Police to get tough on internet trolls.

[OLD BOY]

I'm sorry, but to me, this seems like a woke's charter and will only succeed in diverting the police from going after criminals and curtailing free speech.

I expected better from a Conservative government. The wokes are winning and must be stopped.

Surely, there are better ways of protecting those who are vulnerable than going for these heavy handed measures.

But you live in "Woke"ingham - doesn't that make you a Wokey?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

But you live in "Woke"ingham - doesn't that make you a Wokey?

Probably, sadly.

More vague nonsense ...
"take steps to minimise the chance of such activity making it onto their websites in the first place"
Such as what exactly ?

Put a notice on the site "Please dont commit fraud, thanks" ?

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Paul

More vague nonsense ...
"take steps to minimise the chance of such activity making it onto their websites in the first place"
Such as what exactly ?

Put a notice on the site "Please don't commit fraud, thanks" ?

Crystal ball required for all website admins.

[RichardCoulter]

The right to free speech in relation to airing views that are no longer deemed acceptable in modern society, the right for people not to be offended by such views and the Online Harms Bill were discussed in this evenings Moral Maze:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0018xfd

---------- Post added at 23:03 ---------- Previous post was at 22:57 ----------

Originally Posted by Paul

More vague nonsense ...
"take steps to minimise the chance of such activity making it onto their websites in the first place"
Such as what exactly ?

Put a notice on the site "Please dont commit fraud, thanks" ?

In order to make sure that website owners/managers don't fall foul of the new legislation, Ofcom told me that a lot of sites are reevaluating their rules, acceptable use policies, moderation policies and undergoing training/retraining to fully understand their duties & responsibilities with regards to the Act.

[RichardCoulter]

The desire to clean up the internet seems to be spreading around the world:

- The EU Parliament has approved two bills designed to strengthen their rulebook. They include standards to tackle the spread of unlawful content online, with sites facing huge fines for violations as per BBC Click News from about 0.12;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0019832

- Japan has introduced a one year term of imprisonment for those who insult others online. This follows the death of a reality TV star who took his own life after becoming the target of online trolls:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn...cli/index.html

The problem is who gets to choose just what is inappropriate and are they fit to do the job.Freedom of speech is on the line here and in some countries it's pretty clear that the line is drawn in favour of non democratic governments.

"In other words I may not like what you have to say but I defend your right to say it."

Sort of attributed to Voltaire but recently claimed by others.

[RichardCoulter]

In the UK it will be the job of site owners/managers/admin/moderators to either spot and deal with inappropriate posts before they cause any problems or appropriately deal with any complaints that are received.

If they fail to do this, Ofcom will have a variety of powers open to them, such as fines & imprisonment. These sanctions for non compliance can also be used against individuals, not just the companies/individuals that own the sites.

This is why I think that training is essential before the act comes into force.

So who decides what is inappropriate? How do they get picked? Who picks them?Just who are TPTB who get to decide on our behalf and who got to pick them on our behalf?

If we can't trust our government not to lie,cheat,steal how can we trust them to pick anyone to oversee standards on the internet and not to pick people that will defend their outlook on standards.Whose standards are we,you,they defending?One size fits all NEVER works.People will be offended at the mildest of 'offences'.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Maggy

So who decides what is inappropriate? How do they get picked? Who picks them?Just who are TPTB who get to decide on our behalf and who got to pick them on our behalf?

If we can't trust our government not to lie,cheat,steal how can we trust them to pick anyone to oversee standards on the internet and not to pick people that will defend their outlook on standards.Whose standards are we,you,they defending?One size fits all NEVER works.People will be offended at the mildest of 'offences'.

Those who manage sites on the frontline will decide what is inappropriate or service users will alert them to posts that they believe are inappropriate. These people will be picked by the site owners or managers.

Any dispute that arises will be investigated by Ofcom who will go on to make a formal ruling as to what must happen next.

I believe that the head of Ofcom is appointed by the Government of the day (happy to be corrected) and the Government of the day is ultimately decided upon by ourselves.

When you look at it holistically, it's all very circular and, in effect, we all oversee each other to ensure that appropriate behaviour is maintained.

I did post about the consultation period where people could make representation about any concerns or make any suggestions, but unfortunately this has now expired.

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

In the UK it will be the job of site owners/managers/admin/moderators to either spot and deal with inappropriate posts before they cause any problems or appropriately deal with any complaints that are received.

If they fail to do this, Ofcom will have a variety of powers open to them, such as fines & imprisonment. These sanctions for non compliance can also be used against individuals, not just the companies/individuals that own the sites.

This is why I think that training is essential before the act comes into force.

You forgot to include dismiss the claim in Ofcoms variety of powers. Or do you think nobody makes frivolous complaints just because they can or out of spite or just because they don't agree with a completely reasonable post? What are the penalties going to be for repeated time wasters who think this new rule will give them carte blanche to spend their days complaining?

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

You forgot to include dismiss the claim in Ofcoms variety of powers. Or do you think nobody makes frivolous complaints just because they can or out of spite or just because they don't agree with a completely reasonable post? What are the penalties going to be for repeated time wasters who think this new rule will give them carte blanche to spend their days complaining?

Why on Earth would anyone do that? You have a very negative view of the world.

To my knowledge there won't be any penalties in the unlikely scenarios that you describe, not that I envisage that any will be needed.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Why on Earth would anyone do that? You have a very negative view of the world.

To my knowledge there won't be any penalties in the unlikely scenarios that you describe, not that I envisage that any will be needed.

The world and the internet is awash with the pettiest of people who will always complain to get back at a world they are mad at and because they think it is funny.You are the naivest of anyone I've met on the internet if you think everyone is straight forward and honest on the web.

[RichardCoulter]

The best way to deal with these sort of people is to not give them any reason to complain by complying fully with the Act when it becomes law.

They then won't have any grounds to complain and their complaints will be dismissed by Ofcom.

The majority of posts from most people are non discriminatory, considered, kind, empathetic, polite and respectful, so won't be affected in any way.