For help, advice and discussion about stuff not related to aviation. Play nice: no religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
  • 1
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 59
#1809911
It's tricky, AFAIC open information is fine, I'm less keen on open misinformation, but sometimes telling fact from fancy is not easy.

On balance I think it's fair to block misinformation especially if it's output deliberately to misguide people into harmful decisions.
#1809915
johnm wrote:
On balance I think it's fair to block misinformation especially if it's output deliberately to misguide people into harmful decisions.

As ever it is a question of who becomes the arbiter of what is "misinformation" and what is genuinely expressed opinion. The behaviour of the social media tech giants in the US during the recent elections was a worrying indicator of the power that now lies in very few hands. Where those hands belong, as appears to be the case, to people who all have the same political opinion on whatever is being discussed then we are entering very dangerous territory, especially as the USA above almost everywhere else, trumpets the constitutional sanctity of free speech. Just as with the question of comments that are deemed to cause offence to a particular group, censorship of views with which media platform owners may not agree is the antithesis of free speech. It either exists or it doesn't.

PW
flybymike liked this
#1809918
@Propwash Your point is well taken and there's a fine line to be drawn between facts, honest but erroneous opinion and malevolent misinformation. We have seen a good deal of the last on social media in recent years and there's no doubt it has an impact because it feeds on people's fears and prejudices and it is very damaging.

Free speech requires responsibility in its use and that's the nub of the problem, people no longer seem to understand the difference between freedom and licence.
#1809932
IMO the major problem is with anonymity. Social media accounts should be verified (by a debit card £0.01) payment (which would help solve age verification) and accounts would have to carry a visible real name, you could still be called Squidgy as well though!
When my Union forum was set up we all had to have visible names and job titles, but it moderated things massively.
#1809937
eltonioni wrote:The German police were using water cannon on concerned citizens yesterday.

Image

@johnm how does an outdoor protest pose any special C19 transmission danger? You're doing the magical miasma thing again.


I just happen to know a young chap that commands one of those Berlin Watercannon vehicles... I'll ask him about it..

Regards, SD..
#1809944
malcolmfrost wrote:IMO the major problem is with anonymity. Social media accounts should be verified (by a debit card £0.01) payment (which would help solve age verification) and accounts would have to carry a visible real name, you could still be called Squidgy as well though!


The trouble with that is that people hold grudges and act on them.

I hold back my political opinions under my own name because I need planning consents. I also know of at least one senior planning officer who stands outside a town hall selling the Socialist Worker, and many more who are card carrying members of various political parties. They execute their duties with obvious socio-political bias when they are legally obliged to not do. I have to play a game of "can you defend that to the Inspector at a planning appeal?" to keep them focussed. That's the hazard long before a planning committee of party politicians make critical business decisions that I have no control over.

In a world where MP's can state publicly that they would "never kiss a Tory" (that's the mild version) I think that anonymity is a darned good thing.
#1809952
eltonioni wrote:The German police were using water cannon on concerned citizens yesterday.
Image


Well, not my "almost-step-son-in-law" driving that one... :wink:

But, he knows the guy that was...

Apparently that was the second demonstration this week and on the previous one some of the "agitating element" tried (and some succeded?) to get into the adjacent parliament buildings. They didnt want that to happen again and pre-empted by squirting the dodgy element - getting wet apparently reduces the desire to get hot and bothered :wink: . Over the two events about 200 were arrested and 50 odd police reported injuries, so there was some justification...

The majority of protestors were ordinary, calm and peacefull, as can be seen.

Regards, SD..
#1810054
malcolmfrost wrote:Has widespread anonymity improved or worsened social discourse?
I reckon that if you aren't prepared to say something to someone face to face in the pub you probably shouldn't be saying it!


There's that old Steptoe & Son where they have divided the house in two with a partition, but they have to share the telly through a hatch, half on each side of it. One evening Harold wants to watch some arts programme but Dad wants the footy despite it being Harold's day to choose.

Harold, in conciliatory tone: "We had an agreement, we shook hands. I have the law of contract on my side"
Albert spitefully replies: "I've got the knobs on my side"


The council has the knobs so we have to be careful what we say even if we have right on our side. No doubt everyone has their own version of this power dynamic.
#1810063
I'm really talking about person to person rather than person to council!
There just seems to be a level of verbal diarrhoea from some people who may not be quite so rude if their name was attached to the post. Take Katie Piper for example, a woman who's been through a lot but is trolled for being "hideous".
eltonioni liked this
#1810137
Getting back onto OP. Maybe I’m too much of a d uc k brained rationalist - but why TF is the saviour of all humanity a vaccine?

The saviour of all humanity is the proof our population has a high statistically significant resistance to the lurgy?

Or am I being too much of a dimwit?
  • 1
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 59