Fellsteruk wrote:The platforms need to take responsibility and stop using the excuse of “we’re not content providers” to not police and moderate. They should be tighter checks to ensure nobody under the age of consent is on the platform “sadly some kids are the worse” and a zero tolerance policy not only when reported but with teams of moderators using AI to find such content much quicker and taking action.
Actually Im in two, or even three, minds about this.
There is absolutely no obligation for anyone to use social media. It is kinda like going to a pub and getting into a discussion about something - you dont have to go to the pub, you can walk out if you dont like the decor or people there. If you want to be there for the conversation you can choose to argue or be controversial, or not. And you can always walk out if you dont like the reaction you get.
On the other hand, you absolutely have the right to not be verbally abused and insulted for no reason, either on social media or down the pub when all you want is a quiet drink, and those being abusive need to be taken to task. Which leads to the question of if it is the owner of the establishment (landlord, Mark Zuckerberg etc) or the police that should be dealing with this.
And the thing is, do you really want individuals deciding what can be said and what cant be said, be that the landlord in the pub or the guy running twitter? What about if your views dont agree with those of the establishment you are using? Recently we've had Donald Trump banned from Twitter and Kier Starmer thrown out of a Pub. Fair enough? What about if an establishment is owned by someone who themselves has controversial views - what happens if that person doesnt like a political view or football team, even a nationality or a step further, a race? Does a landlord get sanctioned if two custoners get into a fight? Should a social media platform?
Its generally best to make a hole in the sky.......not the ground...