Fine Gael want to "regulate public comments" on social media

VampiricPadraig

Shouldn't social media sites like Twitter and Facebook be doing something like this? Why does Irish Government getting involved?! I know there is whole "Well, if Twitter (or Facebook) can't do anything about it, then the government HAS to get involved."

I don't want to be regulated on what I say on the net....isn't that taking away free speech from people....

Lone Stone

from the people who brought you Phil the bully hogan, sean the music industry sherlock fine gale proudly presents tommy two fingers hayes minister for silence.

No seriously though this is some sort of north Korean move i think its time for a Celtic Spring.

tayto lover

spikethedog wrote: »

As you've been told several times today, the garda can trace someone's IP address if they need to.

He just ignores this and other facts i.e. there is always more than one cause of suicide. Maybe they stifle his argument.

Riamfada

Everyone talks ****e all of the time and we keep going around in circles. I wish everyone would stop paying attention to the political class.

baldbear

They couldn't regulate a shiite, never mind public comments on the net. Pathetic.

franktheplank

spikethedog wrote: »

As you've been told several times today, the garda can trace someone's IP address if they need to.

There are still ways around this, proxy's, VPN's and use of public internet services.

But i don't see why there can't be legal action, civil or criminal against online bullies without censorship or big brother watching.

Would some people still manage to hide their identity? Yes a small amount. Probably the same tech savvy people who would work around whatever measures FG are proposing.

If they really want to do something perhaps introduce a criminal act and reform libel laws. Anything else would be a waste of time and money.

Try getting on with the things a real government should do, like protecting the disabled from neglect and abuse.

leggo

spikethedog wrote: »

As you've been told several times today, the garda can trace someone's IP address if they need to.

I...haven't been told that at all today. You're imagining conversations again, pops, have you forgotten to take your pills again? :pac:

It doesn't have to be just in legal cases though. If someone decides to troll me or someone else, I should be able to see that they're a 35-year old still living with their mother, for full disclosure seeing as they see fit to comment on me. If people want to have the balls to say something, make sure that they have the same accountability as they do when walking down the street. Maybe then they'd actually think twice about what they'd say and we could avoid the inane amounts of stupidity that gets posted online each day. Such as people thinking they are entitled to 'freedom of speech' because they've heard it mentioned on American TV shows and movies.

Lyaiera

leggo wrote: »

No, not just to ridicule other people. But unless you are a spy, whistleblower or doing something infinitely more exciting and important than posting on boards...what is the need? Let's face it, 1% of all users of the Internet use it for anything noble enough that it requires absolute anonymity. The other 99% are using it for cat videos, trolling and porn. Fúck 'em, let them be brave when the Gardaí can hold them accountable for their words once they cross a line.

Until the world is a tolerant and understanding place, I'll have to disagree with you.

I talked to numerous people on Christmas day who were miserable. They were lonely, alone and had no where else to turn but the internet. I imagine very few of them would have a place to turn to if it wasn't for the anonymity of the internet.

In the early nineties the internet was being predicted as the most significant impact for people who could live their life outside of the harshness of society. People otherwise ostracised because of physical disability, disfigurement, intolerance or hate. Anonymity on the internet provides them a place to live without that.

The internet is providing the greatest equaliser in terms of learning and understanding, and acceptance in the first world, and even further. It's allowing people to "connect" with their peers in a way that never before would have been imagined. This backwards localism that's entrenched in Ireland is being eroded by a facility that allows people of hundreds of nations, thousands of cultures to share and learn together. Some of them are still looked down upon by society, some justly, the majority without reason, and it's the anonymity of the internet that allows this.

That people think it's a place for fighting against the forces behind the iron curtain just shows how much the anonymity of the internet is needed in Ireland. It's allowing people to be free, to question and to fulfill the mental possibilities never before afforded to them.

coolhull

Judging this shower on its past deeds, we have nothing to worry about. They'll commission a quango to do a report, giving them six months to complete it. By then, we'll have all moved on to other things, but if anyone asks an awkward question, the quango will say, ''sorry, that was outside the terms of reference given to us''
So predictable and wearying....

leggo

Lyaiera wrote: »

Until the world is a tolerant and understanding place, I'll have to disagree with you.

I talked to numerous people on Christmas day who were miserable. They were lonely, alone and had no where else to turn but the internet. I imagine very few of them would have a place to turn to if it wasn't for the anonymity of the internet.

In the early nineties the internet was being predicted as the most significant impact for people who could live their life outside of the harshness of society. People otherwise ostracised because of physical disability, disfigurement, intolerance or hate. Anonymity on the internet provides them a place to live without that.

The internet is providing the greatest equaliser in terms of learning and understanding, and acceptance in the first world, and even further. It's allowing people to "connect" with their peers in a way that never before would have been imagined. This backwards localism that's entrenched in Ireland is being eroded by a facility that allows people of hundreds of nations, thousands of cultures to share and learn together. Some of them are still looked down upon by society, some justly, the majority without reason, and it's the anonymity of the internet that allows this.

That people think it's a place for fighting against the forces behind the iron curtain just shows how much the anonymity of the internet is needed in Ireland. It's allowing people to be free, to question and to fulfill the mental possibilities never before afforded to them.

A valid post with some good points raised, no doubt. But I also think you slightly over-estimate the power of anonymity here. All of the above can still be achieved without the need to hide behind an alias.

I mean, when you look at the biggest website on the planet for social interaction (Facebook...please, people, hold your fire and don't detract from the actual point with anti-Facebook posts), all that you've mentioned manages to thrive without people (generally) hiding behind aliases. How does it do so? By putting the user in control of who they contact and who can contact them.

The reality is that for all of the people you speak of who benefit from anonymity, there are probably just as many abusing that privilege (and yes, it's a privilege, we're just spoiled into thinking it's a right). From standard run-of-the-mill trolls, to racists and intolerant people in general, to sex offenders, to terrorists in extreme cases. One could argue that they cause as much hurt as joy is created on the other side. If not more...

And when all of this takes place while the biggest site of its kind manages to increase in popularity while not requiring anonymity...you start to see that anonymity isn't as important as once thought.

The tide is turning. Now it certainly won't be Fine ****ing Gael who change the Internet, but we are day-by-day seeing more and more negatives from anonymity than positives. And it'll get to the stage where that privilege gets taken away. Why? Because the world is not a tolerant and understanding place, thus the dream of 'freedom of speech' is not a realistic one.

ITS_A_BADGER

Im just gona copy and paste what i said in another thread

I really do hope they sort this out, but i dont think our goverment ministers understand social media and the internet and see it as a young persons gig. Therefore not giving a fcuk about what they do to solve the problem and sign some sort of law censoring the internet,opinions on the internet or monitoring internet users or something like that. that being said i do indeed hope they can make some decent solution to sort out bullying

Lyaiera

leggo wrote: »

A valid post with some good points raised, no doubt. But I also think you slightly over-estimate the power of anonymity here. All of the above can still be achieved without the need to hide behind an alias.

I mean, when you look at the biggest website on the planet for social interaction (Facebook...please, people, hold your fire and don't detract from the actual point with anti-Facebook posts), all that you've mentioned manages to thrive without people (generally) hiding behind aliases. How does it do so? By putting the user in control of who they contact and who can contact them.

The reality is that for all of the people you speak of who benefit from anonymity, there are probably just as many abusing that privilege (and yes, it's a privilege, we're just spoiled into thinking it's a right). From standard run-of-the-mill trolls, to racists and intolerant people in general, to sex offenders, to terrorists in extreme cases. One could argue that they cause as much hurt as joy is created on the other side. If not more...

And when all of this takes place while the biggest site of its kind manages to increase in popularity while not requiring anonymity...you start to see that anonymity isn't as important as once thought.

The tide is turning. Now it certainly won't be Fine ****ing Gael who change the Internet, but we are day-by-day seeing more and more negatives from anonymity than positives. And it'll get to the stage where that privilege gets taken away. Why? Because the world is not a tolerant and understanding place, thus the dream of 'freedom of speech' is not a realistic one.

First off, I know plenty of people with anonymous Facebook accounts.

Secondly, you're talking about taking away a necessary thing for many people because of the problems caused by other people abusing it. That's just a continuation of denial. Denying people who most need anonymity something of huge benefit because of the problems of others. And has been pointed out, that anonymity is only superficial. If someone does something illegal on the internet, then they can be traced and prosecuted.

There are already extant mechanisms in place for dealing with these things. They need to be utilised rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to what really is necessary for a lot of people.

To go further, if you look at the cases of cyber bullying you're dealing with something already happening "in real life." The internet in those cases is just another media. Whereas the anonymity of the medium allows for many people to exist independent of their real life struggles, I think the problem lies with society in general in the first case, and not with the actual benefit in the second case.

leggo

I know plenty with anonymous Facebooks too, but I think you'd accept yourself that they are in a vast minority.

We're getting into chicken-and-egg territory here, but I still feel you're over-stating the importance of anonymity. While I was being tongue-in-cheek in saying that I'd like to run a background check on any trolls that cross my path, I definitely see a model in place where you'd have to use a verified Facebook login...or other 'Internet ID' of sorts...to login to sites like boards. Something that could better monitor your usage of the Internet and ensure that you are held accountable quicker for any wrongdoings. Something that will deter people from the dark side of the web, so to speak. But also something which would protect people from being followed around on Google from their parents or anyone who wishes to torment them, too. That is important, I agree with you there.

Let's face it, within the next decade we're going to have a shít-ton of regular, everyday Gardaí - dressed up like boards moderators in high-vis vests - instantly responding to wrongdoings online.

The Internet has massive advantages but it also has major downsides to counter each one. All we hear about these days are the lows; they are growing more serious with each passing case. There has to be a compromise somewhere in the middle, regardless of the uproar it may initially cause.

Lyaiera

I think you have a fundamentally flawed view on humanity. That everyone is bad and needs to monitored, rather than most people are good and the bad people need to be individually addressed.

leggo

With respect, I think it's ridiculously simplistic to lump people as a whole into either 'good' or 'bad' categories. If only life was that simple...

We are all capable of good and bad. Often what's seen as 'good' or 'bad' is merely down to perspective.

Society and its laws are the best means of ensuring that people, en masse, stay on the former track more often than not. And yes, I'd agree that once people break those boundaries, they should be dealt with on an individual basis. But said boundaries also exist for a reason.

Zebra3

Dostoevsky wrote: »

So those who oppose the Blueshirts on this essentially agree that any idiot should be allowed to anonymously attack named Irish people in a public forum? Right?


The Blueshirts have never had much going for them, but if "regulating social comments" is an Orwellian turn of phrase for making anonymous people responsible for their comments in public fora, then I agree this needs to be done asap.

I'll support this when FG decide to remove Dáil Éireann privileges on how FG TDs and all other TDs can say what they want about anyone but be protected from libel.

We couldn't want double standards, would we? :rolleyes:

spikethedog

leggo wrote: »

I...haven't been told that at all today. You're imagining conversations again, pops, have you forgotten to take your pills again?

What's that your raging against, anonymous abuse over the internet?
Practice what you preach my friend, these types of posts weaken your argument.

GRMA

Fianna Fáil trying to rewrite history, removed an article where Thomas Byrne was very critical of McEntee

http://www.fiannafail.ie/news/entry/byrne-calls-on-mcentee-to-clarify-callous-comments/

end of the road

leggo wrote: »

Why should we have the right to comment anonymously, though? What's the problem with putting your name behind what you believe...unless you plan to abuse that privilege?

yet your using a user name to comment here.

Prodigious

Its like having a child that cries every time you give out to it. You either stop giving out to the child, or teach the child to grow the fúck up. Internet censorship will not happen without a serious fight.

monkeypants

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

If Internet is hurting your feelings. . .

Turn computer off and go outside.

That'll be twenty grand

Probably the best value for money we'll ever see out of this government.

GRMA

leggo wrote: »

With respect, I think it's ridiculously simplistic to lump people as a whole into either 'good' or 'bad' categories. If only life was that simple...

We are all capable of good and bad. Often what's seen as 'good' or 'bad' is merely down to perspective.

Society and its laws are the best means of ensuring that people, en masse, stay on the former track more often than not. And yes, I'd agree that once people break those boundaries, they should be dealt with on an individual basis. But said boundaries also exist for a reason.

Practice what you preach.

What is your name? Give us your details.

Slideshowbob

GRMA wrote: »

Fianna Fáil trying to rewrite history, removed an article where Thomas Byrne was very critical of McEntee

http://www.fiannafail.ie/news/entry/byrne-calls-on-mcentee-to-clarify-callous-comments/

Typical of them.

Irony of McEntee's suicide seems to be he had a conscience in executing the aftermath of the previous administations' mistakes. The overseers of those regimes didn't seem to have the same contentions.

kirving

flynnlives wrote: »

except your wrong, there is no anonymity on the internet, there never was.

Everything can be traced back to your ip address.

Tell that to Anonymous. They seem to be pretty good at keeping, well, anonymous.

54kroc

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Tell that to Anonymous. They seem to be pretty good at keeping, well, anonymous.

Really?
I thought they arrested a few of them every couple of months.

stick-dan

Ah here, Fine Gael are the same boys who can't manage the security of their own site. Nothing to worry about move along, these boys are so out of touch, they'd be referencing "The Internets", "The Google" and "The Twitter" in their policy. Would they ever go away out of that. This will amount to nothing.

On a side note though, if you are brave enough to write something behind your forum alias you should be brave enough to write it under your own name, otherwards you shouldn't be contributing your input if you wont back it up.

cristoir

One member of Fine Gael supporting this does not amount to this being Fine Gael policy or Fine Gael supporting it as a party as implied in the title. I'm a member of Fine Gael and would be vehemently opposed to any such attempt to "regulate" online discussion and would likely leave the party if it became official policy.

kirving

A few people have been arreseted, yes. As far as I know it's been down to people talking too much or not following the correct procedures. The fact is that stong encryption(for want of a more technical term) takes so much processing power to decode, that the person will be dead before they're caught if used correctly.

Annasopra

The UK CPS have just come up with some decent guidelines for prosecution. I wouldn't have a problem with similar guidelines here



http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12/19/twitter-facebook-prosecution-cps_n_2327330.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/keir-starmer-qc/twitter-laws-social-media-prosecutions_b_2328248.html

Dyr

Given that the blue shirts have opened this can of worms in a fairly crass way let's dispense with the usual sensitivities.

They may produce for review the "anonymous" interwebs messages that caused yer man to top himself or they may f**k off.