It’s a little like musicians who played Sun City; some did it for the money, some under sufferance due to financial need and some probably didn’t give it a second thought. And of course a lot more didn’t go.

Ha!

Fickle commitment.

Well, no doubt that'll work for you until you no longer agree with those implementing the checkpoints.

But then you won't have a leg to stand on.

Ultimately it won't matter as eventually there will be parallel infrastructures....and when that happens as long as you stick with your 'safe' approved one that's cool

Edited by Stirlingsays (01 Nov 2021 8.42pm)

It's sensible for any social network to adhere to law and have algorithms and rules in place that seek to encourage people to stay within it too and adhere to basic community standards. That's nothing that doesn't already exist here for instance. HOL censors swears words, and the n word and the like for instance should some crave the desire to use them.

The only other safety net would be to stop people disrupting platforms (trolls, foreign actors) once already banned. Facebook already takes such measures. They help to make sure platforms aren't abused, and are useful and proportionate steps regardless of a persons politics.

I don't really think increased government involvement should factor into the above (or any involvement really unless something extreme is going on) - though they may decide that it does and yes that could be to the detriment of this group or that all depending on the government of the day, so it's a fair argument to be wary of it.

Where they should of course keep a keen eye, as we see with MPs getting killed, is groups that either encourage such violence, or those that effectively act as line treading pit stops for ex-members of them under cover of respectability. They should most certainly infiltrate and monitor groups that may form a patchwork of radicalisation and be a mix of easily led, dysfunctional, strident and extreme, whether Islamic, far right, far left, whatever. It would be negligent to society and those on the wrong path to fail to do so.

All I ultimately want to keep 'safe' is people from pathways that lead to extremism. That should be the extent of the governments role in the Internet space. Social media platforms as you say will likely take their own approaches within reason. It's a no-brainer to use technology to snuff out contributions from those just signing up to vomit vulgar abuse and threats to people well known or not. Wilf is right to call out the platforms rather than give much time to the individuals. That's where change can happen.

Edited by BlueJay (01 Nov 2021 11.18pm)

I miss the Internet when it resembled the diversity of thought that (still to an extent) exists in real face to face conversation. Over recent years especially it's all about algorithms that keep eyeballs on screens and that usually happens through encouraging division and hostility rather than anything useful or positive. The echo chamber and both state and social media manipulation of users has become more like presenting people with a directed 'fix' than with information, compromise and nuance (unavoidable aspects of life), and that's across the board politically. The 'through the looking glance' nature of how it impacts peoples mentality definitely significantly magnifies differences in real life too. Most pushed online political perspective of all shades nowadays are so laughably 'off the shelf' and identikit that its staggering (and inevitably those with the loudspeakers are banking bank and thus have no interest in straying from their grift). The Internet has become a kind of corrupted environment, until or unless a more human side emerges (there's potential that more virtual environment developments in future might bring this. It can't exactly make things worse).

I think it's the nature of online platforms to cater to an audience, or provide room for all (whatever opportunity makes them $$$), and that within the law they should be allowed to do so. Both the left (hate speech) and the right (wanting governments to step in due to popular platforms marginalising certain voices) both open open the door for the government having more and more control over what is deemed as a valid expression at any given moment. Ultimately I see that as a negative really, and the letting in of something that will eventually be used against all. Government should in my view have a remit that is centred on commonly understood paths to violence, which I would say should largely be traced back from those engaging in such acts, rather than any opinion or angle that I or anyone else might have.

I see the current problem being that successful algorithms are those that purposefully encourage disagreement and anger (aka twitter) or present ever more ramped up and extreme versions of whatever outlooks people support. Whatever keeps people on a platform has become the go-to approach. I don't find that to be any more real to life as an approach that is overly positive. It has taken centre stage because its without the nuance and face to face that is still somewhat more common in real life. The sweet spot would likely be more of a balance but as you say, it probably wouldn't be popular. Then again giving preference and weight to what is addictive, damaging and profitable rather than balanced almost becomes a kind of 'legalise all drugs' base instincts argument, on account of what it likely amounts to for society and the individual.

Online life may well be a window to offline divisions, but I'd wager that the Internet has drastically ramped up divisions on account of its echo chamber type filters. It has eliminated borders between people, but not necessarily in a healthy way, rather one where they seek identikit outlooks more than ever (because they so easily can). It's the vanity of the mirror, the 'do i look pretty in this' to the rest of the echo chamber. It eliminates the needs for emotional intelligence, debate and compromise for the most part, which even in times past was a more necessary and respected component of society. It disturbingly narrows peoples outlooks to a handful of high fives and buzzwords that are embraced by their brand of bubble.

Yes I very much agree with this. I don't really feel that some kind of enforced 'with us or against us' from political groups, or corporations or governments telling people how to think or feel is necessarily all that natural a part of life. Going back through the ages life was more local and day to day, and while i'm not saying that in a 'connected world' people benefit from being ignorant to the outside, I do think equally that being consumed by it isn't of much use either because the tone of it is and always will be biased to a myriad of storms on the horizon.