Police to get tough on internet trolls.

[RichardCoulter]

Vietnam is to make site owners verify a person's identity before they can post on user generated sites.

This is to help prevent scams and will also help to prevent trolling, harrassment etc.

Sounds like a good idea to me. If people are prepared to do/say something on the interbet, they should be prepared to explain why they did it and face the consequences and I will be mentioning this when I am next in contact with Ofcom. They will no longer be able to hide behind some silly made up name, instead they will be personally identifiable and connected to any inappropriate behaviour.

When their reputation, education/employment opportunities are at stake, i'm sure that their behaviour will improve dramatically.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Vietnam is to make site owners verify a person's identity before they can post on user generated sites.

This is to help prevent scams and will also help to prevent trolling, harrassment etc.

Sounds like a good idea to me. If people are prepared to do/say something on the interbet, they should be prepared to explain why they did it and face the consequences and I will be mentioning this when I am next in contact with Ofcom. They will no longer be able to hide behind some silly made up name, instead they will be personally identifiable and connected to any inappropriate behaviour.

When their reputation, education/employment opportunities are at stake, i'm sure that their behaviour will improve dramatically.

Sounds like fascism.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Vietnam is to make site owners verify a person's identity before they can post on user generated sites.

This is to help prevent scams and will also help to prevent trolling, harrassment etc.

Sounds like a good idea to me. If people are prepared to do/say something on the interbet, they should be prepared to explain why they did it and face the consequences and I will be mentioning this when I am next in contact with Ofcom. They will no longer be able to hide behind some silly made up name, instead they will be personally identifiable and connected to any inappropriate behaviour.

When their reputation, education/employment opportunities are at stake, i'm sure that their behaviour will improve dramatically.

When you start a proposal by using as an example a country whose Human Rights record is appalling, you may not be making the argument you think you are…

https://www.hrw.org/asia/vietnam

Vietnam’s human rights record remains dire in virtually all areas. The ruling Communist Party maintains a monopoly on political power and allows no challenge to its leadership. Basic rights are severely restricted, including freedoms of speech and the media, public assembly, association, and conscience and religion.

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Vietnam is to make site owners verify a person's identity before they can post on user generated sites.

This is to help prevent scams and will also help to prevent trolling, harrassment etc.

Sounds like a good idea to me. If people are prepared to do/say something on the interbet, they should be prepared to explain why they did it and face the consequences and I will be mentioning this when I am next in contact with Ofcom. They will no longer be able to hide behind some silly made up name, instead they will be personally identifiable and connected to any inappropriate behaviour.

When their reputation, education/employment opportunities are at stake, i'm sure that their behaviour will improve dramatically.

Be careful what you wish for, because you'd be required to follow the same signing up requirements so stuff you say could back to haunt you too. And let's face it, you've got form for the odd bit of unpopular (outspoken?) posting too. Just saying.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Vietnam is to make site owners verify a person's identity before they can post on user generated sites.

This is to help prevent scams and will also help to prevent trolling, harrassment etc.

Sounds like a good idea to me. If people are prepared to do/say something on the interbet, they should be prepared to explain why they did it and face the consequences and I will be mentioning this when I am next in contact with Ofcom. They will no longer be able to hide behind some silly made up name, instead they will be personally identifiable and connected to any inappropriate behaviour.

When their reputation, education/employment opportunities are at stake, i'm sure that their behaviour will improve dramatically.

Or more probably to ensure dissenters can be identified and punished and free speech deterred.

[Itshim]

Vietnam , really

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Vietnam is to make site owners verify a person's identity before they can post on user generated sites.

This is to help prevent scams and will also help to prevent trolling, harrassment etc.

LOL, seriously, you actually believe that bull ?

Its so they can identify anyone who posts things they dont like.

[Jaymoss]

another thing easily circumnavigated by a vpn

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

another thing easily circumnavigated by a vpn

Lets face it there are lots of ways to get around any restrictions that are put in place.

[RichardCoulter]

How would a VPN help if site owners are required to first verify the identity of a petson before they are allowed to post user generated content?

I accept the comments made about Vietnam, but the UK isn't like that.

Another measure that I have been asked to suggest at the next meeting is fir new recipients to have push payments delayed by 24chours. This would give the person time to think about or seek advice about what they have done and cancel the transfer of funds/contact their bank.

Sadly, the UK is now the most scammed place in the world and the most contacted place by organised scam call centres in Pakistan & Russia.

There is BBC evidence that the former are paying the police off and I'm sure that Putin will be happy to see our most vulnerable ripped off. Maybe funds from UK people are actually buying weapons yo fund this terrible war!!

---------- Post added at 21:58 ---------- Previous post was at 21:50 ----------

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

Be careful what you wish for, because you'd be required to follow the same signing up requirements so stuff you say could back to haunt you too. And let's face it, you've got form for the odd bit of unpopular (outspoken?) posting too. Just saying.

Being able to identify and trace thise making inappropriate comments etc isn't all about punishment.

This will also help to identify and obtain treatment for those doing it due to neuro diversity, mental health issues etc. In such cases it wouldn't be appropriate to publicly identify/humiliate them etc, but to ensure that support mechanisms are in place.

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

How would a VPN help if site owners are required to first verify the identity of a petson before they are allowed to post user generated content?

I accept the comments made about Vietnam, but the UK isn't like that.

Another measure that I have been asked to suggest at the next meeting is fir new recipients to have push payments delayed by 24chours. This would give the person time to think about or seek advice about what they have done and cancel the transfer of funds/contact their bank.

Sadly, the UK is now the most scammed place in the world and the most contacted place by organised scam call centres in Pakistan & Russia.

There is BBC evidence that the former are paying the police off and I'm sure that Putin will be happy to see our most vulnerable ripped off. Maybe funds from UK people are actually buying weapons yo fund this terrible war!!

---------- Post added at 21:58 ---------- Previous post was at 21:50 ----------



Being able to identify and trace thise making inappropriate comments etc isn't all about punishment.

This will also help to identify and obtain treatment for those doing it due to neuro diversity, mental health issues etc. In such cases it wouldn't be appropriate to publicly identify/humiliate them etc, but to ensure that support mechanisms are in place.

Because you are not in the country so the laws do not apply

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Being able to identify and trace thise making inappropriate comments etc isn't all about punishment.

This will also help to identify and obtain treatment for those doing it due to neuro diversity, mental health issues etc. In such cases it wouldn't be appropriate to publicly identify/humiliate them etc, but to ensure that support mechanisms are in place.

Where are all the people qualified to diagnose all these people going to come from?

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

Where are all the people qualified to diagnose all these people going to come from?

That's a good point, the resources allocated to mental health in this country is shameful.

---------- Post added at 06:07 ---------- Previous post was at 05:37 ----------

This programme outlines the history of and how the Online Safety Bill will regulate user generated content sites, search engines & pornography.

The aim will be to protect people, particularly the most vulnerable in society, from harmful & upsetting content, whilst allowing democratic debate to continue unhindered:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001lr9s

It's taken six years to ensure that the competing interests of the various lobby groups were all fairly taken into consideration. I myself have provided numerous examples as have others with opposing views. Together I believe that the the Bill will lead to a better internet experience for all whilst, at the same time, protecting free speech

[RichardCoulter]

Just to add to the above, the summing upat the end of this programme mirrors some of the comments made in this thread in that it's a shame that the onus will be put onto site operators instead of educating users as to what is('nt) appropriate to post.

Whilst I agree, it's a sad fact that this is unlikely to work. There will certainly be no harm in trying to educate users but, by fault or design, some would continue posting inappropriate text, images, videos etc regardless.

---------- Post added at 08:26 ---------- Previous post was at 08:16 ----------

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

Because you are not in the country so the laws do not apply

I understand what you're saying.

With regards to the UK I asked Ofcom if sites were to move abroad and/or use a VPN to circumvent tje new legislation, what would happen then as this would make a mockery of the new requirements.

It seems that they wouldn't go down the proscribing route, instead services that allow any offending website to exist would be dealt with instead, such as site hosting providers, advertisers etc.

If it were not possible to kill a weed, depriving it of light & water would be just as effective.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Just to add to the above, the summing upat the end of this programme mirrors some of the comments made in this thread in that it's a shame that the onus will be put onto site operators instead of educating users as to what is('nt) appropriate to post.

Whilst I agree, it's a sad fact that this is unlikely to work. There will certainly be no harm in trying to educate users but, by fault or design, some would continue posting inappropriate text, images, videos etc regardless.

---------- Post added at 08:26 ---------- Previous post was at 08:16 ----------



I understand what you're saying.

With regards to the UK I asked Ofcom if sites were to move abroad and/or use a VPN to circumvent tje new legislation, what would happen then as this would make a mockery of the new requirements.

It seems that they wouldn't go down the proscribing route, instead services that allow any offending website to exist would be dealt with instead, such as site hosting providers, advertisers etc.

If it were not possible to kill a weed, depriving it of light & water would be just as effective.

Deal with them… how?