Censorship and Social Media

[georgenorman]

We both know why and we both think it’s unacceptable.

The difference is how best to correct it.

What like pandering to them by creating new laws to stop people saying what they did (and continue to do) is unacceptable?

 

[eaglesdare]

EU to Use COVID Pass Sequel for Online Censorship - Gript

The European Union has rolled out a sequel to its COVID certificate system to enable its desired system of online censorship

gript.ie

Here we go...the Covid pass sequel for online censorship...

 

[ASCPFC]

EU to Use COVID Pass Sequel for Online Censorship - Gript

The European Union has rolled out a sequel to its COVID certificate system to enable its desired system of online censorship

gript.ie

Here we go...the Covid pass sequel for online censorship...

You have to look at Gript to even hear about this. A friend sent a FOI request when he heard about this. It had all the protecting kids guff.
Hilarious that Ireland, the lackey will trial this first, as paedos don't even get sent down in Ireland. But throwing a firework gets you two years.
Let's f*** it up - which I think Ireland excels at, frankly. It's our best current skill. We can do absolutely nothing right.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

You have to look at Gript to even hear about this. A friend sent a FOI request when he heard about this. It had all the protecting kids guff.
Hilarious that Ireland, the lackey will trial this first, as paedos don't even get sent down in Ireland. But throwing a firework gets you two years.
Let's f*** it up - which I think Ireland excels at, frankly. It's our best current skill. We can do absolutely nothing right.

What actually concerns you about the EU using a tested system to achieve their aims on protecting children from unsuitable internet content?

 

[ASCPFC]

What actually concerns you about the EU using a tested system to achieve their aims on protecting children from unsuitable internet content?

That's fine but they don't need to do anywhere near what they're doing to do that. If you truly look into it, you'll find everything you say and do can be censored and scrutinised at any time. The issue is with the combination of that and then having crazy hate speech laws - both surprisingly coming in at the same time in Ireland. The pick and choose mentality of any of our enforcement doesn't only bother me - it's a concern for everyone. It's not reported at all in our press. Not any I've seen anyway. They're trying to slightly push an idea of a digital wallet currently. Nobody's going to want that either.
Age verification and a code, for example, is good enough to protect children. Along with the decent ability to report harmful content. The Garda and the justice system do what they like here and there is no rush on them to either prosecute or imprison what most would consider relatively serious sex offenders - and yes, full on paedos currently. Look up cases yourself. They're mind bogglingly lenient on paedos.
So why the rush to surveillance and censorship now? It's not for the stated purpose whatsoever.
I wish they'd deal with sex offenders now. But they're happy enough to go after people using dodgy boxes or not paying parking tickets. Which leads me to think that this is more of the same. That and whatever the current hate speech is.

 

[eaglesdare]

What actually concerns you about the EU using a tested system to achieve their aims on protecting children from unsuitable internet content?

I agree that the EU should absolutely prioritize protecting children, starting with keeping them away from trans indoctrination and rapid medicalization pushed online and in schools.

If they are serious about childrens safety, why not focus on that instead of using vague "harmful content" rules to censor dissent and control what adults can discuss on social media?

 

[eaglesdare]

Digital ID to access social media....didint some scoff at that idea earlier in this thread and say it was a right wing conspiracy theory? 🤔

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

That's fine but they don't need to do anywhere near what they're doing to do that. If you truly look into it, you'll find everything you say and do can be censored and scrutinised at any time. The issue is with the combination of that and then having crazy hate speech laws - both surprisingly coming in at the same time in Ireland. The pick and choose mentality of any of our enforcement doesn't only bother me - it's a concern for everyone. It's not reported at all in our press. Not any I've seen anyway. They're trying to slightly push an idea of a digital wallet currently. Nobody's going to want that either.
Age verification and a code, for example, is good enough to protect children. Along with the decent ability to report harmful content. The Garda and the justice system do what they like here and there is no rush on them to either prosecute or imprison what most would consider relatively serious sex offenders - and yes, full on paedos currently. Look up cases yourself. They're mind bogglingly lenient on paedos.
So why the rush to surveillance and censorship now? It's not for the stated purpose whatsoever.
I wish they'd deal with sex offenders now. But they're happy enough to go after people using dodgy boxes or not paying parking tickets. Which leads me to think that this is more of the same. That and whatever the current hate speech is.

Just how do you think that is done?

Governments don’t have the resources to moderate social media or the means of removing content if they did. They expect and rely on the cooperation of the platforms, who don’t. Being based in the USA under a Trump administration makes that doubly difficult. Just look at the resistance to our on line safety act!

So a belt and braces approach makes perfect sense to me and this way seems sensible and doable. Age verification makes sense but is a lot easier to write than implement. Providing a digital ID to those of an appropriate age is just common sense. I don’t understand why anyone should object. I don’t. I welcome being asked to help. I have nothing to hide so nothing to fear by needing to prove my identity.

I don’t live in Ireland and it’s been a long time since I was there, so cannot comment on your specific assertions. However, doing what the EU is proposing can only help improve things. It cannot make them worse.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

I agree that the EU should absolutely prioritize protecting children, starting with keeping them away from trans indoctrination and rapid medicalization pushed online and in schools.

If they are serious about childrens safety, why not focus on that instead of using vague "harmful content" rules to censor dissent and control what adults can discuss on social media?

Only those who regard transgender issues as some kind of imaginary mental illness think children need such “protection”! The better informed, more socially aware and compassionate in society recognise that something that was hidden and suppressed until now is now being discussed and, when appropriate, help provided.

It has nothing at all to do with the need to ensure children cannot access inappropriate content online.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Only those who regard transgender issues as some kind of imaginary mental illness think children need such “protection”! The better informed, more socially aware and compassionate in society recognise that something that was hidden and suppressed until now is now being discussed and, when appropriate, help provided.

It has nothing at all to do with the need to ensure children cannot access inappropriate content online.

How about compassion for female athletes, especially boxers, who've had to try to compete with naturally stronger opponents?

 

[georgenorman]

Only those who regard transgender issues as some kind of imaginary mental illness think children need such “protection”! The better informed, more socially aware and compassionate in society recognise that something that was hidden and suppressed until now is now being discussed and, when appropriate, help provided.

It has nothing at all to do with the need to ensure children cannot access inappropriate content online.

These "better informed, more socially aware and compassionate" are facilitating child abuse.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

How about compassion for female athletes, especially boxers, who've had to try to compete with naturally stronger opponents?

The rules on sport are being handled differently.

One of my granddaughters now identifies as male. Nothing more than identifies. They play ladies rugby at quite a high level. They are currently at Exeter Uni which has a close association with Exeter Chiefs. It took me a while to get my head around it but they are happy, and completely accepted by the rest of the team. The young don’t seem to have as many problems accepting these changes as the older generations do.

 

[eaglesdare]

Only those who regard transgender issues as some kind of imaginary mental illness think children need such “protection”! The better informed, more socially aware and compassionate in society recognise that something that was hidden and suppressed until now is now being discussed and, when appropriate, help provided.

It has nothing at all to do with the need to ensure children cannot access inappropriate content online.

Calling it "compassion" doesn't make sterilising confused kids compassionate. Protecting children from social contagion, online grooming into medical transition, and irreversible decisions is basic safeguarding.

If the EU truly cares about kids, they should target that, not use "harmful content" as a pretext to censor adults who question it.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

The rules on sport are being handled differently.

One of my granddaughters now identifies as male. Nothing more than identifies. They play ladies rugby at quite a high level. They are currently at Exeter Uni which has a close association with Exeter Chiefs. It took me a while to get my head around it but they are happy, and completely accepted by the rest of the team. The young don’t seem to have as many problems accepting these changes as the older generations do.

Not the same though is it as someone who's trained for years being made to compete against bigger and stronger opponents just because it suited someone else's ideology.

 

[ASCPFC]

Just how do you think that is done?

Governments don’t have the resources to moderate social media or the means of removing content if they did. They expect and rely on the cooperation of the platforms, who don’t. Being based in the USA under a Trump administration makes that doubly difficult. Just look at the resistance to our on line safety act!

So a belt and braces approach makes perfect sense to me and this way seems sensible and doable. Age verification makes sense but is a lot easier to write than implement. Providing a digital ID to those of an appropriate age is just common sense. I don’t understand why anyone should object. I don’t. I welcome being asked to help. I have nothing to hide so nothing to fear by needing to prove my identity.

I don’t live in Ireland and it’s been a long time since I was there, so cannot comment on your specific assertions. However, doing what the EU is proposing can only help improve things. It cannot make them worse.

As far as I'm aware, AI will moderate your comments as you type. Has anyone been on that kind of a forum or comments section? It really does limit anything you say.
I already said age verification is fine. I'm all for that. I don't even mind, for instance, monitoring for terrorism etc. Needs to be done. And of course genuinely troubling content needs to be immediately dealt with. Indecent images etc. There are already mechanisms for all of that that are just not being used due to lack of interest or funding. Which one wonders if that is allowing Ireland, for example, to cheapskate it and pass the buck to the EU.

However, AI censorship is not really fine. If you've ever typed on that kind of thing, you'll know what I mean. This would probably be moderated as requiring verification, for example.
A lot gets put down as aggressive or offensive when it really isn't. I remember the furore I had with Google when I had faggots in a pub in Shropshire. I'm pretty sure you can imagine.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

As far as I'm aware, AI will moderate your comments as you type. Has anyone been on that kind of a forum or comments section? It really does limit anything you say.
I already said age verification is fine. I'm all for that. I don't even mind, for instance, monitoring for terrorism etc. Needs to be done. And of course genuinely troubling content needs to be immediately dealt with. Indecent images etc. There are already mechanisms for all of that that are just not being used due to lack of interest or funding. Which one wonders if that is allowing Ireland, for example, to cheapskate it and pass the buck to the EU.

However, AI censorship is not really fine. If you've ever typed on that kind of thing, you'll know what I mean. This would probably be moderated as requiring verification, for example.
A lot gets put down as aggressive or offensive when it really isn't. I remember the furore I had with Google when I had faggots in a pub in Shropshire. I'm pretty sure you can imagine.

A change is as good as a rest.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Calling it "compassion" doesn't make sterilising confused kids compassionate. Protecting children from social contagion, online grooming into medical transition, and irreversible decisions is basic safeguarding.

If the EU truly cares about kids, they should target that, not use "harmful content" as a pretext to censor adults who question it.

This response adds nothing other than confirming your prejudice.

No one is “sterilising confused kids”! It’s an insult to the professionals involved that you even think that is possible. There is a long process of counselling and verification before any interventions are even contemplated and any chance of confusion removed. On top of that gender affirming procedures are not carried out before someone becomes an adult at 18. So kids are not involved.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

As far as I'm aware, AI will moderate your comments as you type. Has anyone been on that kind of a forum or comments section? It really does limit anything you say.
I already said age verification is fine. I'm all for that. I don't even mind, for instance, monitoring for terrorism etc. Needs to be done. And of course genuinely troubling content needs to be immediately dealt with. Indecent images etc. There are already mechanisms for all of that that are just not being used due to lack of interest or funding. Which one wonders if that is allowing Ireland, for example, to cheapskate it and pass the buck to the EU.

However, AI censorship is not really fine. If you've ever typed on that kind of thing, you'll know what I mean. This would probably be moderated as requiring verification, for example.
A lot gets put down as aggressive or offensive when it really isn't. I remember the furore I had with Google when I had faggots in a pub in Shropshire. I'm pretty sure you can imagine.

It will not surprise you to know I have had no experience of that! I have never had a comment removed or modified. AI can do extraordinary things these days so picking up and flagging unacceptable language, images or even misinformation is certainly within its capacity. Hence your experience, which ought to have been corrected by the human supervision.

AI is going to struggle though with individuals who pretend to be something they aren’t. Which is where a digital ID and age verification is going to help. Unless you have something to hide what is there to object to?

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Not the same though is it as someone who's trained for years being made to compete against bigger and stronger opponents just because it suited someone else's ideology.

If that is currently the situation then I would expect it to be changed.

A balance will be found as this issue becomes better understood and normalised.

 

[eaglesdare]

This response adds nothing other than confirming your prejudice.

No one is “sterilising confused kids”! It’s an insult to the professionals involved that you even think that is possible. There is a long process of counselling and verification before any interventions are even contemplated and any chance of confusion removed. On top of that gender affirming procedures are not carried out before someone becomes an adult at 18. So kids are not involved.

Kids are being indoctrinated online with social contagion and groomed toward medical transition long before 18.

Puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries cause irreversible sterility and lifelong harm. Safeguarding means protecting children from that ideology and not censoring adults who point it out.