Want to tell Margaret Hodge, DWP Minister, what you think of her?

[splonkydoo]

I hate twitter, and the type of dialogue and engagement it promotes, and would be glad to see it got rid of in the morning.
I'm sure that she isn't lying or exaggerating and does receive anti-semitic and other abuse, and that should never be tolerated.

But as we are talking about the level of it, it would be interesting to see a comparison of the type and level of AS abuse received in 2020 vs the same thing in 2016.

 

[Sasaferrato]

The antisemitic, racist and sexist abuse does need to be reigned in, though, along with the downright lies of the anti-vax and qanon stuff.

I think that the only way you can do that is by shutting down social media completely.

It is impossible to police in real time, 6000 tweets per second, 500 million a day. Certainly, software can be designed to search keywords, but not all nastiness is profane.

Take into account the number of social media outlets, the daily traffic is astounding, 60 billion daily messages on WhatsApp alone.

Social media can be an utter cesspit.

 

[two sheds]

Fair point. For personal abuse at least though the target would have to do the initial collating and complaining (as now I presume). If no response by twitter then bring a case under Duty of Care and leave it to a judge to decide. Get a few precedents and they'd have to act properly given the evidence.

Anti-vax and anti-mask and qanon more difficult although there are enough people I'd have thought who'd be happy to collect that stuff and complain at the worst ones. I'd also imagine it's relatively few people who are outright loons/on the far right who are doing the worst of it and starting things that are shared.

They'd start up again after being banned and I'm not sure how to counter that apart perhaps from delaying new applications for a week or month.

 

[two sheds]

I think there should be a sort of 'reliability' score, too - with anyone sharing or liking something that is adjudged misleading/downright lies being marked down for it with a message to each as to why. At least people might see a poster's past behaviour when they read a post.

As I say I'm not on any of them so I don't know whether this would work.

 

[Pickman's model]

I think there should be a sort of 'reliability' score, too - with anyone sharing or liking something that is adjudged misleading/downright lies being marked down for it with a message to each as to why. At least people might see a poster's past behaviour when they read a post.

As I say I'm not on any of them so I don't know whether this would work.

that'd fuck politicians

 

[Sasaferrato]

that'd fuck politicians

There is a general expectation though, you expect your doctor to tell the truth, you expect politicians to lie.

 

[Pickman's model]

There is a general expectation though, you expect your doctor to tell the truth, you expect politicians to lie.

you'd hope they'd be halfway good at it

 

[Dogsauce]

I think that the only way you can do that is by shutting down social media completely.

It is impossible to police in real time, 6000 tweets per second, 500 million a day. Certainly, software can be designed to search keywords, but not all nastiness is profane.

Take into account the number of social media outlets, the daily traffic is astounding, 60 billion daily messages on WhatsApp alone.

Social media can be an utter cesspit.

There‘s no public archive of WhatsApp, no way of seeing what is shared and discussed. More dangerous than Twitter as stuff can’t be countered by anyone outside of the recipient group. It’s already been used by dodgy types to elect Bolsanaro in Brazil and win Florida for the Republicans in the recent election.

 

[Sasaferrato]

There‘s no public archive of WhatsApp, no way of seeing what is shared and discussed. More dangerous than Twitter as stuff can’t be countered by anyone outside of the recipient group. It’s already been used by dodgy types to elect Bolsanaro in Brazil and win Florida for the Republicans in the recent election.

I noticed an article today re pro and anti end to end encryption. Sharing child abuse images is the main argument against.

 

[Pickman's model]

I noticed an article today re pro and anti end to end encryption. Sharing child abuse images is the main argument against.

child abuse is the main argument used for so many abridgments of liberty.

 

[Sasaferrato]

child abuse is the main argument used for so many abridgments of liberty.

I agree, however, there is no doubt that encryption facilities it.