Police to get tough on internet trolls.

[Qtx]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

To make it clear for you, I believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion on this matter.

But the problem with this new law is people will not be able to give their opinion on certain things if it goes against what is considered acceptable by a majority or if someone claims it's offensive. Or it will be deleted by a mod in case their site falls foul of this new potential law.

So people will not be able to give their honest opinion on many things. Something you think everyone should be entitled too.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Qtx

But the problem with this new law is people will not be able to give their opinion on certain things if it goes against what is considered acceptable by a majority or if someone claims it's offensive. Or it will be deleted by a mod in case their site falls foul of this new potential law.

So people will not be able to give their honest opinion on many things. Something you think everyone should be entitled too.

Nothing will change for the vast majority of people who use the internet appropriately and responsibly. They will still be able to express their views in a respectful and considered manner.

Those who like to use the Internet to try and make life uncomfortable for, say, minority groups with the use of inappropriate and offensive language/attitudes, groom children for sexual gratification, scam people out of their hard earned savings etc are the only ones who will be affected.

Last Saturday on Talk TV, someone actually complained that this legislation would mean that people "would have to think about it before they said something"!!!

For the record, i've never seen any of your posts that would breach the new law.

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

For the record, i've never seen any of your posts that would breach the new law.

And it's arrogant statements like that you'll find winds people up, but fortunately apart from maybe in your own world you won't be doing any moderating or deciding on the appropriateness of otherwise of posts.

Also I don't think the sense of glee that's been coming across in your recent posts is doing much to endear you to others - you know the continued 'you had your chance to comment so tough luck you didn't' type posts.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

And it's arrogant statements like that you'll find winds people up, but fortunately apart from maybe in your own world you won't be doing any moderating or deciding on the appropriateness of otherwise of posts.

Also I don't think the sense of glee that's been coming across in your recent posts is doing much to endear you to others - you know the continued 'you had your chance to comment so tough luck you didn't' type posts.

As you are aware, I have cognitive issues and do acknowledge that this can affect my thinking and the way that I express myself.

As a result, I have had my posts independently checked by a facilitator for the allegations that you have made and have been reassured that they have no basis in fact, apart from the statement that I am not a moderator on this forum, which has never been claimed in the first place.

It is correct to say that people did have the chance to contribute towards the consultation at the appropriate time and that I alerted people to this in the thread.

At least one person did contribute to the consultation. I am pleased that they did as it was important that as wide a spectrum of views were taken into account.

[Qtx]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

For the record, i've never seen any of your posts that would breach the new law.

These laws are so open to interpretation that what seems harmless to one person, another can claim it is offensive.

For instance I made a post recently where I complained about almost every new tv series and movie being woke and gave examples, such as shoe-horning in the fact the main character (ignoring the fact she shouldn't have been the main character of the movie...) had two mothers rather than the traditional family makeup. I might have gone on to say something about Stranger things getting in a Lesbian crush in for their wokeness in the first episode of the new series.

While my issue is not with these things directly, but the forced nature of it in almost every bit of new media released, I am sure someone would take offence and say that I am homophobic or that it is hate speech.

Some people will think twice about offering such an opinion if they think they are going to get in trouble for it, which is the chilling effect we are talking about. Some forums will choose to moderate innocent opinions rather than have to worry about a potential law suit because they are not sure if it falls foul of any new vague law.

Just a simple example where your opinion on what is said might differ from what someone else might think. Remember, some people are professionals at being upset on other peoples behalves too.

I'm sure mods/admins here would have their own opinion if I have done something that breaks any laws...but sometimes moderation is not the best choice.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Qtx

These laws are so open to interpretation that what seems harmless to one person, another can claim it is offensive.

For instance I made a post recently where I complained about almost every new tv series and movie being woke and gave examples, such as shoe-horning in the fact the main character (ignoring the fact she shouldn't have been the main character of the movie...) had two mothers rather than the traditional family makeup. I might have gone on to say something about Stranger things getting in a Lesbian crush in for their wokeness in the first episode of the new series.

While my issue is not with these things directly, but the forced nature of it in almost every bit of new media released, I am sure someone would take offence and say that I am homophobic or that it is hate speech.

Some people will think twice about offering such an opinion if they think they are going to get in trouble for it, which is the chilling effect we are talking about. Some forums will choose to moderate innocent opinions rather than have to worry about a potential law suit because they are not sure if it falls foul of any new vague law.

Just a simple example where your opinion on what is said might differ from what someone else might think. Remember, some people are professionals at being upset on other peoples behalves too.

I'm sure mods/admins here would have their own opinion if I have done something that breaks any laws...but sometimes moderation is not the best choice.

You make a very good point, i'll respond properly in a bit (this heat is really affecting me).

[RichardCoulter]

I know what you mean, this could possibly come under the 'Legal, but harmful' provisions of the bill.

I am on a forum where a member fell foul of something similar because the forum now prohibits posts that criticise any efforts to combat racism.

They said something in the same vein along the lines that, as every TV programme rushes to virtue signal how inclusive they are, where there were no black people involved, they are now stuffing them full of them to the point of it being unnatural in dramas or black people being over represented on panel shows.

He went on to say that they have gone from one unrealistic scenario to another.

I remember the writer of Midsummer Murders responded to claims of a lack of diversity because there were no people of colour in the drama retorted that, in the place where it is set, in real life there wouldn't be any people of colour living there.

I'd like to think that common sense would prevail in the process which, as I understand it at this point, is for people to report posts in the usual manner peculiar to the relevant website. If the complainant is not happy with the outcome, they can escalate it to the site owner or their formal representative. If they remain dissatisfied, they can then escalate their complaint to Ofcom who can uphold the complaint partially or in full or dismiss it and order the website to carry out any action that they require. If they don't comply, negative sanctions come in to play, including the closure of the website, fines, imprisonment etc.

Website owners will also be required to take steps to prevent inappropriate material appearing in the first place, I assume that this means by the use of software*, banning known offenders etc.

*Facebook already have software in place, but as its software, it cannot distinguish between someone posting 'I'll kill you' for a friend posting a photograph of them when they were younger or a serious threat to kill, so they have taken on a lot more human moderators.

I don't believe that the complaint has to directly concern the complainant, it is enough for them to find the comments offensive, either to themselves or anyone else.

The police can be brought in at any time, but it's envisaged that this will only be done in the most serious of cases.

Existing legislation for things like libel, harrassment, discrimination etc will still be available through the judicial system.

I haven't seen any mention of any appeals process for website owners, moderators etc who disagree with any decision or decision to punish them, but I would assume and hope that there will be.

One of the contenders to be the next Prime Minister, Kemi Badenoch, who had concerns about the legal, but harmful provisions of the bill has just been ousted from the contest, but this does show that elected representatives are, quite rightly, examining the bill and raising any concern that they have and it will, of course, have to pass through the House of Lords for consideration too.

Originally Posted by joglynne

I voiced my reservations during the official consutation stage.

I do not feel the need to enter into any discussion on the forum or to be the target for people such as yourself who can not accept that other people may have justifiable reservations as to the harm, and subsequent consequences, that this proposed legislation may well have in the futue.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

One of the contenders to be the next Prime Minister, Kemi Badenoch, who had concerns about the legal, but harmful provisions of the bill has just been ousted from the contest, but this does show that elected representatives are, quite rightly, examining the bill and raising any concern that they have and it will, of course, have to pass through the House of Lords for consideration too.

I suspect that this Bill will be dead in the water when the next PM is appointed.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I suspect that this Bill will be dead in the water when the next PM is appointed.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f...ands-f066vxtm8

Liz Truss will revise online safety laws to ensure they do not damage freedom of speech if she wins the Tory leadership contest, her supporters said.

Allies said she would not scrap the Online Safety Bill as it was essential to protect children from online harm but signalled that she would tweak it as “we need to be careful to not damage freedom of speech”.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Hugh

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f...ands-f066vxtm8

Has anyone heard what/if Rishi Sunak has had to say about it?

These are the remaining two people that Tory party members will be voting for to be the next PM.

It was heartbreaking to see this broken man on television today after it's believed that his daughter committed suicide after being bullied online.

The representative from the NSPCC said that the Online Safety Bill would speed up the requirement of websites to hand over details of offenders:

This report is a little confusing as Dermot O'Leary said at the beginning that websites aren't currently required to hand over details, but they are, it's just that the process can be long and drawn out as websites are more concerned about their reputation than dealing with bullies/trolls.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mir...o-27528819.amp

---------- Post added 21-07-2022 at 00:54 ---------- Previous post was 20-07-2022 at 23:22 ----------

The final feature on today's Woman's Hour was about internet equality. It was said that women are twenty seven times more likely to be harassed online and that this is much worse for black women.

It was also said that for any woman in the public eye who is online, it is now inevitable that they will receive abuse. In particular, this is a threat to political democracy and participation; websites must do more to improve the safety of women online. More equality is needed in the technology sector for women of colour and from the LBGT community so that they are put into positions of power and influence:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0019b8k

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

More equality is needed in the technology sector for women of colour and from the LBGT community so that they are put into positions of power and influence

Good grief, and you/they wonder why abuse happens.

Postions of power (or any position) should be given based on ABILITY, not if they are a woman, black, or lesbian.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Paul

Good grief, and you/they wonder why abuse happens.

Postions of power (or any position) should be given based on ABILITY, not if they are a woman, black, or lesbian.

There is never any excuse for abuse.

I do agree that people should get jobs on merit, but I think that the idea is that, where people are of equal merit, then underrepresented groups should be prioritised.

The rationale is that non disabled, white, straight men have had the upper hand for a long time, so it's time to give those that have traditionally been oppressed a chance. Doing so should also assist in creating a fairer society in the longer term.

The contributor to the programme appeared to be saying that, having more women with power and influence (coupled with training) should in theory end up with tech companies taking issues faced by women being taken more seriously and acted upon to decrease the online abuse that women face.

[Mythica]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

There is never any excuse for abuse.

I do agree that people should get jobs on merit, but I think that the idea is that, where people are of equal merit, then underrepresented groups should be prioritised.

The rationale is that non disabled, white, straight men have had the upper hand for a long time, so it's time to give those that have traditionally been oppressed a chance. Doing so should also assist in creating a fairer society in the longer term.

The contributor to the programme appeared to be saying that, having more women with power and influence (coupled with training) should in theory end up with tech companies taking issues faced by women being taken more seriously and acted upon to decrease the online abuse that women face.

No they shouldn't. They should get it based on who you think will be better.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

There is never any excuse for abuse.

I do agree that people should get jobs on merit, but I think that the idea is that, where people are of equal merit, then underrepresented groups should be prioritised.

The rationale is that non disabled, white, straight men have had the upper hand for a long time, so it's time to give those that have traditionally been oppressed a chance. Doing so should also assist in creating a fairer society in the longer term.

The contributor to the programme appeared to be saying that, having more women with power and influence (coupled with training) should in theory end up with tech companies taking issues faced by women being taken more seriously and acted upon to decrease the online abuse that women face.

I don't see how this can be said to be an equality measure. It's not. It's preferential treatment, and that is not acceptable.