Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The correct approach ?; to social media.
Topic Started: Jul 1 2017, 12:26 PM (338 Views)
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Germany takes on the social media over illegal messages.

Is this the correct way to go ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-40444354

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
johnofgwent
Member Avatar
It .. It is GREEN !!
[ *  *  *  * ]
That would depend on what one considers "illegal".

For example, As I am sure you know very well, a certain jewish chap stood in a muddy puddle for a grainy black and white documentary shown when I was a kid before the days dad could afford a telly that could receive the 625 line BBC2 it was transmitted on, and bewailed the dumping of the ashes of rather more people than actually were dumped there in the bog in which he was standing and "getting the ash from their cremated bodies all over his patent leather shoes".

Nice stunt if you can pull it off but today acknowledged as rather less than factual and even a certain museum has had to down-grade the numbers it advertised on its memorial plaques.

I can point out these matters of fact in this country with impunity..

Doing it over there can get me in serious trouble

So no, I am far from convinced it is a good idea.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Oddball
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
JoG - 625 lines AND BBC2, thee were lucky; when I were a lad, it was 405 lines and nowt but one channel. It started at 4pm [Childrens Hour] and went on until 11pm, rounding off with a rendition of the National Anthem.
Edited by Oddball, Jul 1 2017, 01:42 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
johnofgwent
Jul 1 2017, 12:46 PM

For example, As I am sure you know very well, a certain jewish chap stood in a muddy puddle for a grainy black and white documentary shown when I was a kid before the days dad could afford a telly that could receive the 625 line BBC2 it was transmitted on, and bewailed the dumping of the ashes of rather more people than actually were dumped there in the bog in which he was standing and "getting the ash from their cremated bodies all over his patent leather shoes".

That was part of the Ascent of Man and the figure was not altered until a couple of decades after the programme was made.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
johnofgwent
Jul 1 2017, 12:46 PM
That would depend on what one considers "illegal".

For example, As I am sure you know very well, a certain jewish chap stood in a muddy puddle for a grainy black and white documentary shown when I was a kid before the days dad could afford a telly that could receive the 625 line BBC2 it was transmitted on, and bewailed the dumping of the ashes of rather more people than actually were dumped there in the bog in which he was standing and "getting the ash from their cremated bodies all over his patent leather shoes".

Nice stunt if you can pull it off but today acknowledged as rather less than factual and even a certain museum has had to down-grade the numbers it advertised on its memorial plaques.
I can point out these matters of fact in this country with impunity..

Doing it over there can get me in serious trouble

So no, I am far from convinced it is a good idea.
I believe that of the six million Jews that went missing only three million have actually been named. I guess that if families of Jews were wiped out and people who knew them were also wiped out along with records either deliberately destroyed or destroyed by bombs on many villages and towns, an accurate figure can only be guessed at.

The OP is about being fined for doing something illegal. Not sure that Bronowsci did anything illegal, or that he had any reason to doubt what he said at that time.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Jul 1 2017, 12:26 PM
Germany takes on the social media over illegal messages.

Is this the correct way to go ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-40444354

Very much the right way to go
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Oddball
Jul 1 2017, 01:17 PM
JoG - 625 lines AND BBC2, thee were lucky; when I were a lad, it was 405 lines and nowt but one channel. It started at 4pm [Childrens Hour] and went on until 11pm, rounding off with a rendition of the National Anthem.
We had a flip book and an Eddison disc.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Jul 1 2017, 09:12 PM
Oddball
Jul 1 2017, 01:17 PM
JoG - 625 lines AND BBC2, thee were lucky; when I were a lad, it was 405 lines and nowt but one channel. It started at 4pm [Childrens Hour] and went on until 11pm, rounding off with a rendition of the National Anthem.
We had a flip book and an Eddison disc.
You were lucky

we had a stone and had to gnaw words into it with our bare teeth
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Jul 1 2017, 12:26 PM
Germany takes on the social media over illegal messages.

Is this the correct way to go ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-40444354

Stopping outright lies in the media is a good idea, the shit we've been treated too this last year deserves a more muscular approach in my opinion.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
johnofgwent
Member Avatar
It .. It is GREEN !!
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jul 1 2017, 02:01 PM
johnofgwent
Jul 1 2017, 12:46 PM

For example, As I am sure you know very well, a certain jewish chap stood in a muddy puddle for a grainy black and white documentary shown when I was a kid before the days dad could afford a telly that could receive the 625 line BBC2 it was transmitted on, and bewailed the dumping of the ashes of rather more people than actually were dumped there in the bog in which he was standing and "getting the ash from their cremated bodies all over his patent leather shoes".

That was part of the Ascent of Man and the figure was not altered until a couple of decades after the programme was made.

That's him !! Thank you.

I am aware "the figure" was not altered until fairly recently. The point, I feel , is whether one is allowed to even say it was altered in Germany for fear of being accused of denial. That's the real point centric to this tread, that I fear Germany is not the best place to bring in an internet censorship law

I could give another example, I suppose. How is Elton John doing these days ....

And another. How would the internet be if we implemented China's idea of that is allowed and what is not ? Or North Koreas.

In a world where some continents and their presidents refuse to allow their military personnel to attend the coroners courts of their allies to give factual evidence pertinent to the demise of those allied personnel, and reject utterly the concept of their people being tried at the courts they themselves set up to try, and then hang those they had conquered by military force, I find it an extremely dangerous precedent to have certain countries demanding information be taken down from what is a truly universally available information system just because "their" courts declare it illegal

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Oddball
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Censorship - whose censorship, and by whose authority, and by what authority do they hold authority?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
johnofgwent
Jul 2 2017, 03:17 AM
papasmurf
Jul 1 2017, 02:01 PM
johnofgwent
Jul 1 2017, 12:46 PM
For example, As I am sure you know very well, a certain jewish chap stood in a muddy puddle for a grainy black and white documentary shown when I was a kid before the days dad could afford a telly that could receive the 625 line BBC2 it was transmitted on, and bewailed the dumping of the ashes of rather more people than actually were dumped there in the bog in which he was standing and "getting the ash from their cremated bodies all over his patent leather shoes".
That was part of the Ascent of Man and the figure was not altered until a couple of decades after the programme was made.

That's him !! Thank you.

I am aware "the figure" was not altered until fairly recently. The point, I feel , is whether one is allowed to even say it was altered in Germany for fear of being accused of denial. That's the real point centric to this tread, that I fear Germany is not the best place to bring in an internet censorship law

I could give another example, I suppose. How is Elton John doing these days ....

And another. How would the internet be if we implemented China's idea of that is allowed and what is not ? Or North Koreas.

In a world where some continents and their presidents refuse to allow their military personnel to attend the coroners courts of their allies to give factual evidence pertinent to the demise of those allied personnel, and reject utterly the concept of their people being tried at the courts they themselves set up to try, and then hang those they had conquered by military force, I find it an extremely dangerous precedent to have certain countries demanding information be taken down from what is a truly universally available information system just because "their" courts declare it illegal
As I understand it, it is not about lies, exaggerations or mistakes, it is about taking down or not taking down illegal postings.

It is IMO, a shame that nothing can be done about those who mislead others. The problem being that many of the young are so naïve and impressionable.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Oddball
Jul 2 2017, 05:21 AM
Censorship - whose censorship, and by whose authority, and by what authority do they hold authority?
Well as a sovereign government it is by the constitution of Germany to make such laws to give it such authority. And as the article makes clear the German people have an opportunity to vote this law down before it is active. And any aggrieved social media host would have the option of their day in court and the various appeal mechanisms.

The massive ability of the internet to promote illegal material that could take down whole governments and certainly destroy lives has to have an effective balancing mechanism. Currently the social media companies have widespread immunity and in effect just laugh at the situation while raking in their $billions of easy revenue.

When the criminals invade the playground then sadly playtime is over.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
From the website on the OP.

"Social media companies in Germany face fines of up to 50m euros ($57.1; £43.9m) if they fail to remove "obviously illegal" content in time."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
johnofgwent
Jul 2 2017, 03:17 AM


I could give another example, I suppose. How is Elton John doing these days ....

I don't know, and I don't care.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]

I believe that the printed press was once banned where it caused difficulties for the authorities ...... the establishment must have control of what the public hear or else become Democratic.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Jul 2 2017, 09:51 AM
I believe that the printed press was once banned where it caused difficulties for the authorities ...... the establishment must have control of what the public hear or else become Democratic.
Anything printed was once banned

But we have to end the use of the internet to spread obviously illegal material
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jul 2 2017, 09:54 AM


But we have to end the use of the internet to spread obviously illegal material
As long as the press/media are stopped doing so as well.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
johnofgwent
Jul 2 2017, 03:17 AM


I am aware "the figure" was not altered until fairly recently. The point, I feel , is whether one is allowed to even say it was altered in Germany for fear of being accused of denial. That's the real point centric to this tread, that I fear Germany is not the best place to bring in an internet censorship law


I don't think you know much about modern Germany, it's all grown up over there now from what I've been able to see, for starters there is not the appetite over there that there is here for fake news that appeals to numerous prejudices, and secondly the German public seem far more worldly than most Brits.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
johnofgwent
Jul 2 2017, 03:17 AM
That's him !! Thank you.

No problem, the book the Ascent of Man is on the bookshelf behind me, next to a limited edition of The Pilgrims Progress, ( a birthday present from a friend many years ago.)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jul 2 2017, 09:58 AM
Steve K
Jul 2 2017, 09:54 AM


But we have to end the use of the internet to spread obviously illegal material
As long as the press/media are stopped doing so as well.
I imagine that if the press/media were guilty of posting "obviously illegal" claims, they would be open to prosecution.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Jul 2 2017, 12:41 PM
I imagine that if the press/media were guilty of posting "obviously illegal" claims, they would be open to prosecution.
Not unless you happen to be very rich, that is why Leveson 2 should be implemented but I can't see that happening with a Tory government.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jul 2 2017, 12:45 PM
C-too
Jul 2 2017, 12:41 PM
I imagine that if the press/media were guilty of posting "obviously illegal" claims, they would be open to prosecution.
Not unless you happen to be very rich, that is why Leveson 2 should be implemented but I can't see that happening with a Tory government.
Do the main media publish detail instructions on bomb making, threats to kill, child pornography, revenge pornography, names and addresses of victims or other obviously illegal information?

No

So your point is irrelevant to this thread
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jul 2 2017, 12:49 PM
Do the main media publish detail instructions on bomb making, threats to kill, child pornography, revenge pornography, names and addresses of victims or other obviously illegal information?

No

So your point is irrelevant to this thread
My point is relevant because the media/press has been demonising millions of people in Britain for decades by propaganda and lies, and has done serious damage to their lives.
Leveson 2 would stop that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jul 2 2017, 12:56 PM
Steve K
Jul 2 2017, 12:49 PM
Do the main media publish detail instructions on bomb making, threats to kill, child pornography, revenge pornography, names and addresses of victims or other obviously illegal information?

No

So your point is irrelevant to this thread
My point is relevant because the media/press has been demonising millions of people in Britain for decades by propaganda and lies, and has done serious damage to their lives.
Leveson 2 would stop that.
!mod-s! leave it there or I will split that discussion out
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jul 2 2017, 12:45 PM
C-too
Jul 2 2017, 12:41 PM
I imagine that if the press/media were guilty of posting "obviously illegal" claims, they would be open to prosecution.
Not unless you happen to be very rich, that is why Leveson 2 should be implemented but I can't see that happening with a Tory government.
Don't we have laws against acting illegally ?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Jul 3 2017, 06:36 AM
papasmurf
Jul 2 2017, 12:45 PM
C-too
Jul 2 2017, 12:41 PM
I imagine that if the press/media were guilty of posting "obviously illegal" claims, they would be open to prosecution.
Not unless you happen to be very rich, that is why Leveson 2 should be implemented but I can't see that happening with a Tory government.
Don't we have laws against acting illegally ?
We do but they're not enforceable once we gave social media free rein to convey illegal content to UK homes

Which is why the German's have done the right thing, I'd be tougher. I'd also say to Facebook etc that unless they prove that they are implementing proper mechanisms to prevent illegal content being seen my minors then I would instruct all UK ISPs to treat their websites as over 18 only and blocked from transmission to mobile phones

That would cut their revenue massively and frankly that's what they most care about
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Jul 3 2017, 06:36 AM
Don't we have laws against acting illegally ?
In this case civil ones and unless you are very rich you can't afford it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jul 3 2017, 09:25 AM
C-too
Jul 3 2017, 06:36 AM
Don't we have laws against acting illegally ?
In this case civil ones and unless you are very rich you can't afford it.
Civil ? why only civil. Illegal is illegal either way.

If you break the law by posting something that is "obviously illegal" you can expect to be arrested, unless it is posted on social media that is.
Edited by C-too, Jul 3 2017, 11:30 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Jul 3 2017, 11:27 AM
If you break the law by posting something that is "obviously illegal" you can expect to be arrested, unless it is posted on social media that is.
Not when it is civil law.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jul 3 2017, 11:31 AM
C-too
Jul 3 2017, 11:27 AM
If you break the law by posting something that is "obviously illegal" you can expect to be arrested, unless it is posted on social media that is.
Not when it is civil law.
Hmm, how does one commit an obviously illegal act in civil law ?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Jul 3 2017, 12:33 PM
Hmm, how does one commit an obviously illegal act in civil law ?
Easily if you are a newspaper editor or a journalist.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jul 3 2017, 12:37 PM
C-too
Jul 3 2017, 12:33 PM
Hmm, how does one commit an obviously illegal act in civil law ?
Easily if you are a newspaper editor or a journalist.
If anyone commits an obviously illegal act they must be open to prosecution. If it is illegal then it is against the law.

Even so, the German approach is the removal of 'obviously illegal (i.e. against the law) claims, within a limited time.

Why anyone would want to muddy the waters on such an admiral approach is itself cause for concern.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Jul 1 2017, 03:41 PM

The OP is about being fined for doing something illegal. Not sure that Bronowsci did anything illegal, or that he had any reason to doubt what he said at that time.
I think John's point was that in Germany questioning Bronowsci's claim of 6 Million would be illegal.

BTW IIRC even generous estimates of the number of Jews in Europe at the time of the Holocaust fall well short of 6 Million.

All The Best
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Pro Veritas
Jul 3 2017, 06:31 PM
I think John's point was that in Germany questioning Bronowsci's claim of 6 Million would be illegal.

BTW IIRC even generous estimates of the number of Jews in Europe at the time of the Holocaust fall well short of 6 Million.

All The Best
I really do despair about this subject. Did no-one notice the Nazi records kept by the Red Cross were made public domain a few years ago.
There are 5.9 million Jewish dead in various camps in those records. (They do not include those murdered before the camps were built.)
(My last comment on the subject.)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Jul 3 2017, 06:43 PM
Pro Veritas
Jul 3 2017, 06:31 PM
I think John's point was that in Germany questioning Bronowsci's claim of 6 Million would be illegal.

BTW IIRC even generous estimates of the number of Jews in Europe at the time of the Holocaust fall well short of 6 Million.

All The Best
I really do despair about this subject. Did no-one notice the Nazi records kept by the Red Cross were made public domain a few years ago.
There are 5.9 million Jewish dead in various camps in those records. (They do not include those murdered before the camps were built.)
(My last comment on the subject.)
Did you not notice that my comment was not about that.

I am aware of the release of the documents you mention.

I am also aware that even the most generous estimates, based on official records of the time, put the number of Jews in Europe at time period in question was SIGNIFICANTLY lower than 6 Million; IIRC the figure was approx 4.8 - 5.1 Million.


Is the pre-war estimate wrong? For example were Jews already wary of appearing on official data sets? Highly likely, don't you think?

Are the Red Cross records wrong? Were Camp Officials considered for promotion based on the "efficiency" of their camps? Would that mean there was incentive to falsify "death counts" to improve promotion chances?

Is it more likely that BOTH data sets contain, for various reasons, some margin of error? It would be a miracle if they didn't.

The point being that one must NEVER trust a single data set in isolation.


All The Best
Edited by Pro Veritas, Jul 3 2017, 07:56 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Learn More · Register for Free
« Previous Topic · Europe · Next Topic »
Add Reply