David Kennedy wrote:
> On 12/05/2022 08:45, Alan B wrote:
>> Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Which is not to say that legislators could not take action against
>>> libellous or other illegal material; and such action could in principle
>>> cause all social media sites to close down.  I don't see that this would
>>> be any loss to humanity.
>>
>> In practice it’s probably only a very low number of users who are causing
>> issues. Unfortunately it’s very difficult for the authorities to take any
>> meaningful action against them given the ease with which it’s possible to
>> create new identities and other devious avoiding detection tactics.
>>
> The whole fake identity situation is ridiculous. Given that people can
> spoof everything from identities to phone numbers it's unsurprising that
> there is so much chaos. What is a little surprising considering the
> damage done is the lack of will to implement any measures to prevent
> these things.

The willpower has to be applied to the social media sites. If they were
forced to take legal responsibility for what they publish, with
exemplary penalties in the order of tens of percent of their annual
turnover, they would soon develop systems to control what their users
post. The traceability of the poster then becomes irrelevant; material
is blocked until the site verifies that the material won't cause them
legal problems.

As to whether any social media operation would then remain a commercial
proposition might be doubtful. But would that actually matter?

--
Graham J

In article <t5isni$1i6$1@dont-email.me>, Graham J
<nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:

>
> The willpower has to be applied to the social media sites. If they were
> forced to take legal responsibility for what they publish, with
> exemplary penalties in the order of tens of percent of their annual
> turnover, they would soon develop systems to control what their users
> post. The traceability of the poster then becomes irrelevant; material
> is blocked until the site verifies that the material won't cause them
> legal problems.

social media sites do remove posts that are disinformation, incite
violence, etc., as well as banning people who post such stuff, which
results in ignorant people who have an agenda to whine 'free speech'
and want that drivel to prosper.

yesterday, a usa court chose to allow an unconstitutional law to stand
which prohibits social media sites from removing anything. except that
it conflicts with eu hate speech laws that say it should be removed,
thereby guaranteeing that social media sites are screwed no matter what
they do.

On 12/05/2022 12:57, Graham J wrote:
> David Kennedy wrote:
>> On 12/05/2022 08:45, Alan B wrote:
>>> Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> Which is not to say that legislators could not take action against
>>>> libellous or other illegal material; and such action could in principle
>>>> cause all social media sites to close down.  I don't see that this would
>>>> be any loss to humanity.
>>>
>>> In practice it’s probably only a very low number of users who are causing
>>> issues. Unfortunately it’s very difficult for the authorities to take any
>>> meaningful action against them given the ease with which it’s possible to
>>> create new identities and other devious avoiding detection tactics.
>>>
>> The whole fake identity situation is ridiculous. Given that people can spoof
>> everything from identities to phone numbers it's unsurprising that there is
>> so much chaos. What is a little surprising considering the damage done is
>> the lack of will to implement any measures to prevent these things.
>
> The willpower has to be applied to the social media sites.  If they were
> forced to take legal responsibility for what they publish, with exemplary
> penalties in the order of tens of percent of their annual turnover, they would
> soon develop systems to control what their users post.  The traceability of
> the poster then becomes irrelevant; material is blocked until the site
> verifies that the material won't cause them legal problems.
>
> As to whether any social media operation would then remain a commercial
> proposition might be doubtful.  But would that actually matter?

Not a lot.

On 12/05/2022 13:27, nospam wrote:
> In article <t5isni$1i6$1@dont-email.me>, Graham J
> <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> The willpower has to be applied to the social media sites. If they were
>> forced to take legal responsibility for what they publish, with
>> exemplary penalties in the order of tens of percent of their annual
>> turnover, they would soon develop systems to control what their users
>> post. The traceability of the poster then becomes irrelevant; material
>> is blocked until the site verifies that the material won't cause them
>> legal problems.
>
> social media sites do remove posts that are disinformation, incite
> violence, etc., as well as banning people who post such stuff, which
> results in ignorant people who have an agenda to whine 'free speech'
> and want that drivel to prosper.
>
> yesterday, a usa court chose to allow an unconstitutional law to stand
> which prohibits social media sites from removing anything. except that
> it conflicts with eu hate speech laws that say it should be removed,
> thereby guaranteeing that social media sites are screwed no matter what
> they do.
>
Well, since the loonies are now running that particular asylum...

On 12/05/2022 13:27, nospam wrote:
> In article <t5isni$1i6$1@dont-email.me>, Graham J
> <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> The willpower has to be applied to the social media sites. If they were
>> forced to take legal responsibility for what they publish, with
>> exemplary penalties in the order of tens of percent of their annual
>> turnover, they would soon develop systems to control what their users
>> post. The traceability of the poster then becomes irrelevant; material
>> is blocked until the site verifies that the material won't cause them
>> legal problems.
>
> social media sites do remove posts that are disinformation, incite
> violence, etc., as well as banning people who post such stuff, which
> results in ignorant people who have an agenda to whine 'free speech'
> and want that drivel to prosper.
>
> yesterday, a usa court chose to allow an unconstitutional law to stand
> which prohibits social media sites from removing anything. except that
> it conflicts with eu hate speech laws that say it should be removed,
> thereby guaranteeing that social media sites are screwed no matter what
> they do.

I see Musk is in favour of allowing people who foment attempted coups to
remain on social media.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 12/05/2022 14:43, Graeme Wall wrote:
>
> I see Musk is in favour of allowing people who foment attempted coups to
> remain on social media.
>
Is it just me or is Musk one sandwich short?

In article <qPqdnfmUgKfbjOD_nZ2dnUU7-eudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, David
Kennedy <davidkennedygm@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> > I see Musk is in favour of allowing people who foment attempted coups to
> > remain on social media.
> >
> Is it just me or is Musk one sandwich short?

just you.

others see that he's short multiple sandwiches, hors d'oeuvres, salads,
soups, entrees & desserts.

but to be fair, he does know how to make cars and spacecrafts, dig
tunnels and inhale.

On 12/05/2022 15:04, nospam wrote:
> In article <qPqdnfmUgKfbjOD_nZ2dnUU7-eudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, David
> Kennedy <davidkennedygm@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I see Musk is in favour of allowing people who foment attempted coups to
>>> remain on social media.
>>>
>> Is it just me or is Musk one sandwich short?
>
> just you.
>
> others see that he's short multiple sandwiches, hors d'oeuvres, salads,
> soups, entrees & desserts.
>
> but to be fair, he does know how to make cars and spacecrafts, dig
> tunnels and inhale.
>
I can't help wondering if the whole lot is going to implode...

On 12/05/2022 15:10, David Kennedy wrote:
> On 12/05/2022 15:04, nospam wrote:
>> In article <qPqdnfmUgKfbjOD_nZ2dnUU7-eudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, David
>> Kennedy <davidkennedygm@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> I see Musk is in favour of allowing people who foment attempted
>>>> coups to
>>>> remain on social media.
>>>>
>>> Is it just me or is Musk one sandwich short?
>>
>> just you.
>>
>> others see that he's short multiple sandwiches, hors d'oeuvres, salads,
>> soups, entrees & desserts.
>>
>> but to be fair, he does know how to make cars and spacecrafts, dig
>> tunnels and inhale.
>>
> I can't help wondering if the whole lot is going to implode...

That's certainly a danger with his tunnels!

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 12/05/2022 15:28, Graeme Wall wrote:
> On 12/05/2022 15:10, David Kennedy wrote:
>> On 12/05/2022 15:04, nospam wrote:
>>> In article <qPqdnfmUgKfbjOD_nZ2dnUU7-eudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, David
>>> Kennedy <davidkennedygm@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I see Musk is in favour of allowing people who foment attempted coups to
>>>>> remain on social media.
>>>>>
>>>> Is it just me or is Musk one sandwich short?
>>>
>>> just you.
>>>
>>> others see that he's short multiple sandwiches, hors d'oeuvres, salads,
>>> soups, entrees & desserts.
>>>
>>> but to be fair, he does know how to make cars and spacecrafts, dig
>>> tunnels and inhale.
>>>
>> I can't help wondering if the whole lot is going to implode...
>
> That's certainly a danger with his tunnels!
>
very droll...

On 2022-05-12, David Kennedy <davidkennedygm@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/05/2022 14:43, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>
>> I see Musk is in favour of allowing people who foment attempted coups to
>> remain on social media.
>>
> Is it just me or is Musk one sandwich short?

Or several KWh short of a full charge might be more appropriate?

--
Cheers, Alan

In article <t5jads$c9t$1@alanrichardbarker.eternal-september.org>, Alan
B <alanrichardbarker@nospamgmail.com.here> wrote:

> >> I see Musk is in favour of allowing people who foment attempted coups to
> >> remain on social media.
> >>
> > Is it just me or is Musk one sandwich short?
>
> Or several KWh short of a full charge might be more appropriate?

reverse charged.

On 12 May 2022 at 12:57:25 BST, "Graham J" <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:

> David Kennedy wrote:
>> On 12/05/2022 08:45, Alan B wrote:
>>> Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> Which is not to say that legislators could not take action against
>>>> libellous or other illegal material; and such action could in principle
>>>> cause all social media sites to close down. I don't see that this would
>>>> be any loss to humanity.
>>>
>>> In practice it’s probably only a very low number of users who are causing
>>> issues. Unfortunately it’s very difficult for the authorities to take any
>>> meaningful action against them given the ease with which it’s possible to
>>> create new identities and other devious avoiding detection tactics.
>>>
>> The whole fake identity situation is ridiculous. Given that people can
>> spoof everything from identities to phone numbers it's unsurprising that
>> there is so much chaos. What is a little surprising considering the
>> damage done is the lack of will to implement any measures to prevent
>> these things.
>
> The willpower has to be applied to the social media sites. If they were
> forced to take legal responsibility for what they publish, with
> exemplary penalties in the order of tens of percent of their annual
> turnover, they would soon develop systems to control what their users
> post. The traceability of the poster then becomes irrelevant; material
> is blocked until the site verifies that the material won't cause them
> legal problems.
>
> As to whether any social media operation would then remain a commercial
> proposition might be doubtful. But would that actually matter?

It would to all the kiddies who get all their news from Facebook, Instagram
and other such cess pools of ignorance.
--
If you are not paying for it, you’re not the customer; you’re the product being sold.

On 13/05/2022 07:31, Ray wrote:
> On 12 May 2022 at 12:57:25 BST, "Graham J" <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> David Kennedy wrote:
>>> On 12/05/2022 08:45, Alan B wrote:
>>>> Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>> Which is not to say that legislators could not take action against
>>>>> libellous or other illegal material; and such action could in principle
>>>>> cause all social media sites to close down. I don't see that this would
>>>>> be any loss to humanity.
>>>>
>>>> In practice it’s probably only a very low number of users who are causing
>>>> issues. Unfortunately it’s very difficult for the authorities to take any
>>>> meaningful action against them given the ease with which it’s possible to
>>>> create new identities and other devious avoiding detection tactics.
>>>>
>>> The whole fake identity situation is ridiculous. Given that people can
>>> spoof everything from identities to phone numbers it's unsurprising that
>>> there is so much chaos. What is a little surprising considering the
>>> damage done is the lack of will to implement any measures to prevent
>>> these things.
>>
>> The willpower has to be applied to the social media sites. If they were
>> forced to take legal responsibility for what they publish, with
>> exemplary penalties in the order of tens of percent of their annual
>> turnover, they would soon develop systems to control what their users
>> post. The traceability of the poster then becomes irrelevant; material
>> is blocked until the site verifies that the material won't cause them
>> legal problems.
>>
>> As to whether any social media operation would then remain a commercial
>> proposition might be doubtful. But would that actually matter?
>
> It would to all the kiddies who get all their news from Facebook, Instagram
> and other such cess pools of ignorance.
>
Yes; but is that a bad thing?

David Kennedy <davidkennedygm@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/05/2022 15:04, nospam wrote:
>> In article <qPqdnfmUgKfbjOD_nZ2dnUU7-eudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, David
>> Kennedy <davidkennedygm@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> I see Musk is in favour of allowing people who foment attempted coups to
>>>> remain on social media.
>>>>
>>> Is it just me or is Musk one sandwich short?
>>
>> just you.
>>
>> others see that he's short multiple sandwiches, hors d'oeuvres, salads,
>> soups, entrees & desserts.
>>
>> but to be fair, he does know how to make cars and spacecrafts, dig
>> tunnels and inhale.
>>
> I can't help wondering if the whole lot is going to implode...
>

Maybe, just maybe it will.

<https://www.macrumors.com/2022/05/13/elon-musk-puts-44-billion-twitter-deal-on-hold/>

--
Cheers, Alan

On 13/05/2022 18:04, Alan B wrote:
> David Kennedy <davidkennedygm@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/05/2022 15:04, nospam wrote:
>>> In article <qPqdnfmUgKfbjOD_nZ2dnUU7-eudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, David
>>> Kennedy <davidkennedygm@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I see Musk is in favour of allowing people who foment attempted coups to
>>>>> remain on social media.
>>>>>
>>>> Is it just me or is Musk one sandwich short?
>>>
>>> just you.
>>>
>>> others see that he's short multiple sandwiches, hors d'oeuvres, salads,
>>> soups, entrees & desserts.
>>>
>>> but to be fair, he does know how to make cars and spacecrafts, dig
>>> tunnels and inhale.
>>>
>> I can't help wondering if the whole lot is going to implode...
>>
>
> Maybe, just maybe it will.
>
> <https://www.macrumors.com/2022/05/13/elon-musk-puts-44-billion-twitter-deal-on-hold/>
>
I think that he enjoys that feeling of power he gets when he pratts people about.

Mark <captain.black@gmail.com> wrote:
> New sub over on Reddit.
>
> “The goal of this subreddit is to build a community on Reddit and to foster
> the small community that exists already on Usenet. Also, visit us at
> alt.fan.usenet.”
>
> Bit quiet at the mo.

Not thinking of anyone in particular (?), but this made me smile :)

<https://www.reddit.com/r/ClassicUsenet/comments/urctvy/personal_attacks_and_moving_goalposts_were_often/>

--
Cheers, Alan