Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
That assumes they will have to attract professionals trained moderators - I have seen no evidence there will be a legal requirement for them to do this (or for any sort of moderator...).
There will be a meeting next year to discuss issues - it’s a giant leap from that to what you’re proposing.
|
True, but this is what Germany have done and Ofcom seem to want to model their scheme upon theirs. Whilst there isn't a requirement for them to recruit an army of moderators, I think that the new 'duty of care' requirements will lead to this.
I've also attended a fair number of meetings regarding this and it does look like this is how the problem will be tackled by the sites, but you are correct, nothing definate has been decided yet.
---------- Post added at 20:12 ---------- Previous post was at 20:01 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
Richard, I was not being offensive. Read my post again. Why would you find anything offensive in my words?
You pick up on my use of the words 'sparring partners' and make me sound as though I was picking a fight. What I was doing was talking about those who seemed always to disagree with me on things, to our mutual enjoyment.
I think maybe you should re-visit your own posts over time and see whether these fit the bill of being 'kind' to others.
I am not out to pick fights, I am here to debate topics. If you don't want to hear alternative points of view to your own, don't post, and steer away from discussion forums.
We need to be tolerent of each other.
In answer to your question, I have answered it by saying that it is threats and threatening behaviour that should be looked into by the police. Anything less than that should not be. I am really quite offended by your post, but it is not a police matter, is it?
By your definition, we wouldn't be able to have any meaningful debates on here and we would all lose out as a result.
If I disagree with you, it is not personal, so stop taking it personally. Please.
|
I have no problem whatsover with discussing alternative points of view.
<comments removed>
Going back on topic, what type of threats do you think should be covered by this initiative and which shouldn't?
Do you think that abuse, harrassment etc should be covered or that vulnerable groups should be afforded more protection?