Make verified ID a requirement for opening a social media account.

[billyblack]

14 minutes ago, jp1981 said:

Re racism, I may be being naive, but depending on the reasons as to why you are against immigration, would determine on whether or not it is racist. 

Apparently voting to leave the EU made you racist in some eyes. Go figure.

[Daavies;]

This topic is getting dangerously close to becoming political and devisive. 

[billyblack]

20 minutes ago, Owl-about-that-then said:

That is true, I wish all websites had this, it's good most major sites do these days.

Agree, they could check and ask you if you wanted to post that, like moving money between bank accounts etc (just to check make sure you hadnt been hacked of course)

[owlinexile]

1 minute ago, Daavies; said:

This topic is getting dangerously close to becoming political and devisive. 

 

It's about government censorship of the internet.  In what world is it ever not going to be political and divisive?

[Rev Owl]

1 minute ago, Daavies; said:

This topic is getting dangerously close to becoming political and devisive. 

I'm assuming that's a bit tongue on cheek. Asking parliament to debate something carries with it both political and potentially divisive.

[paulrs]

2 hours ago, Manwë said:

Won't be signing it, as it'll be pointless anyway.  Any interaction that requires a verifiable form of ID for tens of millions of people will require a staff of hundreds, verifying such IDs, and who is going to do that?  Twitter?  Facebook?   The Govt?  The police?  

 

Let's say, for instance, that the UKGov introduced such a law and France doesn't.  Then will unverified French people be able to speak/criticise/share with verified UK people?    If Yes, then the law is pointless because it's simple to create an account from any country within reason.  If no, then the UK really will be cutting itself off from the rest of the world.  

 

Secondly, I've been following social media this year quite heavily on a number of topics, mostly human rights, and the level of debate is beyond sad.  Don't agree with mass migration?  Then you're a fascist*.  Don't think that Laurel Hubbard should compete under the women's section at Tokyo?  Then you're a transphobe*.    Eat meat?  Then you take enjoyment in seeing animals suffer*.  Yes you do, stop denying it.

 

*Not really, you just have a difference of opinion, which may be right or wrong, but ultimately, your right to hold such a view is a right too.   

 

But not everyone believes you're entitled to a different opinion, and some even believe a difference of opinion is possibly a criminal offence, or should be.  And who better to determine that than the police?    So let's call the police when someone disagrees, and let them be the judge of what's right or wrong online.  No thanks.

 

Racism has no place in society, but stifling free-speech for the sake of online fire-and-forget trolls is not the way to go about it.

 

We live in a digitally connected age, and no unilateral decision by the UK will stop any digital crime, no matter how well intentioned.  The only solution, is to stop the internet.  

Excellent post 

[Daavies;]

Just thought owlstalk was a place to escape the real world political drama that we see on the Main stream media 24/7. Gonna step back from this thread, ignore my previous post please. 

[Guest Willow Owl]

Maybe already said.

Agree in theory, but who would make the laws and rules. Countries view right and wrong differently, what we might consider offensive and racist may not be considered as doing anything wrong.

Majority of the abuse is from other countries, maybe these countries need to do more to educate people more. 

 

[Pieman]

Very good way forward.

[Rev Owl]

I think in the long term the best way out of this is education. I'm not necessarily meaning just in schools but in society generally. I think my views have changed over time because of a general approach of being educated within a society about other people.

[Leaping Lannys Perm]

56 minutes ago, Manwë said:

 

 

The whole point of online debate is that there generally isn't consensus about most issues, so who will agree what you can and can't write on the internet?  Facebook?  Is that the dear holder of a human moral code?  The Govt?  Which Govt?  The Tories?  The SNP?   Oh yes, I'd love to see BoJo, Patel and Sturgeon telling you what you can and can't write on the internet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I kind of assumed there'd be a independent panel to make the recommendations. Like one of those Lord Justice reports.

 

No I wouldn't want Facebook making the decisions or this hypocritical government. But at the same time we can't just allow this to go one just because it might be hard to come to a consensus. 

[Rev Owl]

3 minutes ago, folger said:

Absolutely not. And what the hell does this have to do with SWFC matchday?

The OP requested it be in match day for more visibility. The site owner / mods agreed.

[billyblack]

2 hours ago, Manwë said:

Won't be signing it, as it'll be pointless anyway.  Any interaction that requires a verifiable form of ID for tens of millions of people will require a staff of hundreds, verifying such IDs, and who is going to do that?  Twitter?  Facebook?   The Govt?  The police?  

 

Let's say, for instance, that the UKGov introduced such a law and France doesn't.  Then will unverified French people be able to speak/criticise/share with verified UK people?    If Yes, then the law is pointless because it's simple to create an account from any country within reason.  If no, then the UK really will be cutting itself off from the rest of the world.  

 

Secondly, I've been following social media this year quite heavily on a number of topics, mostly human rights, and the level of debate is beyond sad.  Don't agree with mass migration?  Then you're a fascist*.  Don't think that Laurel Hubbard should compete under the women's section at Tokyo?  Then you're a transphobe*.    Eat meat?  Then you take enjoyment in seeing animals suffer*.  Yes you do, stop denying it.

 

*Not really, you just have a difference of opinion, which may be right or wrong, but ultimately, your right to hold such a view is a right too.   

 

But not everyone believes you're entitled to a different opinion, and some even believe a difference of opinion is possibly a criminal offence, or should be.  And who better to determine that than the police?    So let's call the police when someone disagrees, and let them be the judge of what's right or wrong online.  No thanks.

 

Racism has no place in society, but stifling free-speech for the sake of online fire-and-forget trolls is not the way to go about it.

 

We live in a digitally connected age, and no unilateral decision by the UK will stop any digital crime, no matter how well intentioned.  The only solution, is to stop the internet.  

Genuine question. 

 

If racism has no place in socciety and the police cant or shouldnt fix it, whats the answer?

[Rev Owl]

1 minute ago, Leaping Lannys Perm said:

this hypocritical government

You might agree that anyone could take this view about any government. 

They are elected though as all our governments have been for quite some time now.

[Rev Owl]

1 minute ago, billyblack said:

Genuine question. 

 

If racism has no place in socciety and the police cant or shouldnt fix it, whats the answer?

Education, empathy, kindness.

Edited July 13, 2021 by Rev Owl

[TommyCraig]

It's the internet. You will never stop the hatred, bullying, threats, racism etc.. from happening. It's a pipe dream. 

My solution would be to treat platforms that don't require proper ID, and don't take abuse seriously, with disdain. 

If you require someone to prove their identity before they use your platform and have a good track record of dealing with abusers, then you should be afforded a grade 1 platform status. 

This kind of platform is the only platform anyone should use if they want to guarantee any kind of justice from receiving hate/abuse. 

Being banned from one grade 1 platform should then mean you are banned from them all. 

This  grade 1 platform is then the only type of platform say a national team player or a politician or musician should use in a professional capacity and I suspect indeed a personal one. 

If Joe Bloggs wants to interact he bloody well needs to prove who he is before he interacts. Passport type standard. 

Also there needs to be a new reporting body available on these grade 1 platforms not run by by the actual platforms themselves. Reporting some on twitter it seems can be a pointless exercise although I personally don't use it. 

Make them sign up to something like this or refuse to take part in their vast money making business's. 

It's the only way or we will just go around in circles. 

[ChapSmurf]

24 minutes ago, Owl-about-that-then said:

Whilst that bit is true to some extent, passwords can be leaked due to bad security on the website's part - i.e. in no way preventable by the individual themselves.
For example, years ago adobe (among many other websites) got hacked / had millions of users password information leaked, and that didn't become public knowledge until years after, so for years people's passwords were open to people who had the know how of how to find and use them and it didn't matter how strong the passwords were. 
A few years back I went and found my own email and passwords in password lists online from this, and surprisingly it was very easy to then log into various accounts of mine from that. I am much more careful since and keep separate passwords for each website.

Some other big sites this has happened to since include dropbox, myfitnesspal, myspace, facebook, wattpad, and various universities. 

So then, with the rest of it, I don't post on my twitter or facebook, I just use them to get information usually, but if someone accessed one of those, they could easily cause me a lot of hassle by being toxic or abusive to people and even if eventually I could prove it wasn't me, the consequences of that if linked to my actual ID and name would be much more severe than now where my accounts tend to be under another name. 

 

Granted, infrastructures can be compromised. I know this all too well. It's just a question of finding the weakness in the system to exploit.

 

However, should an account or a system be exploited, it would be very obvious. Should that result in a post being made through that account, it would also be very obvious, after some analysis, that the account owner wasn't the one who made it. Hackers are lazy like the rest of the population. They make mistakes, trust me.

 

Multi-factor authentication will become an absolute requirement for social media at some point and I believe that will be enforced through text messages to a registered device. Don't want to register your phone? You don't get an account, simple as. But that is where most secure sites are going at the moment and FB and Twitter won't be too far behind. Passwords could still be exploited, but hackers would then need to unhash the phone numbers in the database and have access to the physical device, before they could even gain access to the account. The only people who could gain any traction here would be Telcos or State sponsored actors - who quite frankly have bigger fish to fry.

[Guest LondonOwl313]

2 minutes ago, billyblack said:

Genuine question. 

 

If racism has no place in socciety and the police cant or shouldnt fix it, whats the answer?

The police can’t fix this, they don’t have the resources. Not sure if you saw that Channel 4 documentary a few months ago called Hunting Paedophiles.. it was shocking how many were out there and they didn’t have the manpower to track them down.

 

Personally if there’s more resources for cyber policing i’d rather it went there first ahead of tracking people down who say nasty and backward things.

 

The social media companies need to do more and filter it out before it even gets seen.

[billyblack]

3 minutes ago, LondonOwl313 said:

The police can’t fix this, they don’t have the resources. Not sure if you saw that Channel 4 documentary a few months ago called Hunting Paedophiles.. it was shocking how many were out there and they didn’t have the manpower to track them down.

 

Personally if there’s more resources for cyber policing i’d rather it went there first ahead of tracking people down who say nasty and backward things.

 

The social media companies need to do more and filter it out before it even gets seen.

I understand the police cant fix this problem, they can only enforce the punoshment. Education is the answer, whilst we wait for the next 50 or 60 years to come fruition mind, we need to do something.

 

Social media companies doing their part is one thing i agree. Dual authentication would also work. Works for banking so why not social media?  Cyber policing could be expanded.

 

The other question is, if you had been racially abused, whatever your race, there was evidence to prove it and you had reported it, what would you want done about it? Never happened to me but there are plenty it has. They cant or shouldnt wait 50 or 60 years for education to catch up.

 

 

[Guest LondonOwl313]

2 minutes ago, billyblack said:

I understand the police cant fix this problem, they can only enforce the punoshment. Education is the answer, whilst we wait for the next 50 or 60 years to come fruition mind, we need to do something.

 

Social media companies doing their part is one thing i agree. Dual authentication would also work. Works for banking so why not social media?  Cyber policing could be expanded.

 

The other question is, if you had been racially abused, whatever your race, there was evidence to prove it and you had reported it, what would you want done about it? Never happened to me but there are plenty it has. They cant or shouldnt wait 50 or 60 years for education to catch up.

 

 

Well yeah they could have Face ID or fingerprint recognition, but then some would say their device is too old to support it.

 

To me an appropriate punishment would be a sizeable fine payable to a charity of the victims choice and compulsory attendance on a racism awareness course or something. Could obviously escalate for serial offenders