Police to get tough on internet trolls.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I just wondered after you said it would be based on what you'd been told that Hitler had done to other people. I wondered whether you thought that, because of this, there was a possibility that the accounts of the holocaust were false.

You need a decent run up to make that leap.

Originally Posted by Pierre

You need a decent run up to make that leap.

You would need bionic legs.

[RichardCoulter]

Twitter have deployed an algorithm to try and spot posts that appear to be aggressive. When they are spotted, the sender receives a prompt to be more considerate.

They found that 9% were removed, 22% were revised and 69% remained unchanged.

It's the first item where they review the papers and this was reported in the Guardian:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0018khg

[RichardCoulter]

This case, where a 13 year old autustic boy was was murdered by two 14 year olds as after he apparently offended one of them on social media, was highlighted on the BBC this morning:

https://www.gbnews.uk/news/olly-step...ear-old/131979

What can happen with neuro diverse people is that they can inadvertently offend someone without meaning to or realising it and this is what may have happened here.

It is hoped that the Online Safety Bill will protect others from being subject to the violence and hate that Olly was exposed to.

It's suspected that young people are becoming desensitised to violence due to the sharing on videos that suggest violence.

Nadine Dorries has stated that material that is legal, but harmful, will shortly be defined to enable websites to comply with this.

Failure to do so could be dealt with by fines and those who fail to demonstrate to Ofcom that they are doing something about this risk becoming criminally liable and going to prison.

It's from about 0:22:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0018kfc

This will be covered in more depth in tonight's Panorama on BBC1 at 8pm.

[peanut]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

This case, where a 13 year old autustic boy was was murdered by two 14 year olds as after he apparently offended one of them on social media, was highlighted on the BBC this morning:

https://www.gbnews.uk/news/olly-step...ear-old/131979

What can happen with neuro diverse people is that they can inadvertently offend someone without meaning to or realising it and this is what may have happened here.

It is hoped that the Online Safety Bill will protect others from being subject to the violence and hate that Olly was exposed to.

It's suspected that young people are becoming desensitised to violence due to the sharing on videos that suggest violence.

Nadine Dorries has stated that material that is legal, but harmful, will shortly be defined to enable websites to comply with this.

Failure to do so could be dealt with by fines and those who fail to demonstrate to Ofcom that they are doing something about this risk becoming criminally liable and going to prison.

It's from about 0:22:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0018kfc

This will be covered in more depth in tonight's Panorama on BBC1 at 8pm.

Starts from 23min in.

It is a tragic case, but whilst social media has a lot to blame it isn't the cause. Take the Bulger case etc.

I don't understand in the reports things like 'The trial was held in special conditions, with frequent breaks and counsel removing their gowns and wigs, due to the defendants’ ages.' Or not naming them because of their age. If they are guilty then age shouldn't come into it and should be named, shamed and made an example.

If you can knife a kid or anyone at any age, then I can't see what social media or any restrictions to it will make the slightest bit of difference. Social background and the lack of discipline these days when it comes to children has more of an effect than social media.

And I haven't got a clue to why stating someone with neuro whatever has got to do it this or anything.

[RichardCoulter]

Olly was neuro diverse, which is ultimately why he was murdered.

It's said that he offended one of his murderers by posting something on social media. It's often the case that neuro diverse people can inadvertently offend people without meaning to or knowing it.

Someone called Osem used to post on here and I remember him saying that his autistic son had said something that was inappropriately honest, so he had to try and explain that, whilst what he was saying was true, people don't take too kindly to some things being said and that it could land him in trouble or even serious danger.

[peanut]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Olly was neuro diverse, which is ultimately why he was murdered.

It's said that he offended one of his murderers by posting something on social media. It's often the case that neuro diverse people can inadvertently offend people without meaning to or knowing it.

Someone called Osem used to post on here and I remember him saying that his autistic son had said something that was inappropriately honest, so he had to try and explain that, whilst what he was saying was true, people don't take too kindly to some things being said and that it could land him in trouble or serious danger.

So he defended someone. And.... So are you saying someone who is not 'neuro diverse' wouldn't have defended someone on social media? Blimey I say things that offend others all too often but there's nothing wrong with my noggin.

[RichardCoulter]

Obviously, it's possible for a neuro typical person to offend someone, but the difference is that they usually know that they are doing it and/or actively go out to be offensive.

It's worth noting that, as neuro diverse conditions are now being picked up in children more successfully, it's now though that some conditions could be genetic.

Some parents of affected children have also been diagnosed with conditions such as aspergers syndrome and say that it explains so many problematic things that have occurred during their life.

There must be a lot of people out there who don't believe that they are neuro diverse, but actually are, because they've never been tested or had a formal diagnosis. Some years ago this actually happened to a friend of mine. He described himself as one who "says it as it is" and "who speaks his mind" and couldn't understand anyone who didn't do the same thing.

However, it turned out that he had aspergers and says that this explains why his relationships and friendships never lasted and why he was lonely, so he's now trying to moderate his remarks or not say anything at all in various situations.

[peanut]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Obviously, it's possible for a neuro typical person to offend someone, but the difference is that they usually know that they are doing it and/or actively go out to be offensive.

It's worth noting that, as neuro diverse conditions are now being picked up in children more successfully, it's now though that some conditions could be genetic.

Some parents of affected children have also been diagnosed with conditions such as aspergers syndrome and say that it explains so many problematic things that have occurred during their life.

There must be a lot of people out there who don't believe that they are neuro diverse, but actually are, because they've never been tested or had a formal diagnosis. Some years ago this actually happened to a friend of mine. He described himself as one who "says it as it is" and "who speaks his mind" and couldn't understand anyone who didn't do the same thing.

However, it turned out that he had aspergers and says that this explains why his relationships and friendships never lasted and why he was lonely, so he's now trying to moderate his remarks or not say anything at all in various situations.

What happened could have happened to anyone. It wasn't because of his neuro problems it was because the others were just scum. Why can't you understand that.

On here it is very moderated, speaking your mind will probably offend others and you're not really allowed to say exactly what you're thinking either. But in real life, I value those that do speak their mind, be direct and are honest. It has nothing to do with Neuro bollocks, so please give it a rest.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Obviously, it's possible for a neuro typical person to offend someone, but the difference is that they usually know that they are doing it and/or actively go out to be offensive.

.

Richard, how would the new legislation have stopped this boy from offending someone?It wouldn’t, and if the people who were upset couldn’t post their responses, they would have confronted him physically.

The Bill would create a raft of unforeseen consequences and it needs to be ditched.

If people are easily offended, maybe they should be discouraged from using social media.

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Richard, how would the new legislation have stopped this boy from offending someone?It wouldn’t, and if the people who were upset couldn’t post their responses, they would have confronted him physically.

The Bill would create a raft of unforeseen consequences and it needs to be ditched.

If people are easily offended, maybe they should be discouraged from using social media.

Couldn't agree more.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by peanut

What happened could have happened to anyone. It wasn't because of his neuro problems it was because the others were just scum. Why can't you understand that.

On here it is very moderated, speaking your mind will probably offend others and you're not really allowed to say exactly what you're thinking either. But in real life, I value those that do speak their mind, be direct and are honest. It has nothing to do with Neuro bollocks, so please give it a rest.

If he hadn't of been neuro diverse, he would probably have worded the remarks differently or not made them at all.

The murderers are indeed scum for not taking his disability into account and reacting in the way that they did.

The social media murder is now available online:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0018kg6

---------- Post added at 17:58 ---------- Previous post was at 17:54 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Richard, how would the new legislation have stopped this boy from offending someone?It wouldn’t, and if the people who were upset couldn’t post their responses, they would have confronted him physically.

The Bill would create a raft of unforeseen consequences and it needs to be ditched.

If people are easily offended, maybe they should be discouraged from using social media.

They did confront him physically- they murdered him!

How it's believed that the Online Harms Bill would have helped is included in the programme, which is now available on the iPlayer:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0018kg6

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

They did confront him physically- they murdered him!

How it's believed that the Online Harms Bill would have helped is included in the programme, which is now available on the iPlayer:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0018kg6

They would just have confronted him earlier, Richard.

The point I was making was that the proposed Online Harms legislation would not have prevented him from offending someone.

---------- Post added at 20:04 ---------- Previous post was at 19:59 ----------

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

The murderers are indeed scum for not taking his disability into account and reacting in the way that they did.

Unfortunately, it would be a stretch for murderers to consider the Equality Act before deciding to murder someone. I very much doubt they would have completed a risk assessment either.

I’m not making light of this, Richard, but the argument that you are putting forward has no alignment with reality.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Obviously, it's possible for a neuro typical person to offend someone, but the difference is that they usually know that they are doing it and/or actively go out to be offensive.

Offence is taken, not given. It’s totally subjective.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

They would just have confronted him earlier, Richard.

The point I was making was that the proposed Online Harms legislation would not have prevented him from offending someone.

---------- Post added at 20:04 ---------- Previous post was at 19:59 ----------



Unfortunately, it would be a stretch for murderers to consider the Equality Act before deciding to murder someone. I very much doubt they would have completed a risk assessment either.

I’m not making light of this, Richard, but the argument that you are putting forward has no alignment with reality.

No one should be murdered. Period. Let's all agree on that.

Richard's just asking people to be sensible and consider the neuro diversity of the person whose words could be considered offensive before jumping to conclusions.