Online Safety Bill

[peanut]

Originally Posted by jfman

What's this got to do with online harm?

It could be said it's the state of Gen Zs today due to factors like the influences of social media perhaps?

Quote ''However keen, they arrive at interview – if they turn up – asking what my company can do for them rather than what they can offer. No doubt youngsters see influencers on social media working from a beach, and believe they should be able to do the same.'

[jfman]

Heaven forbid a worker wants to know what’s in it for them with an employer. If that employer wants to be honest and say a zero hour contract on the minimum wage then that’s within their gift.

The non-attendance at interviews thing is interesting. Would be intriguing to see the underlying dataset for it. My guess would be websites with individuals applying for roles on and industrial scale (via a recruitment website) then only considering the ones that offer an interview. A bit like swiping yes to everyone on tinder and vetting the matches.

A comparison with the non-attendance figure for more traditional recruitment methods - direct contact with the employer at an early stage, perhaps dealing with a named person (the recruiting manager or someone in HR) I suspect would be revealing.

Blaming social media for that outcome is just jumping on a useful bandwagon.

[peanut]

Originally Posted by jfman

Blaming social media for that outcome is just jumping on a useful bandwagon.

I don't disagree with you but there is probably a link. Are they (Gen Zs) just lazy, a change in attitudes towards work, or just not equipped to deal with real life. It has to stem from something. Such as...

"One possible reason why Gen Z employees take more sick leave than other employees in the UK is their increased awareness of mental health issues (Up to 1 sick day a week). A recent study by Deloitte found that Gen Z is more likely to seek help for mental health problems than previous generations."

https://hrdocbox.co.uk/article-full....e-uk-workplace

Add this to the other link that states " This ‘rising tide’ of mental health issues is, I fear, largely driven by self-diagnosis and social media "

It does seems that Gen Z's are getting a lot of stick right now that's for sure.

[jfman]

It’s almost as if there is an election coming up that will pit the interests of generations against each other.

[peanut]

I must admit that this is a really disturbing read...

'Revealed: the names linked to ClothOff, the deepfake pornography app' - The Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...inked-revealed

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by peanut

I don't disagree with you but there is probably a link. Are they (Gen Zs) just lazy, a change in attitudes towards work, or just not equipped to deal with real life. It has to stem from something. Such as...

"One possible reason why Gen Z employees take more sick leave than other employees in the UK is their increased awareness of mental health issues (Up to 1 sick day a week). A recent study by Deloitte found that Gen Z is more likely to seek help for mental health problems than previous generations."

https://hrdocbox.co.uk/article-full....e-uk-workplace

Add this to the other link that states " This ‘rising tide’ of mental health issues is, I fear, largely driven by self-diagnosis and social media "

It does seems that Gen Z's are getting a lot of stick right now that's for sure.

One day’s sick leave a week? Sounds like a good wheeze.

I think most employers wouldn’t touch them with a barge pole.

---------- Post added at 19:35 ---------- Previous post was at 19:30 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

Heaven forbid a worker wants to know what’s in it for them with an employer. If that employer wants to be honest and say a zero hour contract on the minimum wage then that’s within their gift.

The non-attendance at interviews thing is interesting. Would be intriguing to see the underlying dataset for it. My guess would be websites with individuals applying for roles on and industrial scale (via a recruitment website) then only considering the ones that offer an interview. A bit like swiping yes to everyone on tinder and vetting the matches.

A comparison with the non-attendance figure for more traditional recruitment methods - direct contact with the employer at an early stage, perhaps dealing with a named person (the recruiting manager or someone in HR) I suspect would be revealing.

Blaming social media for that outcome is just jumping on a useful bandwagon.

What’s in it for them? So the employer should be thanking employees now for the courtesy of even applying for a job? Talk about perverse! The money is what’s in it for them, that’s what!

As for your zero hours contracts comment, that’s a matter of individual choice. If you don’t want insecurity of hours allocated to you, go for a permanent contract offering a basic wage or salary. Zero hours contracts are for people who want flexibility of their working hours.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

What’s in it for them? So the employer should be thanking employees now for the courtesy of even applying for a job? Talk about perverse! The money is what’s in it for them, that’s what!

As for your zero hours contracts comment, that’s a matter of individual choice. If you don’t want insecurity of hours allocated to you, go for a permanent contract offering a basic wage or salary. Zero hours contracts are for people who want flexibility of their working hours.

It is indeed a matter of individual choice - so if a potential employee wants to take their labour elsewhere or, having done more research on a company decides to not attend the interview, that's their right to do so.

Contracts for people who wants flexibility tend to be called "flexible working" or "flexi-time". Zero hour contracts are just a way to exploit the low paid - unsurprising you are in support!

[RichardCoulter]

After being sexually assaulted a woman called Olivia Deramus opened what she describes as 'A safe online space for women' called Communia.

Please be advised that this feature contains references to sexual assault and the upset it causes. From about 0:13:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001t72n

It also features a report on Twitter where, since the removal of content moderation, homophobic, sexist & racist content was reported, but no action was taken. All they did was tell them to use the block feature, which they found to be unacceptable. One of the priorities of Ofcom will be to make websites comply with their own rules on such behaviour.

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

After being sexually assaulted a woman called Olivia Deramus opened what she describes as 'A safe online space for women' called Communia.

Please be advised that this feature contains references to sexual assault and the upset it causes. From about 0:13:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001t72n

It also features a report on Twitter where, since the removal of content moderation, homophobic, sexist & racist content was reported, but no action was taken. All they did was tell them to use the block feature, which they found to be unacceptable. One of the priorities of Ofcom will be to make websites comply with their own rules on such behaviour.

So two things jump out at me there - they were unhappy being told to take some responsibility in their life and block stuff they don't like, and secondly just how are OFCOM going to make companies like X comply with our rules?

[RichardCoulter]

Is understanding – even forgiveness of internet trolls possible?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/
m001wq7n

This programme also looks at the case of Joey Barton who started trolling Eni Aluko
who is now suing him for libel.

It also looks at how people think it's fine to troll people online, whereas they wouldn't
say it to their face verbally.

Once one person does it, others come crawling out of the woodwork to pile on
the victim and this is a well known phenomenon. In essence, they are deflecting their own feelings of inferiority onto others to make themselves feel better. They are unable to discuss matters in a mature fashion & resort to making things personal and abusive.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

It also looks at how people think it's fine to troll people online, whereas they wouldn't say it to their face verbally.

Many of the ones I've seen would, they are not the brightest sparks.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

In essence, they are deflecting their own feelings of inferiority on to others to make themselves feel better.

That's an opinion, not fact, and again, many of the ones I've come across very much think they are superior.

[RichardCoulter]

I'm not into football as much as yourself, what do you think about Joey Barton?

From the little that i've seen of him he seemed to be a bit of a cheeky footballer, but I never had him down as doing what he's done.

If he doesn't like Eni Aluko as a commentator, that's fair enough, but to troll her like he has is out of order.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

but to troll her like he has is out of order.

How has he ‘trolled’ her?

[peanut]

Originally Posted by Pierre

How has he ‘trolled’ her?

Said something like... "How is she even talking about Men’s football. She can’t even kick a ball properly. ����

Your coverage of the game EFC last night, took it to a new low.

Eni Aluko and Lucy Ward, the Fred and Rose West of football commentary. "

And...

"After receiving a barrage of abuse, he described men who stand up for female commentators as eunuchs and added: “Stand by everything I’ve said on Women commenting and co-comms on the Men’s football.

“Like me talking about Knitting or Netball. Way out of my comfort zone.

“Some of the Men are bad enough!

“We have gone too far. You cannot watch a game now without hearing the nonsense.

“Any man who says otherwise is an absolute fart parcel.”

That said, he is a nobhead, and there'll always be nobheads. It depends on your ability to ignore those nobheads. But to say Eni Aluko was too scared to leave the house is a bit over the top. Anyone from an outsider's view could take that as a bit of an over reaction, to the point where you do think she's a bit pathetic. That's just just seems a way these days to gain the attention and the ammo for any legal issues. But seems to be the norm these days.

Still I'm a firm believer if you've got nothing good to say, then best to say nothing at all.

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by peanut

Still I'm a firm believer if you've got nothing good to say, then best to say nothing at all.

If only .