Censorship and Social Media

Teddy Eagle said:
True enough but there are many dodgy heads of state and we as a country don't need to be appointing dubious characters to every ambassadorial post.
Click to expand...
There’s no “dodgy” head of state with anything like the impact on our lives than Trump. Not even Putin comes close and being able to influence him via diplomacy or flattery is non existent.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
There’s no “dodgy” head of state with anything like the impact on our lives than Trump. Not even Putin comes close and being able to influence him via diplomacy or flattery is non existent.
Click to expand...
So the only answer is to put another shady character in the job. If he's such an idiot shouldn't an experienced diplomat be able to cope with him?
 
Teddy Eagle said:
So the only answer is to put another shady character in the job. If he's such an idiot shouldn't an experienced diplomat be able to cope with him?
Click to expand...
Yes. It should always be given to a career diplomat. Thise that reach the giddy heights of Ambassador, have spent their whole careers being diplomatic and working all over the World. The previous Ambassador was very highly respected and liked by the US Government ( and had no “baggage”. It was more than ok to have a career diplomat in post during Trumps first tenure, what’s the difference?
The biggest question is “ why were they so keen to shoehorn Mandleson in ahead of a career diplomat?”
 
Spiderman said:
Yes. It should always be given to a career diplomat. Thise that reach the giddy heights of Ambassador, have spent their whole careers being diplomatic and working all over the World. The previous Ambassador was very highly respected and liked by the US Government ( and had no “baggage”. It was more than ok to have a career diplomat in post during Trumps first tenure, what’s the difference?
The biggest question is “ why were they so keen to shoehorn Mandleson in ahead of a career diplomat?”
Click to expand...
It's clearly a move to put someone in with "the right connections". Which has backfired massively. Being connected to Epstein was probably why he was given the job, rather ironically. The government can't come out (in more ways than one) and say that now, can they.
 
Teddy Eagle said:
So the only answer is to put another shady character in the job. If he's such an idiot shouldn't an experienced diplomat be able to cope with him?
Click to expand...
Not even his own staff can cope with him. Raise a word of objection, get fired and face revenge. An experienced diplomatic knows how to assess a character and use flattery and condensation as tools to achieve their country’s aims but Trump is an exceptionally tricky proposition. He is unpredictable, inconsistent and unreliable. Having someone with an inside track must have seemed a clever idea. Employ a thief to catch a thief thinking?
 
So it seems X and musk is the problem according to two tier kier because it exposes his and the governments failures while exposing scandals like the grooming gangs.

They will try to shut it down in the UK before the next election no doubt.
 
eaglesdare said:
So it seems X and musk is the problem according to two tier kier because it exposes his and the governments failures while exposing scandals like the grooming gangs.

They will try to shut it down in the UK before the next election no doubt.
Click to expand...

IMG_2272.webp
And even this is being generous.
 
eaglesdare said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/2066402218513662035

I wonder why a left wing social media platform full of loons and paedophiles could be exempt from an under 16/17 social media ban?
Click to expand...
You are so biased it’s embarrassing to read your comments and think that you actually believe them.

Blue sky isn’t left! It’s simply more responsible with its moderation.

How the new ban will be implemented is unclear but it seems most likely to require intervention from the platforms in controlling access. Perhaps biometric logins?

More important though it enables parental control to be backed up legally and carry more weight.

Getting control over the obvious dangers of the way social media has taken over the lives of children at their most important time is essential. Doing so in a way that allows the enormous benefits of the internet to continue to be used is the challenge.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
You are so biased it’s embarrassing to read your comments and think that you actually believe them.

Blue sky isn’t left! It’s simply more responsible with its moderation.

How the new ban will be implemented is unclear but it seems most likely to require intervention from the platforms in controlling access. Perhaps biometric logins?

More important though it enables parental control to be backed up legally and carry more weight.

Getting control over the obvious dangers of the way social media has taken over the lives of children at their most important time is essential. Doing so in a way that allows the enormous benefits of the internet to continue to be used is the challenge.
Click to expand...
Not left leaning? There's nothing wrong with being left leaning so why deny it?
  • User Demographics: Studies, including surveys by CivicScience, show that a plurality of users identify as Democratic or liberal.
    • News Influencers: Approximately 69% of left-leaning news influencers have a Bluesky account, compared to only 15% of conservative ones Pew Research Center. Many left-wing users created accounts to move away from Elon Musk's X Pew Research Center.

    • Platform Culture: The heavy left-leaning tilt has sparked some critique regarding an echo chamber effect, with tech commentators like Mark Cuban noting a lack of "diversity of thought" New York Post.
 
The main thing kids use is Discord. Which is full of groomers and paedos that kids have to navigate. As is Roblox. Watch out if your kids are on these.
Paedos simply go to where kids are. So if there are no kids on X, then why would they be there.
This is not to protect kids.
 
ASCPFC said:
The main thing kids use is Discord. Which is full of groomers and paedos that kids have to navigate. As is Roblox. Watch out if your kids are on these.
Paedos simply go to where kids are. So if there are no kids on X, then why would they be there.
This is not to protect kids.
Click to expand...

It's to pave the way for digital ID. It's long time comming I guess. Won't be long before we have to upload our IDs to use this site.
 
eaglesdare said:
It's to pave the way for digital ID. It's long time comming I guess. Won't be long before we have to upload our IDs to use this site.
Click to expand...
I've mentioned it before and media reports are scant (what a surprise). Ireland is going to try to trial this for the EU. As usual, we're the Lackey. We'll probably announce it with applomb at our 400mil EU presidency.
The change that has happened in UK politics might actually happen in Ireland. I'm not seeing anyone happy with the current status quo. I'm nearly skint and I'm way above the average wage. Twice it basically.
 
eaglesdare said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/2062953480331878726

I guess this would mean mandatory ID checks for everyone to use social media then?
Click to expand...
I can't remember if I posted on here, apologies if I have.

My new neighbour advises governments around the world and major corporations on children and the internet (safety) policies.

I asked her about banning kids and she was against it and told the Australian government not to do it. As she predicted the kids soon found ways around it from fake id's / fake photo's VPNs etc etc. All they have done is make it more attractive to teens.

I notice that Meghan Russells father pretty much said the same thing the other day he is against banning.

It's a complex issue and I think we all agree that kids need to be protected from the nasty stuff. Governments like the idea of banning as it appears to be quick and decisive (onto the next issue).

I don't have any brilliant ideas but I take on board what my neighbour and others are saying that this does not fix the issue.

As some have also pointed out this also means that the rest of the population will have to prove their identity which means more state control.
 
Badger11 said:
I can't remember if I posted on here, apologies if I have.

My new neighbour advises governments around the world and major corporations on children and the internet (safety) policies.

I asked her about banning kids and she was against it and told the Australian government not to do it. As she predicted the kids soon found ways around it from fake id's / fake photo's VPNs etc etc. All they have done is make it more attractive to teens.

I notice that Meghan Russells father pretty much said the same thing the other day he is against banning.

It's a complex issue and I think we all agree that kids need to be protected from the nasty stuff. Governments like the idea of banning as it appears to be quick and decisive (onto the next issue).

I don't have any brilliant ideas but I take on board what my neighbour and others are saying that this does not fix the issue.

As some have also pointed out this also means that the rest of the population will have to prove their identity which means more state control.
Click to expand...

My take is that while kids will find ways around it with VPNs etc...as you have pointed out. It has the potential to push them away from safe spaces and would push them towards unmoderated websites or the dark web spaces or as I understand it places like bluesky which looks like it could be exempt.

If we will have to upload our IDs to prove our age then it makes it easier for people to report us for things they don't agree with or find "offensive". Police will knock our doors over somthing they don't like us posting about.
 
Ill thought out diversion effort, typical Starmer.

He thinks " earnest " sound bytes on protecting children will move the dial on the worst premiership in at least a century

The dangers need to be somehow lessened but copying Australia is not the way.
 
eaglesdare said:
My take is that while kids will find ways around it with VPNs etc...as you have pointed out. It has the potential to push them away from safe spaces and would push them towards unmoderated websites or the dark web spaces or as I understand it places like bluesky which looks like it could be exempt.

If we will have to upload our IDs to prove our age then it makes it easier for people to report us for things they don't agree with or find "offensive". Police will knock our doors over somthing they don't like us posting about.
Click to expand...
Yup agreed.

I don't agree with the argument that if you have done nothing wrong why should you be worried about forking over your id.

Yes some people will post criminal stuff but a lot of us let of steam on the internet. I suspect that many of us would be embarrassed about some of our if posts if our family read them.

Sometimes we are provocative and don't really mean what we say but try explaining that to others if you are unmasked.

And what about people who hide their sexual identity because of their culture or community. They have have just talked about it freely in a perfectly legal way but if that leaked out it could cause all sortts of issues for them.

As I said in my previous post I don't have any brilliant ideas but I do think the responsibility lies with the software companies. If someone drinks contaminated water is it their fault of the water company.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top