1 to 20 of 20rss feed

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Long overdue.
The Mekon and his crew don't have the talent for this stuff.
No no no, censorship is wrong. It doesn't matter what you don't like on the net, or the fact that they are trundling out sexually exploited children, and brainwashed teens running off to Syria to try to sway opinion, freedoms of speech matters more and keep more of us safe than it hampers.
Depends on who is judging the content, some people were happy when Tommy Robinson's Facebook and Instagram accounts were deleted for extreme content but a lot of people didn't see a problem with what he posted.

There are types of criminal and extreme content that pretty much everyone agrees should be censored but once the control methods are put in place then the risk is that they are employed to censor what some people may call 'free speech' and the things that fall into that category will change depending on the views of the person judging it.
Social media sites are platforms for paedophiles and terrorists and need some form of control as they refuse to police themselves.
With the greatest respect Danny, no they're not (by and large obviously, there have been notable exceptions). Whilst initial contact could potentially be made via Facebook, anyone would take anything very sinister to the dark web very quickly.
The government will seek to use our quite legitimate fears about paedophiles and terrorists to erode our personal freedoms, when very little in the line of preventing those things will be accomplished, all that will be is that we will be more closely monitored and what we see easier to control- that extends to everything once this sort of legislation is passed, including personal, social and political disagreement and dissent, and I'm so sorry but that's too important a thing to be given away so easily.
Calico- That is the view of the government and I agree with them.These sites have been requested to stop posting certain subjects, but they have never complied.
Freedom of speech is over-rated.

No-one has ever argued successfully that the person running into a crowded theatre and screaming "Fire!" (when it was pure invention) was exercising their unalienable right to free speech.

Lunatics should be silenced, if their rantings are likely to harm others.

'Certain subjects'- they routinely remove illegal subject matter anyway, but clearly it's a massive task to remove all of it instantly, and they don't post it- individuals do. Those individuals won't stop being paedophiles or terrorists just because our government censor social media, they will just venture deeper underground to where they generally hang out anyway, where the government can't censor them. This won't affect the bad guys, this will affect we normal people who will be spoon fed what we may and may not be allowed to read about.
This is nothing but propaganda tbh, so that the government have an easier time eroding our rights, and I'm flabberghasted you can't see that.
No they don’t Plan To Drag British Citizens Into A Draconian Censorship Regime. They plan to to tackle extreme content on the internet. And about time too.
Question Author
We already have a certain amount of censorship in force now, our media is censored in some way, when it comes to sensitive issues.
Calico you have your opinion and I have given you mine, so let's leave it at that.
Calico, on another thread you’ve written ‘Anything can be expressed or debated as long as appropriate language is used and the discussion is not designed to stir up hatred‘

How does your rather idealistic view of freedom of speech fit with a website which is designed to stir up hatred? You would seem to have a dichotomy.
Who decides what it unacceptable and who watches the watchers?

I tend to think it is the dark web that needs a light shining on it. Those are the places people hide behind when they know what they are doing is wrong.

Free speech is a right but with that right comes responsibility and we should be prepared to deal with those not taking responsibility.
Not at all Zacs, if a website is designed to stir up hatred then it's already covered- we don't need this as an extra. x
they're about to hand over regulation of porn sites to ... PornHub, the biggest of the lot. Which is weird.
Is it claico? Then why do they still exist?
I tend to agree with Calico, judging by some of the other comments some clearly dont fully understand how the internet works.

Having said that we do need to find a way of ensuring vulnerable people are protected from scum.

At present I think it is a difficult one that cannot be fully resolved.
"Thought crime" is now officially incorporated in our legal system by the classification of certain offences as "hate crime". And our law enforcement institutions (both police and judiciary) have enthusiastically embraced this subjective concept and are already exercising their new powers as "Thought Police" with some zeal.

I, for one, do not want to see those powers extended even further.

Remember, such legal powers with their elastic judical formulations could just as easily be used to suppress valid criticism and dissent as to suppress the "harmful" content which is their ostensible aim. You can see the temptation to even the most benign government to misuse them, can you not?

And, of course, while we may think suppressing material which we ourselves find offensive is a public good, we might, one day, find ourselves with a government which decides that it's our opinions which are hateful and dangerous and need to be suppressed.

"Late you come, but yet still you come.".
"Remember lads: subscribe to PewDiePie; with these words the killer began broadcasting his slaughter of 50 worshippers at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand"
DewDiePie is a Brighton-based blogger channel with 90 million subscribers whose 'Bro Army' of adolescent fan-boys pull off stunts and varying tastes and legality to win their idol more subscribers.

Psychotics and psychopaths used to be solitary and unconnected, fixating on trash books and trash thinkers, now they can talk to one another and inspire one another entirely digitally.

1 to 20 of 20rss feed

Do you know the answer?

Do They Plan To Drag British Citizens Into A Draconian Censorship Regime, Or Are These Measures Long Overdue?

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.