the same security, which most holding information do, I'm not seeing the difference.

We already have a government legislating to curtail our freedom to protest. I'm not on board with giving them even more power. I do not trust them one bit

You are aware the government already has access to who you are, where you are and a lot more if they choose to access it, this would not effect what information the government has about you. Why would they contact Facebook for your details when they already have organisations holding it all.

In this instance, the ideal approach which we would take in real life cannot be safely replicated without dystopian consequences.

But it can and I don't think at all it would have dystopian consequences, it's not about controlling your views it's about stopping cowardly little bullying trolls for attacking and abusing others whilst hiding behind a screen, why on earth people are trying to say that people should just toughen up and switch it off is beyond me.

Not one person should be excluded because they are getting abused, not one person should be getting bullied on their own homes (virally or otherwise) and not one person should be told to toughen up when this abuse is happening - verifying who you are can help stop that happening on line.

The big issue here is what constitutes abuse? What constitutes bullying?

One person's robust debate is another person's 'waaaah you're bullying me!' Who sets that standard? I see so many people online claiming the mantle of victimhood just because someone has pointed out, with evidence, that they are wrong in something they have said.

Unless you have a list of definitions of 'bullying and abuse' that is comprehensive and highly specific, it just isn't feasible to police and moderate it all - and the list would be so unwieldy as to be useless.

While the likes of Twitter et al have financial resources, not all organisations who run things like message boards do. I'm thinking of sports clubs, small local groups, that sort of thing. They could not afford to run the kind of moderation you are proposing.

Lastly, you seem to think it's everyone's inalienable right to be protected from all unpleasantness. Life just isn't like that.

The big issue here is what constitutes abuse? What constitutes bullying?

What is already defined in law.

Unless you have a list of definitions of 'bullying and abuse' that is comprehensive and highly specific, it just isn't feasible to police and moderate it all - and the list would be so unwieldy as to be useless.

Yes the law does under the malicious communications act

While the likes of Twitter et al have financial resources, not all organisations who run things like message boards do. I'm thinking of sports clubs, small local groups, that sort of thing. They could not afford to run the kind of moderation you are proposing

I think it would be a start if the the major players in the market who hold the monopoly are made to do so yes. If it was a small club they would not need extensive technology to verify their users and their user names, it would most likely be a user name given or chosen upon your joining application where you have already given your address, contact details etc.

Lastly, you seem to think it's everyone's inalienable right to be protected from all unpleasantness. Life just isn't like that

No, I am saying, again, corporations have a duty,currently, to run their business's ethically at a cost to themselves why are Social media giants any different .?
Yes, I believe is there is a way an organisation can protect is customers and choose not to, then yes they should be forced to, again, not for unpleasantries but for trolling and bullying, isnt that just a basic right we all should want, to use a platform free from abuse ?

Realistically if this was implemented in the UK what would happen is UK ips would get a restricted service or banned from some of these platforms, wouldn't and shouldn't be implemented world wide and some of the smaller services or ones based abroad just wouldn't do it, similar to how certain sites started geoblocking European IPs when the GDPR came in.