4 ms·

Well good luck with that. They can only target places like Facebook/Twitter, there's hundreds of smaller social sites that will just completely ignore this shit

Well good luck with that. They can only target places like Facebook/Twitter, there's hundreds of smaller social sites that will just completely ignore this shit. Not to mention the internet is global, so really they can't enforce anything. > Priti Patel considering removing right to anonymity on social media to stop ‘relentless’ abuse of MPs If they weren't so corrupt and inept they wouldn't be subject to 'abuse', it comes with the job. Edit: also to add, abusing people online is an easy form of 'slactivism', people let off steam, it keeps them lazy and complacent, stops them taking action in the real world. If that venue is removed, i.e arresting people for name calling on Facebook (which is already happening) then actual actions in the real world will escalate and dealing with name calling will be the least of these peoples problems.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> there's hundreds of smaller social sites that will just completely ignore this shit Shifting potentially dangerous content from Twitter and Facebook to small, specialised sounds like a win win.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  Yes, if there's anything people formulating dark plans hate, it's secrecy and privacy. It's important to force them into more robust and secure venues, their current opsec is terrible. It'll be another guaranteed win, like FOSTA and SESTA in the US. Thank Congress that child prostitution has moved to places that law enforcement have no access to, and that sex workers require middlemen again in order to work.
inglor_cz 5y ago
"If they weren't so corrupt and inept they wouldn't be subject to 'abuse', it comes with the job." It indeed comes with the job, but I think you are trying to shift the blame too much. Politicians cannot possibly do their job in a way that appeals to everyone and step on no one's toes. And some people out there are not entirely sane and the Internet has given them wings. Every public figure, not just politicians, is a target of stupid hate. Actors, singers, journalists: if your face surfaces on people's screen too often, you will collect a team of disgusting haters.
- mdp2021 5y ago
  «team»?! «disgusting»?! The job of politics is contextually assigning weights to the interests of different social components: that some temporarily lose something as their interest is valued as minor in a big picture is part of the game. The phenomenon of «corrupt and inept» is completely different. Anything can be the target of the hate of morons: that is noise by definition. Move above the noise, and reasons arise why some collect targeted ire more than others. That is not frequency related exposure («too often»). It is, correctly, exposure as «corrupt and inept», and something very frequent in some big tribes (surely 'cultures' would be improper) must be added: bestiality. The ways of the worse populists (speaking not from the head to the heads, but from the nasty bits to the nasty bits) are common, in some areas, to many paupers-in-spirit attempting to be culturemakers owing to the drives of ignorance. Rare in the UK (apparently), extremely frequent elsewhere.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> there's hundreds of smaller social sites that will just completely ignore this shit Shifting potentially dangerous content from Twitter and Facebook to small, specialised sounds like a win win.

pessimizer 5y ago
Yes, if there's anything people formulating dark plans hate, it's secrecy and privacy. It's important to force them into more robust and secure venues, their current opsec is terrible. It'll be another guaranteed win, like FOSTA and SESTA in the US. Thank Congress that child prostitution has moved to places that law enforcement have no access to, and that sex workers require middlemen again in order to work.

inglor_cz 5y ago

"If they weren't so corrupt and inept they wouldn't be subject to 'abuse', it comes with the job." It indeed comes with the job, but I think you are trying to shift the blame too much. Politicians cannot possibly do their job in a way that appeals to everyone and step on no one's toes. And some people out there are not entirely sane and the Internet has given them wings. Every public figure, not just politicians, is a target of stupid hate. Actors, singers, journalists: if your face surfaces on people's screen too often, you will collect a team of disgusting haters.

mdp2021 5y ago
«team»?! «disgusting»?! The job of politics is contextually assigning weights to the interests of different social components: that some temporarily lose something as their interest is valued as minor in a big picture is part of the game. The phenomenon of «corrupt and inept» is completely different. Anything can be the target of the hate of morons: that is noise by definition. Move above the noise, and reasons arise why some collect targeted ire more than others. That is not frequency related exposure («too often»). It is, correctly, exposure as «corrupt and inept», and something very frequent in some big tribes (surely 'cultures' would be improper) must be added: bestiality. The ways of the worse populists (speaking not from the head to the heads, but from the nasty bits to the nasty bits) are common, in some areas, to many paupers-in-spirit attempting to be culturemakers owing to the drives of ignorance. Rare in the UK (apparently), extremely frequent elsewhere.