Censorship

Giveaway

Raging listenimg to the radio this morning. New quango proposed for internet safety will be able to order sites to take down content, backed up with criminal sanctions for failure to comply.
I suspect if enacted there will be inevitable mission creep, for example liaising with various interest groups to identify what is wrongthink. Why not beef up the film censors powers while you are at it and let the Iona institute deside what is offensive...am pretty sick of Life of Brian reruns too. Also paying for other peoples' condoms too. F OFF. RANT OVER

Your Face

Post started off OK and then went into Alex Jones meltdown mode.

Anyway, abortions for all.

The J Stands for Jay

**** **** ****

Giveaway

Your Face wrote: »

Post started off OK and then went into Alex Jones meltdown mode.

Anyway, abortions for all.

Didn t mean to go Alex Jones but as night follows day, if one gives a little a mile will be taken. I was using.hyperbole to illustrate a point. I cannot see a quango having all the in house expertise to adjudicatr on all cases so will probably liaise with interest groups who are also extremists.

batgoat

Giveaway wrote: »

Didn t mean to go Alex Jones but as night follows day, if one gives a little a mile will be taken. I was using.hyperbole to illustrate a point. I cannot see a quango having all the in house expertise to adjudicatr on all cases so will probably liaise with interest groups who are also extremists.

The likes of Facebook have been found to allow incredibly dodgy content on their platform. Facing actually repercussions for hosting such content. The horror! Channel 4 had a good dispatches on their moderation a few months back.

kneemos

McGaggs wrote: »

**** **** ****

Indeed.


It's ironic.

Autecher

McGaggs wrote: »

**** **** ****

Disgusting language. Reported.

freshpopcorn

This could work in some ways. However some people like complete censorship. Anything that doesn't fit into there bubble they'd want deleted.(Trust me)

Autecher

freshpopcorn wrote: »

This could work in some ways. However some people like complete censorship. Anything that doesn't fit into there bubble they'd want deleted.(Trust me)

You should tell those people that bubbles pop very quickly. They delete themselves!

Badly Drunk Boy

Your Face wrote: »

Post started off OK and then went into Alex Jones meltdown mode.

Anyway, abortions for all.

Ahhh!!! Do you have something against her dulcet Welsh tones and lovely chestage?

kneemos

Trying to censor the internet is like holding back the tide with a shovel .

Omackeral

Giveaway wrote: »

RANT OVER

Save that malarkey for Facebook, Susan.

seamus

Ultimately the glory days for the likes of facebook are over. At the root of it, social media is not a hot-bed of enlightened research or astute journalism. It's an entertainment medium.

They can cry the "conduit" defence and it's a worthy one, but when you're making billions of dollars off it, then you can't claim you have no control or responsibility. Like any entertainment medium, they need to take full responsibility for what is shown on it.

In a decade, the notion that any platform will have millions of users with open and unfiltered access will seem incredibly foreign.

Between YouTube being used as a paedophile playground and Facebook allowing anti-vaxx propaganda to flourish, we now know that social media isn't just people exchanging free ideas and enjoying non-censorship. It's trolls, criminals and manipulators taking advantage of human nature and an unfiltered platform to spread disinformation to anyone who'll listen.

Newspapers and TV stations don't take submissions from readers and republish them unreviewed. And as unfeasible as it may technically seem, social media platforms won't be doing it for much longer either.

I expect the largest changes will be the removal of commenting functionality from a LOT of sites - youtube, news sites - and much stricter rules around verification of user sign ups so that sites must be able to trace back content to its creator to within a certain level of reliability.

Giveaway

Even with the current soft touch censorship, certain topics are not for open discussion. For example even academic discussion of Islam is suppressed. For example Tom Hollands documentary was pulled by Channel 4 because of online protest. I fear this quango proposed would be just another method to stifle debate(not just on islam).
Do we really want to enact another tool for the perpetually offended/outraged.

rgodard80a

The music / movie industry was always trying to get laws enacted to shut down any websites e.g. torrent sites that they considered to be sharing or promoting content sharing of copyright material.

As soon as the laws and processes are in place to censor arbitrary sites, they'd probably jump on to this, a few brown envelopes to increase the definition and scope of "internet safety".

Giveaway

seamus wrote: »

Ultimately the glory days for the likes of facebook are over. At the root of it, social media is not a hot-bed of enlightened research or astute journalism. It's an entertainment medium.

They can cry the "conduit" defence and it's a worthy one, but when you're making billions of dollars off it, then you can't claim you have no control or responsibility. Like any entertainment medium, they need to take full responsibility for what is shown on it.

In a decade, the notion that any platform will have millions of users with open and unfiltered access will seem incredibly foreign.

Between YouTube being used as a paedophile playground and Facebook allowing anti-vaxx propaganda to flourish, we now know that social media isn't just people exchanging free ideas and enjoying non-censorship. It's trolls, criminals and manipulators taking advantage of human nature and an unfiltered platform to spread disinformation to anyone who'll listen.

Newspapers and TV stations don't take submissions from readers and republish them unreviewed. And as unfeasible as it may technically seem, social media platforms won't be doing it for much longer either.

I expect the largest changes will be the removal of commenting functionality from a LOT of sites - youtube, news sites - and much stricter rules around verification of user sign ups so that sites must be able to trace back content to its creator to within a certain level of reliability.

So because of abuse by others, fundamental freedoms should be removed by all? Cars are being used in bank robberies. Remove all driving licences and insist on licenced cheuffers for all!

Autecher

Giveaway wrote: »

So because of abuse by others, fundamental freedoms should be removed by all? Cars are being used in bank robberies. Remove all driving licences and insist on licenced cheuffers for all!

But how would the chauffeurs drive without a licence? :pac:

I knew somebody would post this "nanny state" moronic nonsense.

These creeps are infiltrating more and more innocent videos for kids, and the comments underneath videos highlighting scenes and weirdos talking to children are very disturbing. Last week, I chose what I thought to be a standard Elsa/Frozen video for the 4-year-old and put it on. She adores Elsa, and she's her most inspirational superhero. It was 20 minutes or so long but a few minutes later I heard these weird sounds from it and looked at it and all these creepy weird scenes had been imposed on the innocuous video I had put on. I reported it, of course, but there is now so much of this ugliness imposed on little children on YouTube that something needs to be done. We need a safe YouTube for kids. How many of these "censorship" "nanny states" gobsh*tes would like their own beautiful little child to encounter this ugliness?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLP-P0_VSVc

Just to narrow things down on the one page, here's a Youtube search for "Elsa" and "creepy". This is happening across children's programming. What sort of person would make these videos to fúck with an impressionable child's mind? It is totally unacceptable that this is facilitated by YouTube, and that it repeatedly comes into "normal" videos is simply unacceptable to me and I suspect many, many other parents. If that makes us "prudes", so be it.

Another side to Elsa on YouTube

batgoat

Giveaway wrote: »

So because of abuse by others, fundamental freedoms should be removed by all? Cars are being used in bank robberies. Remove all driving licences and insist on licenced cheuffers for all!

Private businesses if not capable of dealing with dodgy **** posted on their platform, may be forced to remove the ability to post it. Not a violation of your freedom of speech, just an inability to control the monster they've created tbh. I suspect they can handle a lot of it via machine learning tbh.

seamus

What fundamental freedom?

Funny that you use cars. Yes, some people abuse cars. That's why you require a licence, and tax, and insurance, and an NCT. And why you are subject to very specific rules around the use of that car which can result in the privilege of using it being taken away from you.

Giveaway

Autecher wrote: »

But how would the chauffeurs drive without a licence? :pac:

Specially vetted licence..no evidence od wrongthink

Giveaway

The creeps will always infiltrate. Even the most totalitarian states pre internet had subversive grafitti. My argument is not against punishing illegal stufff but see the proposed mechanism as damgerous to subversion itself

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

Giveaway wrote: »

New quango proposed for internet safety will be able to order sites to take down content, backed up with criminal sanctions for failure to comply.

It's not quite so simple. It may work with Facebook, a multinational corporation with a headquarters in Ireland, but the Irish government does not have the legal authority to remove content from websites based outside the country or threaten legal penalties against their owners.

seamus

Eli Proud Ewe wrote: »

It's not quite so simple. It may work with Facebook, a multinational corporation with a headquarters in Ireland, but the Irish government does not have the legal authority to remove content from websites based outside the country or threaten legal penalties against their owners.

It's not really about shining lights in the dark corners of the web though in reality. They'll always exist. 4chan, despite being nothing but paedophiles and criminals at this point, hasn't been shut down. Because it's just not that mainstream.

The dark corners of the web have been there from the start and have never really been a major problem. It only became a major problem when unfiltered access became mainstream - facebook, twitter and youtube (and the rest). Because these aren't dark corners, they're not places you have to search to find, and as such the context is different. If you go to a dark corner, you expect to find dark things there. If you go into a bright room and find dark things there, they take on a whole other context, the become legitimised.

So while it's correct to say that websites outside of the country aren't really affected, realistically any site that is big enough to become mainstream will one way or another be subject to Irish or EU regulation.

It's the nature of communication that there's no real way that, say, a huge Chinese company like Weibo could become a major player in an English-speaking market by running the entire operation from China. The core of the business model is, like any entertainment medium, advertising. And you won't get many advertisers who will deal with a Chinese based company. And once they've established their sales/ads office in the EU, then they're stung.

dxhound2005

The internet is just another technology like snail mail, landline phones, newspapers TV and radio. Using any of these for malicious purposes e.g. poison pen letters or threatening phone calls is illegal. Newspapers, TV and radio are publishers who are subject to the laws of libel. Even in real life in a pub or at a football match complete freedom of speech is not allowed. Someone can be reported and prosecuted for something they say.

The internet is another publisher, and is subject to the same laws. The individuals who misuse it, like individuals who misuse a landline phone, are breaking existing laws, and they are the ones who should be prosecuted.

z6vm1dobfnca3x

Giveaway wrote: »

Raging listenimg to the radio this morning. New quango proposed for internet safety will be able to order sites to take down content, backed up with criminal sanctions for failure to comply.
I suspect if enacted there will be inevitable mission creep, for example liaising with various interest groups to identify what is wrongthink. Why not beef up the film censors powers while you are at it and let the Iona institute deside what is offensive...am pretty sick of Life of Brian reruns too. Also paying for other peoples' condoms too. F OFF. RANT OVER

Sounds exactly like boards.ie

jackofalltrades

@Seamus

So your avatar takes the piss out of a politician that called for censorship and internet restrictions based on hysterical nonsense.
And know you're on here doing the same. Bravo.

Annasopra

Eli Proud Ewe wrote: »

It's not quite so simple. It may work with Facebook, a multinational corporation with a headquarters in Ireland, but the Irish government does not have the legal authority to remove content from websites based outside the country or threaten legal penalties against their owners.

I think there will ptobably be EU legislation at some stage.

Zorya

jackofalltrades wrote: »

@Seamus

So your avatar takes the piss out of a politician that called for censorship and internet restrictions based on hysterical nonsense.
And know you're on here doing the same. Bravo.

Who is that avatar? I don't watch TV so I don't know, probably someone famous. Thought it was a man with a wig at first, reverse search gives ''girl''. Hope it's not someone I should know... :P Very annoying looking face though.

The J Stands for Jay

Zorya wrote: »

Who is that avatar? I don't watch TV so I don't know, probably someone famous. Thought it was a man with a wig at first, reverse search gives ''girl''. Hope it's not someone I should know... :P Very annoying looking face though.

Isn't she yet I've who doesn't pay for train tickets or road tax or something?

Zorya

McGaggs wrote: »

Isn't she yet I've who doesn't pay for train tickets or road tax or something?

This really helps me out :pac:

The J Stands for Jay

Zorya wrote: »

This really helps me out :pac:

I think she's the one who said fraping is when you are raped on Facebook.

Zorya

McGaggs wrote: »

I think she's the one who said fraping is when you are raped on Facebook.

*Googles ''Fraping + Irish Politician''

Aha! Senator Fidelma Healy Eames.

Thanks, McGaggs.