I am aware that I am on a forum hiding behind a made up name, almost nobody knows who I am and where I live. Other than mods. I would however be in favour of host platforms being fined heavily if posts crossed the line. Or if the posts were on TV or newspapers would not be allowed/sued then so be it. Then anonymity would not apply?
We're in an age where it's far too easy to hide behind an assumed name and insult (for want of a better word) people just because you don't agree with their creed, colour or religion. When that happens, there should be some kind of retribution from the authorities but the social media companies need to get together and agree on some kind of protocol. That's what I like about this site, you can argue the toss about this player/manager but it never crosses that line where you are seriously insulting people in that way
Who decides what crosses the line though? Some people get upset because someone else has a different opinion to them or votes for a different political party these days.
I don't think this is referring to a difference of views. It's the abuse which is fairly easy to distinguish from a difference of opinions.
Ever been on the politics forum over the road? They're the same thing there. Abuse as a first answer. I think it's a combination of the current political climate and how different views are treated - everyone who thinks differently is evil, and therefore I can say or do evil things because I'm the good fighting that evil - plus the culture of self reverence - 'it must be right, because it's what I think' - that's fuelling all the abuse and hatred everywhere. Having a different opinion is classed as trolling these days in some places. It's crackers.
I can see what you're saying and i agree that there's more rascist abuse that's available to see on social media as compared to when we didn't have social media. Prior to the internet and the anonymity it provides, to racially abuse someone you had to be physically in their prescence 90% of the time. Now, any keyboard warrior can say what they like and sadly, there appears to be no accountability. That being said, there is a lot of grey areas when it comes to what is actual abuse. For example if a black man calls another black man a "N" word that is deemed acceptable however, it is considered rascist if it's said by a man of any other colour. In my simplistic view it's either a rascist term or it's not regardless of who uses it. If it's only considered rascist if a non-black person uses it then isn't that rascism in itself? What about Irish jokes? They generally infer that Irish are dumb (inferior) and as such should they be banned? Aussies tell jokes about Kiwis, the Kiwis tell the same jokes about Aussies.
Can't see how facebook/twitter etc can police what people say. Keeping tabs on millions of messages everyday? It would be like blaming WH Smiths for what I write on one of their note pads.
Hmm, yes you have a point, they could not employ millions of mods. However, as I understand how GHCQ etc. operate, a computer programme is primed with key words or phrases which filter messages on the Internet, then a human review takes over. Newspapers have mods on their readers letters, and anyone for instance that has been flagged before is on an alert system... if heavy enough fines were imposed a cost effective way of modding would be found, no doubt.
Surely people on twitter, facebook, all other social media, should only write out what they would say to a persons face, if you are afraid to say it face to face, don't wright it. Too many hide behind anonymity, big keyboard warriors. I'm coming up to 75 years, and unfortunately have never backed down from saying something face to face, instead of putting it on social media, had many a good hidings, but never backed down. The internet has bred a bunch of narsacistic wannabe's, who feel they can bully anyone because they are anonymous. Social media should open their doors to anyone trying to police the things that others have written if there is a genuine grievance. Don't know how it can be done, but these so called warriors piss me off. Rant over
most of these w@nkers are the snowflakes, they do not have the bottle to walk up to someone like gary bennet (a big black man for anyone who does not recognise the name) and racially abuse him but have found a way to say anything they feel like saying because they cannot be traced. i do not think it needs 'too much' of an effort, find a few of these keyboard warriors, go public and name/shame/fine/jail them...once the majority realise they CAN be found it would change the way many think. us older buggers tend to take a lot of stick as our attitudes were a wee bit different when we were younger but if we can change and adapt to modern society i see no reason why the modern day internet trawler can not do the same and just accept people.
I might look like a snowflake here but we have two threads running that, in my mind, contradict each other. On one hand we have this which is commendable, on the other is a thread where people are sniggering about Matthews and his Wiki page. We've had Sunderland players, and a fair few supporters, admitting to mental health problems. I've no idea if Matthews has problems but he certainly has a confidence issue, he looked distraught coming off the pitch on Tuesday. No big deal, I just think it's poor when his family and friends may see it.
I think you would be surprised what face book can police when they want to I wrote to my mate to let him know the dog had been to the vets and I was told she was overweight and I said she’s a right fat pig with in seconds my reply was blocked and I was told I must change my terminology or the post will be deleted. Try it you’ll be surprised.
I’m forever getting replies back from them about these kind of things, I usually post pics on that I get from this forum and they can never see the funny side. it’s all political with them
A friend of mine went on holiday to Italy a few years ago and posted a picture of Michaelangelo's David on Facebook, only for it to be taken down for breaching standards on nudity. It shows they can have algorithms in place to identify certain things quickly and act if they need to. My guess is that they don't because of the traffic on site helps them attract advertising money.