Police to get tough on internet trolls.

[RichardCoulter]

Just been listening to this programme:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct2kyf

It seems that some sites are having difficulty reconciling the right to free speech with the rights of people to be protected from harmful content.

This looks to me to be due to AI not getting things right. When the new laws come into effect, it's not going to be possible to manually oversee & moderate every post with the millions that are made every day. I think that improving the AI used to do this, with the right of appeal to a properly trained moderator should one disagree would improve this to a great extent.

What seems to have been happening is that posts are being automatically deleted by AI with posters sometimes facing negative sanctions, even when it's been deemed to have simply been viewed as a possible problematic subject.

This programme takes an interesting look at both sides of the argument:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct1nj0

[Mad Max]

This has been done to death imo.

[OLD BOY]

I think this will prove to be unworkable.

[Sirius]

The crux of the matter is who the hell thinks they should make the decision on what i can and cannot see on the internet as a 61 year old adult. Is this the fabled group who are offended on my behalf because i do not seem to be offended by what they think i should be offended about ?

It is getting more like this everyday

BTW it seems i have to make the following statement as "there is swearing in the video". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dz4HEEiJuGo

To be honest it makes my point that the offended are running the world

I love that film

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Paul

I love that film

And me i just worry we are heading that way.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Sirius

And me i just worry we are heading that way.

nah, nowhere near it . . . although if you drop a sweetie wrapper in the street it gets you a fine, whereas a professional footballer spitting and snotting on the pitch on live TV pays you at least £100k a week

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Sirius

The crux of the matter is who the hell thinks they should make the decision on what i can and cannot see on the internet as a 61 year old adult. Is this the fabled group who are offended on my behalf because i do not seem to be offended by what they think i should be offended about ?

It is getting more like this everyday

BTW it seems i have to make the following statement as "there is swearing in the video". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dz4HEEiJuGo

To be honest it makes my point that the offended are running the world

These new laws aim to protect the vulnerable, including children, from harmful content.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

These new laws aim to protect the vulnerable, including children, from harmful content.

Isn't that what an 18 category used to do?

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Carth

Isn't that what an 18 category used to do?

Do you think that children should be excluded from the internet until they are 18? If so, they will often find ways to gain access. What about those over 18 who are vulnerable?

I do hope that this is a success as, if it isn't, I fear that the days of people being able to interact freely could be numbered.

Many people have proved themselves incapable or unwilling to self regulate, either forgetting or relishing the fact that there is a person at the other end of a keyboard. Attempts to make site owners behave more responsibly and protect the vulnerable have failed miserably.

If this fails, for whatever reason, the next step could be to ban anonymous postings or even ban the ability to interact freely without pre moderation of all posts.

It sounds drastic, but we cannot continue with a situation where people are being harassed, insulted, bullied etc, sometimes to the point of suicide.

It's also important to keep in mind that the vast majority won't be impacted by this. They will continue to post in a polite, respectful and friendly manner when interacting with others.

[Blackshep]

Should there be different content for adults of course there should and don't start talking about limiting children on the internet as you talk about limiting what you don't like. It's clear you've had a very bad experience in the past Richard that your unable to truly move on from but supporting legislative overreach to in your mind guarantee it won't happen again is not the way to go. If this goes through how will you educate or inform people with negative views on disability if they can't express themselves and in doing so show they need education?.

So Richard where do you stand on sex education?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

These new laws aim to protect the vulnerable, including children, from harmful content.

Yes, Richard, but if the laws go too far, the implications are unacceptable. There is a difference between behaviour that is designed to cause hurt, anxiety and suffering, and normal behaviour, which is to challenge the opinions expressed by others.

The 'right to be offended' brigade take exception to referring to non-white people as 'coloured' but are happy for them to be referred to as 'people of colour'. What kind of idiotic nonsense is this?

People who deliberately cause offence to others in a malicious way need to be dealt with, but we don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, do we?

---------- Post added at 11:02 ---------- Previous post was at 10:58 ----------

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I do hope that this is a success as, if it isn't, I fear that the days of people being able to interact freely could be numbered.

I am afraid that this is probably the likely outcome of this proposed legislation. The law of unintended consequences.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Do you think that children should be excluded from the internet until they are 18?

That would be incredibly stupid, and impossible to do.
Also, what is so special about 18 ? Does something magic happen on the day people turn 18 ?

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I do hope that this is a success as, if it isn't, I fear that the days of people being able to interact freely could be numbered.

Um, thats exactly what such rules would achieve, by design they would block 'free interaction'.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Attempts to make site owners behave more responsibly and protect the vulnerable have failed miserably.

Site owners are not responsible for what people post.
If you get hate mail its not the fault of the postman that delivered it.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

If this fails, for whatever reason, the next step could be to ban anonymous postings or even ban the ability to interact freely without pre moderation of all posts.

You have totally lost the plot now.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

It's also important to keep in mind that the vast majority won't be impacted

So this is a small minority issue then, so not really a problem at all, and certainly not in need of ridiculous actions.

[Sirius]

Maybe we need a new forum section for people to post there personal agender threads in