Topic: Social Media

[killer-heels]

that would lead to more people seeking to use the DarkNet and you would not know what is happening under the veneer of a modern society

If people are not going to face consequences to what they say then yes, Id rather it remain down there than up in the surface.

[ShakaHislop]

totally agree with this post beneath the outrage the social media has done an enormous amount of good for people who felt vulnerable and isolated in all societies and as for the ones that some might say misuse it well in my opinion social media is just a tool and how people use it is their choice and you should never blame the tool instead of the person using it

What benefits does the tool of social media give us that justify its existence despite the many awful things it can be used for?

Claus argues that it brings together marginalised communities but the benefit would, and should become redundant if/when those communities are embraced into wider society. Social media is just a sticking plaster,

Apart from that, what? Sharing cat photos? I think I could live without that if it meant we also didn't have to worry about kids getting sexually groomed or people of all ages being radicalised by political extremists without leaving their home.

[Mutton Geoff]

Social media as it is is helping to create a dystopian world. It does far more harm than good IMO.

however if we class Rawk as part of it without it you couldn't express that opinion to a wider audience  , you would just be chatting to some mates in a pub!
Also in recent times i have seen numerous posts about people who had vanished for one reason or another and been found through publishing their details on FB for example and returned to their families as one positive for social media.

[ShakaHislop]

however if we class Rawk as part of it without it you couldn't express that opinion to a wider audience  , you would just be chatting to some mates in a pub!
Also in recent times i have seen numerous posts about people who had vanished for one reason or another and been found through publishing their details on FB for example and returned to their families as one positive for social media.

If social media (including RAWK) didn't exist in the first place, then I would not need a wide audience to express my opinion that it should not exist.

That's not a bad example of another benefit of social media, but I could also argue that social media might be the cause for some people going missing in the first place. Whether they've been recruited online by terrorists, or their mental health has declined due to cyber bullying, or they've agreed to meet up with someone they've met online who isn't who they've been saying they are.

[BarryCrocker]

Loving this already but there's also a massive amount of blowback from the so called 'influencers' who get paid for the amount of 'likes' they get.

Going to reduce the income of a large amount of no-hopers living off free meals and posing with a large amount of shit product none of us really need.

Trying to get people to like stuff because they actually do.

Instagram hides number of 'likes' from users in Australian trial
Social media giant says the trial, which rolls out Thursday, will ‘reduce pressure’ on users of the platform

Instagram users in Australia will no longer be able to see how many likes a post has a received under trial changes to “remove pressure” on the digital platform’s users.

Instagram will on Thursday begin rolling out the trial update removing the total number of likes on photos and viewings of videos on user feeds and profiles, and permalink pages.

Users will still be able to see a list of likes on their posts, just not the overall number.

However, the change won’t affect measurement tools for businesses and creators on Instagram, which is owned by social media giant Facebook, and all likes and engagement metrics will still be available in those tools.

The trial update expands on a similar change introduced in Canada in May and will be extended to New Zealand, Japan, Ireland, Italy and Brazil.

The Facebook Australia and New Zealand director of policy, Mia Garlick, said Instagram should be a place where people feel comfortable expressing themselves, rather than judged.

“We hope this test will remove the pressure of how many likes a post will receive, so you can focus on sharing the things you love,” she said in a statement.

“We are now rolling the test out to Australia so we can learn more about how this can benefit people’s experiences on Instagram, and whether this change can help people focus less on likes and more on telling their story.”

Australia was among those countries chosen for the trial because it has a fast-growing, highly engaged community of millions of people on Instagram and a tech-savvy audience.

A decision will be made at a later date on whether or not the update will be made permanent.

Instagram last week introduced two new features aimed at combating bullying on the platform.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/18/instagram-hides-number-of-likes-from-users-in-australian-trial

[Max_powers]

I consider online forums to be social media as well. Even though people often post using aliases or anonymously it has both the social aspect and the media aspect of social media.

RAWK is awesome and well moderated, however, there are plenty of places that have little to no moderation. These places have really enabled and emboldened some of the worst aspects of the society, from white nationalists to men-rights activists to consipiracy theorists. They have them all, and if you believe in anything, now you have a place to go to that will further radicalize you.

In the wake of shootings in US, we all know that the government has no intention to do anything serious. However, many of these forums and sites are no different than ISIS recruitment online. The users openly incite violence and spread misinformation and lies. Obviously many of them hide behind the shield of free-speech but in reality they should be treated the same as domestic terrorists that they are. I am surprised that countries like Canada or UK with hate speech laws haven't banned websites like 4chan, Stormfront , reddit(certain sub-Reddits), and 8chan.

A number of these shooters have been linked to these websites. Honestly the they should be asked to moderate properly or be shut down. There is little good that is coming from these websites.

I talk about this as few internet companies  have cut ties with 8chan  after the recent shootings forcing them to go offline.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/aug/04/mass-shootings-el-paso-texas-dayton-ohio-8chan-far-right-website

[killer-heels]

Is every penalty miss going to equal racist abuse for a black player?

There are only 3 solutions to this. Either social media needs banning, footballers need to not be on it or verifiable contact details and identification need to be provided to open an account.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Is every penalty miss going to equal racist abuse for a black player?

There are only 3 solutions to this. Either social media needs banning, footballers need to not be on it or verifiable contact details and identification need to be provided to open an account.

I think it is inevitable that the Internet will become more policed and controlled over time. The problem is that too many people are assholes, and too many platforms take few meaningful positions on content and behaviour. Cases in point on Twitter: Trump given a pass; Katie Hopkins is serially obnoxious - and that's fine. This is plain unforgivable. I read the other day of a long-established Liverpool nostalgia account which was permanently suspended* by twitter because the account holder swore at someone who was hounding/stalking her.

* Replacement account

[killer-heels]

I think it is inevitable that the Internet will become more policed and controlled over time. The problem is that too many people are assholes, and too many platforms take few meaningful positions on content and behaviour. Cases in point on Twitter: Trump given a pass; Katie Hopkins is serially obnoxious - and that's fine. This is plain unforgivable. I read the other day of a long-established Liverpool nostalgia account which was permanently suspended* by twitter because the account holder swore at someone who was hounding/stalking her.

* Replacement account

It needs to be heavily policed. Frankly, people cannot be trusted to self moderate and organisations are too lax and care about money.

People and organisations have had their chance. The state needs to step in and people need to be able to be held accountable for every word they utter.

[Jiminy Cricket]

It needs to be heavily policed. Frankly, people cannot be trusted to self moderate and organisations are too lax and care about money.

People and organisations have had their chance. The state needs to step in and people need to be able to be held accountable for every word they utter.

Policing of the Internet will be piecemeal and chaotic. After all, it is a decentralized system by design. Take GDPR: it applies to data of European citizens, even when the data is held by foreign entities. However, at present, the only foreign companies who come under its scrutiny are those with European holdings. Having said this, many other countries are enacting similar laws. The CCPA, the new Californian law covering personal data, is more limited in scope in some respects, but it certainly will catch Facebook and the like. The EU could come to an agreement with other countries. But, there many other countries developing their own PII laws, and all of them conflicting in some ways. So, what happens when social media becomes so confined, having to appease multiple conflicting laws in multiple jurisdictions? I expect that these companies will completely relocate to jurisdictions outside of any control or oversight.

Having said all that, I expect that it would not come to this. I expect that most states will eventually enact mutual, compatible laws governing how personal data is stored and handled; possible identity checks; and control over content. This would largely cure the problems I wrote about above, as one standardised set of laws to obay is manageable. However, at this point the governments will have access to all kinds of data on their citizens and access to much of their online activities. Maybe they will even require backdoor access to encrypted communications by design (a very bad idea). All this is very bad. It does not need to happen, if only the so-called 'tech' companies acted more responsibly.

Maybe I am way off. Perhaps something more agreeable will develop before one of the extreme scenarios above. I am just not seeing at the moment.

[thejbs]

Anonymity is the problem. Banning social media is not the solution. What we need is for users to be lawfully accountable for hateful and illegal content. Allow accounts to be outwardly anonymous but properly verified behind the scenes. This does come with privacy concerns, though.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Anonymity is the problem. Banning social media is not the solution. What we need is for users to be lawfully accountable for hateful and illegal content. Allow accounts to be outwardly anonymous but properly verified behind the scenes. This does come with privacy concerns, though.

And these concerns are massive.

[Something Worse]

It needs to be heavily policed. Frankly, people cannot be trusted to self moderate and organisations are too lax and care about money.

People and organisations have had their chance. The state needs to step in and people need to be able to be held accountable for every word they utter.

You'd like the state to be able to comb through your posts on here and hold you accountable?

There are people wishing death on Trump in the US politics thread, you want their information given to the Secret Service?

[killer-heels]

You'd like the state to be able to comb through your posts on here and hold you accountable?

There are people wishing death on Trump in the US politics thread, you want their information given to the Secret Service?

Racist behaviour like what Rashford and Pogba have had directed at them is illegal. Seeing as society cannot moderate themselves and internet companies dont give a shit, then the state has to enforce the law.

The ultimate aim would be for internet organisations to get their houses in order. But they are not and we cannot allow people just to abuse people racially.

[Something Worse]

Racist behaviour like what Rashford and Pogba have had directed at them is illegal. Seeing as society cannot moderate themselves and internet companies dont give a shit, then the state has to enforce the law.

The ultimate aim would be for internet organisations to get their houses in order. But they are not and we cannot allow people just to abuse people racially.

You didn't answer my question. Once the state is involved the entire landscape changes, and not for the better IMO.

You're right that twitter etc should be better at this, but I don't think there's any way of ever stopping racism as long as racists exist.

[killer-heels]

You didn't answer my question. Once the state is involved the entire landscape changes, and not for the better IMO.

You're right that twitter etc should be better at this, but I don't think there's any way of ever stopping racism as long as racists exist.

I would risk it right now for a more legally obedient society.

Of course this is the approach if social media isnt to be banned. Personally I would rather we just banned social media.

[Something Worse]

I would risk it right now for a more legally obedient society.

Of course this is the approach if social media isnt to be banned. Personally I would rather we just banned social media.

Including RAWK? Social media is a tool. Racists use it, but so do so many other people for good. How many missing kids have been found due to social media? How many people struggling with depression have found support? How many LGBQTIA people have found a sense of community and belonging when their day-to-day life is a struggle?

Banning it does more harm than good IMO. And if you give the state access to it, you're putting many, many people at risk. 

[Jiminy Cricket]

I would risk it right now for a more legally obedient society.

Of course this is the approach if social media isnt to be banned. Personally I would rather we just banned social media.

As Something Worse just stated, RAWK is social media too. There is nothing inherently wrong with social media, it is just the way the big boys choose to police the space they manage which is the problem. They could make other choices, but that would affect their bottom line.

[killer-heels]

Including RAWK? Social media is a tool. Racists use it, but so do so many other people for good. How many missing kids have been found due to social media? How many people struggling with depression have found support? How many LGBQTIA people have found a sense of community and belonging when their day-to-day life is a struggle?

Banning it does more harm than good IMO. And if you give the state access to it, you're putting many, many people at risk. 

So basically, there is nothing that can be done. Black people might as well not use it.

There is some good things its done, or allowed people to do. But overall I believe its enabled more harm than good.

[killer-heels]

As Something Worse just stated, RAWK is social media too. There is nothing inherently wrong with social media, it is just the way the big boys choose to police the space they manage which is the problem. They could make other choices, but that would affect their bottom line.

Yep, so at this stage when nobody wants to do anything, isn't it the responsibility of the state to step in?

[Jiminy Cricket]

So basically, there is nothing that can be done. Black people might as well not use it.

There is some good things its done, or allowed people to do. But overall I believe its enabled more harm than good.

On the flip side, Black people and other minorities can utlilise any or neural persona they wish, sidestepping direct attacks. They could not do this IRL. Well, except Facebook's AUP demands that members use their real-world identity.

[killer-heels]

On the flip side, Black people and other minorities can utlilise any or neural persona they wish, sidestepping direct attacks. They could not do this IRL. Well, except Facebook's AUP demands that members use their real-world identity.

Why should they?

[Jiminy Cricket]

Why should they?

Where did I say that they 'should'? Only that it is well-documented that in some respects the Internet has been liberating for minority groups. Yes, we could go down the police everything route, but apart from being impractical, it brings a whole lot of negatives too. Do not misunderstand me, I am up for radical changes. It just has to be achieved through other means.

[killer-heels]

Where did I say that they 'should'? Only that it is well-documented that in some respects the Internet has been liberating for minority groups. Yes, we could go down the police everything route, but apart from being impractical, it brings a whole lot of negatives too. Do not misunderstand me, I am up for radical changes. It just has to be achieved through other means.

Such as?

[Mutton Geoff]

Such as?

Such as my daughter can now get in touch with other disabled people through FB rather than feeling alone and they as a group can and do get involved in campaigns to try to make their lives better locally and nationally. In other words it has given my daughter and her friends  a voice and if anyone tries to slag them off they simply ignore them and report the person, if you dont answer these nomarks you don't get stressed but the nomarks do like all bullies when they have no power.

[S]

Personally I would rather we just banned social media.

I agree entirely. It sounds like a radical idea when you say it out loud, but even the briefest look at the wider picture tells you the negatives of social media outweigh the positives by a gigantic amount. Which is crazy when you consider that the medium is still in its infancy. There's still so much potential for it to develop and dominate even more of our lives than it currently does. It will keep expanding and the margin between its myriad of negatives and tiny smattering of positives will get wider and wider.

I don't lump forums in as social media. They exist on a separate plain to Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. Online forums are rapidly declining in popularity, but even at their peak they never affected society in the slightest compared to the three giants I've just listed.

Social media is hugely responsible for the cancerous nature of contemporary politics, which has me totally disillusioned for the first time ever. It's responsible for a young teenage girl I know posting photos of herself in her underwear. They're just the first two complaints I thought of. One global, one local. I got rid of all my accounts and whenever the discussion comes up I urge everyone else to do the same.

[Jiminy Cricket]

I don't lump forums in as social media. They exist on a separate plain to Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. Online forums are rapidly declining in popularity, but even at their peak they never affected society in the slightest compared to the three giants I've just listed.

Social media is hugely responsible for the cancerous nature of contemporary politics, which has me totally disillusioned for the first time ever. It's responsible for a young teenage girl I know posting photos of herself in her underwear. They're just the first two complaints I thought of. One global, one local. I got rid of all my accounts and whenever the discussion comes up I urge everyone else to do the same.

Surely, the distinction between forums and 'social media' is marginal, even nominal. Different people propose different distinctions. But, really, the only difference is slightly differing emphases in how the data is aggregated. Possibly the most meaningful way to describe the differences is that forum content is centred around topics, and social media is centered around the poster. So, at RAWK, we visit this thread largely because of the subject; whereas at Twitter or Fabcebook, the focus is more on the (Home) Timeline page of an individual. But, of course, this is a generalisation and how these places disseminate content is more nuanced. FB also has 'groups' (forums); at Twitter, we might jump into a 'popup dialog' [sic], similar to how we have 'threads' here; and at RAWK - like Twitter - we can actually view the seed post of an individual member in a single view. Another distinction I've come across between forums and social media is that FB and Twitter users have 'followers' (and 'blocked'). But at RAWK, we have 'Buddies' and 'Ignore'. There is no substantive difference. The only arguable difference between 'social media' and forums is in how the data is presented or emphasised. But certainly, some ways of aggregating content are more popular with some people. But, in the main, what you can do at social media platform or at a forum, you can do at another.

The only reason I have gone into the above is to explain that if you attempt to ban social media, this means banning forums too. The vast, vast majority of forums are actually run pretty well. Nearly all of them have sensible rules to keep the spaces friendly and inviting. It is not really sensible to argue against these environments by exampling 8Chan or Stormfront. You might as well argue against the existence of people because, you know, Jack the Ripper and Donald Trump.

Now, this is not to say that there is no problem. It lies in two largely unconnected fronts: the extreme; and the very large. The extreme platforms might be controlled in some ways through laws and international agreements. But these places will always find somewhere else to host them. So, you'd have to block the domain and IP address within each country (probably mandate the ISPs to do this). Even then, it still will be possible access the websites through proxies. I note that 8Chan have been experiencing problems finding a webhost. So, you see, it is possible for the general public to have an effect by shaming the companies who enable these kinds of websites. FB's long-term prospects appear to be questionable. FB is populated by older people, and young people think it is naff (of course, they are correct). Twitter turned its first profit Q4 2017 (and a loss for the year); it was founded in 2006. Given the nature of the Web, how many here would put money on Twitter being a major force in another 10 years? I would expect at least one or two major upsets in the social media space over that time. I don't think the legal landscape will have to change very much for these companies to find their business severely disrupted as new statutes are begin to eat away at the ability of the platforms to make money (selling your personal data).

I should mention Reddit, of course. It is just a very large (meta-) forum after all. Though I am sure that most of the content is fine, some terrible stuff has (been allowed to) come out of there. The problem with the small extreme platforms is the they are operated by assholes. The problem that the large platforms is that they are operated by assholes! This does not describe RAWK or vast majority of other forums also operated in a reasonable manner. The difference is not: forums good; social media bad. They are essentially the same thing, with only slightly differing implementations of how the content is complied and displayed. The problem is down to management and business decisions - those can be changed through public, legal and financial pressures.

I think things are very much up in their right now. It will come down to what the general public expect from their politicians. Maybe a positive out of the Brexit shit show is a general realisation that some of the large platforms have enabled outside forces to disrupt our democratic institutions. There are surely sensible laws which could be enacted to prevent these kind of abuses. I don't think FB and Twitter will last long-term. Or, at least, not as they operate now. For me, the greatest problems is people using spaces as their main source of news. I am hoping this is just a fad or will be solved through legislation. Best guess: a bit of both.

I should probably mention (it might be obvious) that I do not hold active accounts at any of those forum/platforms. So, please forgive me if my terminology and perspective about some of the specific features/functions is a little off. But I know enough about them to know that I do not wish to actively participate.

[redmark]

I think things are very much up in their right now. It will come down to what the general public expect from their politicians. Maybe a positive out of the Brexit shit show is a general realisation that some of the large platforms have enabled outside forces to disrupt our democratic institutions. There are surely sensible laws which could be enacted to prevent these kind of abuses. I don't think FB and Twitter will last long-term. Or, at least, not as they operate now. For me, the greatest problems is people using spaces as their main source of news. I am hoping this is just a fad or will be solved through legislation. Best guess: a bit of both.

I should probably mention (it might be obvious) that I do not hold active accounts at any of those forum/platforms. So, please forgive me if my terminology and perspective about some of the specific features/functions is a little off. But I know enough about them to know that I do not wish to actively participate.

I probably more or less agree with your points - certainly, I don't think there's much chance of social media being banned (or that that's particularly desirable), not least because I don't think states and legal systems are capable of it.

For example - and on the point of whether twitter will exist in 10 years - twitter's main weakness (in attracting new users) is that you need followers to receive attention. You can troll well-followed public figures to boost your own, but it requires work. Imagine a twitter replacement that pushed content (and maximised views) based not on how many followers you have, but based on the content of what you posted: how unusual? how innovative? how exciting? how controversial? You wouldn't need to build a following and have a fixed account; you wouldn't technically need an account at all. Just post something anonymously that triggers the algorithms to generate maximum exposure. Yep, it sounds horrendous. Twitter meets 8chan. And if states suppress more 'structured' social media, precisely the sort of impossible-to-police replacement we'd get.

I don't know if you've ever browsed some of those sites (I've never looked at 8chan, but glanced at 4chan briefly once and Stormfront in a bit more detail; never seen or looked for any Islamist alternatives, as an example), but I suspect Stormfront is actually a 'well-run' forum, just one that is a home for hideous world views. Which perhaps suggests that chaotic/anarchic social media technologies may be more dangerous than well managed (clear ownership, management and accountability) but objectionable ones; Stormfront does not appear to be the launchpad of choice for real world atrocities. Thus any attempts to legislate against them might logically be counter productive anyway.

[Jiminy Cricket]

I don't know if you've ever browsed some of those sites (I've never looked at 8chan, but glanced at 4chan briefly once and Stormfront in a bit more detail; never seen or looked for any Islamist alternatives, as an example), but I suspect Stormfront is actually a 'well-run' forum, just one that is a home for hideous world views. Which perhaps suggests that chaotic/anarchic social media technologies may be more dangerous than well managed (clear ownership, management and accountability) but objectionable ones; Stormfront does not appear to be the launchpad of choice for real world atrocities. Thus any attempts to legislate against them might logically be counter productive anyway.

I viewed some pages from 4chan, maybe 10 or 12 years ago. Something like that. I do not recall viewing any since then. Like you, I've not viewed anything from 8chan. I seem to recall stumbling on Stormfront a few years ago, but did not read around, not even out of curiosity. But, to correct you about Stormfront:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/29/stormfront-neo-nazi-hate-site-murder-internet-pulled-offline-web-com-civil-rights-action

With regard to atrocities, Stormfront seems to punch above its weight. Now, there is probably an argument to be had around cause and effect, but either way, it can only only add to the problem.

[Jiminy Cricket]

And this. Because.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stormfront

[redmark]

And this. Because.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stormfront

Still a bit out of date - Stormfront is still/back online. I take the point about number of members found to be guilty of murder, but the initial point was that those attacks don't appear to be coordinated on Stormfront itself. Certainly any such site will provide means for 'like-minded' extremists to get in touch privately, of course.

To illustrate, from rationalwiki's entry for VNNforum:

The forum is most known for hosting more extreme antisemitic material than other white nationalist, neo-Nazi sites (except The Daily Stormer) and even has the not-so subtle subtitle "No Jews. Just Right". According to a Stormfront thread, most of its membership are "disgruntled ex-SF members" who were banned for being misogynistic, or posting excessively crude racism. and when Stormfront bans someone for racism you know theres a problem.

[S]

I know that forums are technically social media sites in the way they enable communication. I just don't think they can be compared to the likes of Twitter, Instagram and Facebook.

Those three are household names, and therein lies the problem. They are so engrained into our lives that it's expected of you to have an account with them. Everyone signs up to the same gigantic platform. For example, it enables a racist sitting in his basement to send messages that a black Premier League footballer may end up seeing.

Forums in the traditional sense are far less wide-reaching. By contrast they exist in the shadows. No forum has ever attracted even 0.1% of the membership of either of the three social networks I just mentioned. The old style forums can be host to material far more offensive than you'd ever encounter on something like Twitter, but by and large it stays where it is. The dark side of the internet used to stay in the dark corners, now its front and centre.

(Sorry if I'm using the wrong terminology at any point here. I'm merely expressing my own stance on the subject, I'm sure others are far more well read.)

[Jiminy Cricket]

I know that forums are technically social media sites in the way they enable communication. I just don't think they can be compared to the likes of Twitter, Instagram and Facebook.

Those three are household names, and therein lies the problem. They are so engrained into our lives that it's expected of you to have an account with them. Everyone signs up to the same gigantic platform. For example, it enables a racist sitting in his basement to send messages that a black Premier League footballer may end up seeing.

Forums in the traditional sense are far less wide-reaching. By contrast they exist in the shadows. No forum has ever attracted even 0.1% of the membership of either of the three social networks I just mentioned. The old style forums can be host to material far more offensive than you'd ever encounter on something like Twitter, but by and large it stays where it is. The dark side of the internet used to stay in the dark corners, now its front and centre.

(Sorry if I'm using the wrong terminology at any point here. I'm merely expressing my own stance on the subject, I'm sure others are far more well read.)

Well, not what you said before. In any case, some/many people would argue that they are distinct modes of communication (I don't agree). But I agree with what you have just said about about being (essentially) the same.

I don't think size is the problem (oh dear), rather, it is just that the business models these companies employ requires as little intervention as possible, and for three reasons: 1) monitoring for content costs money; 2) why unnecessarily limit the number of money-spinning users; and 3), controversy equals publicity and even more users.

[S]

Well, not what you said before. In any case, some/many people would argue that they are distinct modes of communication (I don't agree). But I agree with what you have just said about about being (essentially) the same.

I said I don't class forums as social media because their effect on society is minuscule compared to networking sites like Twitter. So sure, technically they are but I don't think they belong in this conversation. A huge chunk of the world's population have accounts on Facebook, Twitter or Instagram. By comparison almost nobody visits traditional forums anymore.

I don't think size is the problem (oh deer), rather, it is just that the business models these companies employ requires as little intervention as possible, and for three reasons: 1) monitoring for content costs money; 2) why unnecessarily limit the number of money-spinning users; and 3), controversy equals publicity and even more users.

Agreed. The companies don't care in the slightest what goes on, as long as they keep their place at the table. Sure, they'll put up the PR friendly facade every now and then but they truly couldn't give a shit. Anyone who thinks otherwise is incredibly naive.

[Something Worse]

I said I don't class forums as social media because their effect on society is minuscule compared to networking sites like Twitter. So sure, technically they are but I don't think they belong in this conversation. A huge chunk of the world's population have accounts on Facebook, Twitter or Instagram. By comparison almost nobody visits traditional forums anymore.

Reddit? If you get rid of the ones that you want to get rid of, people will just go elsewhere and spew their venom.

[killer-heels]

Such as my daughter can now get in touch with other disabled people through FB rather than feeling alone and they as a group can and do get involved in campaigns to try to make their lives better locally and nationally. In other words it has given my daughter and her friends  a voice and if anyone tries to slag them off they simply ignore them and report the person, if you dont answer these nomarks you don't get stressed but the nomarks do like all bullies when they have no power.

So thats it then? Ignore it and lump the management on to the individual?

If someone went to a match or out to a bar and was subject to racist abuse then that person doing the abusing could be prosecuted. No worrying about peoples rights or privilege. You broke the law, you get prosecuted.

However when online, it seems that such laws cannot apply. Why the distinction? Why cannot the laws of the real world apply to the internet?

Nobody has a clue of how to stop or police any of this. Their answers seem to be the same, just ignore it, pretend it didnt happen and move on.

[redmark]

So thats it then? Ignore it and lump the management on to the individual?

If someone went to a match or out to a bar and was subject to racist abuse then that person doing the abusing could be prosecuted. No worrying about peoples rights or privilege. You broke the law, you get prosecuted.

However when online, it seems that such laws cannot apply. Why the distinction? Why cannot the laws of the real world apply to the internet?

Nobody has a clue of how to stop or police any of this. Their answers seem to be the same, just ignore it, pretend it didnt happen and move on.

Why can't they? The Everton fan who abused Salah was arrested two days later.

[killer-heels]

Why can't they? The Everton fan who abused Salah was arrested two days later.

He was identified and the details provided to the police. I am saying that process needs to become easier and every user needs to be identifiable to the authorities by their account details alone.

[Mutton Geoff]

So thats it then? Ignore it and lump the management on to the individual?

If someone went to a match or out to a bar and was subject to racist abuse then that person doing the abusing could be prosecuted. No worrying about peoples rights or privilege. You broke the law, you get prosecuted.

However when online, it seems that such laws cannot apply. Why the distinction? Why cannot the laws of the real world apply to the internet?

Nobody has a clue of how to stop or police any of this. Their answers seem to be the same, just ignore it, pretend it didnt happen and move on.

Not sure what world you live in but there is such a thing as a hate crime and if the person can be identified then yes they can then be prosecuted however what the hell your reply has to do with my post beggers belief unless you are just proving a point by trolling this thread,

[stewil007]

Maybe its just me or its something I've just started to notice but my timeline on Twitter is getting more right wing.

Firstly I would like to point out that my political leaning is to the centre left, to summarise who I follow - The Labour Party, The Guardian, Stephen Fry, NHS Million, Liverpool players & the club, comedians in general, that sort of thing.

So normally when I scroll through my timeline, it would be full of Liverpool chat (no problem there), articles from the Guardian, retweets from Owen Jones because of who I follow.  I'd be the first to admit it was very much an echo chamber for what I want to hear and read about.

In this last week, ive started to get tweets in my timeline from right wing knobs and the reason is because other people I follow, follow them, not because the people I follow liked, replied or retweeted them.  for instance i'm getting a lot of tweets from the likes of Julia Hartley-Brewer (fucking objectionable c*nt) and Rees Mogg (fucking objectionable c*nt) and Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson (fucking objectionable c*nt)

I've given up with Facebook and i'm close to giving up on Twitter....I think my life would be a whole lot better if I just used my phone for Plants vs Zombies and Candy Crush!!!