FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Making Social Media Safer/Nicer
Making Social Media Safer/Nicer
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Ok, starting this one so as not to derail the other discussion … there’s another long interesting thread about whether photo iD is a good bad thing for social media account verifications…., but if that is not the option how ELSE would we make SM a better environment?
What are the other options?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Nigeria banned Twitter.
No one in the country could access it so it is possible to outlaw platforms and make them responsible.
Trouble here in the UK is a lot of powerful people are on the payroll of these tech firms so will do what they can to pressure government not to act |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *tue555Man
over a year ago
Passed Beyond Reach |
Social media is what it is, it is now ingrained into our psych. If you ban it it will go underground, even less control and more open to abuse. If you try putting even more restrictions on it it will go underground. If you to use driving license passport for I'd apart from all the implications that brings, what about those that don't have driving licenses or passports are they now excluded? Youngtsers? If you are talking about adult sites, they tried that, it failed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The SM companies must be much quicker to identify and remove abusive posters, or help the police to prosecute where appropriate.
But also users can be much smarter about privacy settings or the block button. I use Facebook and Twitter and have very few bad experiences because I don't follow or friend any idiots !  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Nigeria banned Twitter.
No one in the country could access it so it is possible to outlaw platforms and make them responsible.
Trouble here in the UK is a lot of powerful people are on the payroll of these tech firms so will do what they can to pressure government not to act"
And there's a backlash in Nigeria against the ban. The government banned it because Twitter deleted a tweet from the President which was deemed offensive.
The Nigerian government banned Twitter because it saw Twitter as not being 'supportive' of the government.
Other countries which ban Twitter are China, Iran, North Korea and Turkmenistan. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *emini ManMan
over a year ago
There and to the left a bit |
"The SM companies must be much quicker to identify and remove abusive posters, or help the police to prosecute where appropriate.
But also users can be much smarter about privacy settings or the block button. I use Facebook and Twitter and have very few bad experiences because I don't follow or friend any idiots ! "
This about sums it up - the kinds of things being seen on social media are the kinds of things that people have said and thought for years (so you won't eradicate them completely by banning the platform) - it's just that they're more visible now and people are more inclined to air them from the anonymity of a keyboard.
Responsibility lies with both the companies behind the platforms to police them better *and* the users to either take more responsibility for what they air or where they see abuse to report/tackle it rather than turning a blind eye.
Also stricter laws governing abusive behaviour on social media are called for to clamp down on it even more - including measures taken against the platform owners where they clearly don't put appropriate steps to deal with abusive behaviour in place.
There is no quick fix, social media is here to stay, and abuse will never be eradicated completely, as I said it's been happening for centuries in one form or another, it's just more visible now. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ensualMan
over a year ago
Sutton |
My cousin sent to me a petition on WhatsApp to require ID to use social media. Here is my response.
"TBH There are two different cases. First are the famous people who in truth use the media to promote themselves, they should put themselves behind a pay wall.
The second are ordinary people again in these cases people are actually using social media as tool to promote themselves. How many people hand out their mobile phone numbers to complete strangers?
There are a lot of anti free speech restrictions and increase of government control moves at the moment.
People are so ignorant these days they would rather restrict other people's freedoms than act sensibly themselves.
I would cut off at the pass the argument that if a person has nothing to hide they would not be worried.
Firstly it is for the government to show there is a serious problem that requires imposing restrictions on the general public. This is a problem for a few by a few.
This is the argument used by dictatorships and fascist governments that we need to be able to monitor everyone in case of problems.
I don't buy it"
I would add that I do think the tech companies should take action against illegal acts.
Also I am not advocating abusing people, but I don't think in daily life there is a law protecting individuals from abuse that is not illegal.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The SM companies must be much quicker to identify and remove abusive posters, or help the police to prosecute where appropriate.
But also users can be much smarter about privacy settings or the block button. I use Facebook and Twitter and have very few bad experiences because I don't follow or friend any idiots !
This about sums it up - the kinds of things being seen on social media are the kinds of things that people have said and thought for years (so you won't eradicate them completely by banning the platform) - it's just that they're more visible now and people are more inclined to air them from the anonymity of a keyboard.
Responsibility lies with both the companies behind the platforms to police them better *and* the users to either take more responsibility for what they air or where they see abuse to report/tackle it rather than turning a blind eye.
Also stricter laws governing abusive behaviour on social media are called for to clamp down on it even more - including measures taken against the platform owners where they clearly don't put appropriate steps to deal with abusive behaviour in place.
*** There is no quick fix, social media is here to stay, and abuse will never be eradicated completely, as I said it's been happening for centuries in one form or another, it's just more visible now. ***"
Especially *** |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
People will just use VPN's like in Nigeria so they can still access social media and make it harder to track. Gonna be odd of companies would have to prove they are a person... would the CEO have to send a pic of his passport ?? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I dont think social media will ever be a nice place. Nothing can change people outlook, unfortunately people are just nasty, the uk & u.s seem to be at the heart of nastyness & jealousy. I stay away from socials as i cant tolerate the bullying and negativity  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
To change social media then you would need to change society and over the longer term society does change - it maybe slow and not obvious at the time you are living in it but it is happening.
Laws might counteract short term perceived harms and behaviours but they won't stamp out racism just move it from mainstream websites to less mainstream ones.
And, as is often cited, the internet is designed to route around damage and any form of censorship or control can be seen as 'damage' and there are ways to circumvent this if you really want to.
Any new technology throws up these questions of 'is it good or bad?' or 'does it do more harm than good?' In the short term the technology seems 'bad', as hyped up by another sector of the media, but in the longer term the benefits outweigh the 'harm' and the technology gets normalised.
Between 1951 and 2006 309,144 people were killed and 17.6 million people were injured in road traffic accidents in Britain. Should we ban roads? Looking at road safety over the long term fatalities/injuries on roads are declining.
Laws have improved road safety but people still die and are injured due to accidents. You can reduce risk but you can't eliminate risk completely.
When it comes to mental health issues and social media I find it a bit like the chicken and the egg problem. Does social media cause mental health problems or do people with existing mental health problems (whether they realise it or not) find social media difficult? I tend to fall in the latter camp (and know from personal experience).
There might seem to be more mental health problems today than ever before but that maybe because they are diagnosed better than before and there is more awareness within society.
Social media is just another bugbear for people to blame for the perceived decline in civilisation (specifically 'western' civilisation). But this civilisation has supposedly been in decline since forever and it's still here and thriving but it's now a different beast than the one you grew up in. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
In my opinion, Digital Social Media is mainly consumed though a mobile device which lends itself to be something done on the move or when bored, it has no barrier or effort for usage, making it worthless or throw away to the end user. A good first step to cleaner platforms would be to charge a fee for usage, this would add a barrier, it would place a value on it and the end user would demand better services. It might be a step to far to many and an argument that other players would simply create free platforms would be the first response. However charging end users to use the service or governments charging the application owners a digital tax might give us a chance to reset and use the knowledge we have now to prevent the misuse going forward. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They should just do away with it entirely
Life was so much better before it and all it does is brainwash today's society.
But, but, no Fabs then  "
It's hardly social media now come on.
FB, Insta and twitter is what we are talking about. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *emini ManMan
over a year ago
There and to the left a bit |
"They should just do away with it entirely
Life was so much better before it and all it does is brainwash today's society.
But, but, no Fabs then
It's hardly social media now come on.
FB, Insta and twitter is what we are talking about."
Isn't it? It may not be the size of FB, Twitter etc but I've seen examples of some of the vile things you see on the bigger platforms here - I think for many (me included) it is a form of social media completely |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Normalising stepping back and away when necessary.
I’d love to see ID introduced or something that links you, whether it’s via the electoral role or a nominated guardian for u18s or those without a passport/driver licence.
Maybe a link to an NI number for British nationals but opens up issues with non UK citizens but maybe you have to link it to your country of birth, or are seeking refuge in if you’re an asylum seeker
Fuck what a mind field  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The genie is out of the lamp and there's no putting it back.
Individuals are horrible and will continue to be until and unless the majority who aren't stand up and roar.
At the moment there's a lot of talk and dare I say it, virtue signalling but no action. If the big football clubs stopped using social media and encouraged their fans and any sponsors to do the same, if the advertisers withdrew their support,if everyone who is against the hate stuff that's currently rife on SM stopped using it I reckon that measures would quickly be put in place to regulate content. The problem is that not many people are prepared to take such drastic action. Imagine the "influencers" if they couldn't wave a mascara in your face on YouTube  the pressure that would be put on SM companies to sort things out would be immense.
Of course we have personal responsibility too and should speak out when we see stuff and not be put off by shouts of woke and snowflake.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *aitonelMan
over a year ago
Travelling |
Websites/apps are like a Hydra. Cut off one head, another (or two, or more) will take its place.
You introduce too many restrictions upon one, it will see a sharp and deadly decline which will give rise to a new one without the restrictions. The same activity will be done on there.
Just look at when pornhub were asked to (and carried out) remove none verified content. Porn sites not restricted by such things saw a HUGE spike in traffic. Porn hub still exists and is still as strong but it sure as shit didn't fix the problem.
The only viable change, world wide (though it still has its issues) is to block posts etc that contain certain words, phrases etc. Hell, you attempt to make such a post one or more times, your account gets locked. Could setup another but the same happens.
People can still be tracked and found without needing ID. It's not as direct or as simple as being ID linked but it works without impacting other privacy and identity rights in the same way as ID link on a larger scale. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *indergirlWoman
over a year ago
somewhere, someplace |
"The SM companies must be much quicker to identify and remove abusive posters, or help the police to prosecute where appropriate.
But also users can be much smarter about privacy settings or the block button. I use Facebook and Twitter and have very few bad experiences because I don't follow or friend any idiots ! "
Snap |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The only viable change, world wide (though it still has its issues) is to block posts etc that contain certain words, phrases etc. Hell, you attempt to make such a post one or more times, your account gets locked. Could setup another but the same happens."
Still wouldn't work unless an AI could pick up on intent and context (ie the difference between someone being racist and someone talking about racism). I would hazard a guess to say a world wide word filter would have too many false positives to be effective. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *aitonelMan
over a year ago
Travelling |
"The only viable change, world wide (though it still has its issues) is to block posts etc that contain certain words, phrases etc. Hell, you attempt to make such a post one or more times, your account gets locked. Could setup another but the same happens.
Still wouldn't work unless an AI could pick up on intent and context (ie the difference between someone being racist and someone talking about racism). I would hazard a guess to say a world wide word filter would have too many false positives to be effective. "
It would still have the most impact with causing the least issues. Just don't mention the flagged words or phrases. If we are considering making ID requirements a thing, intent and context of words and phrases are the least of the problems.
ID requirements, as was stated in the other thread would cause some potential life threatening issues on a larger scale in some countries. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Bring back Friends Re-united we say  "
We joke abiut it but it probably did most of the key bit of facebook wothiut the bullshit. And as it cost to use it kept it relatively civil |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"They should just do away with it entirely
Life was so much better before it and all it does is brainwash today's society.
But, but, no Fabs then
It's hardly social media now come on.
FB, Insta and twitter is what we are talking about."
What is it then?
So you only want to ban the ones you don't like? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They should just do away with it entirely
Life was so much better before it and all it does is brainwash today's society.
But, but, no Fabs then
It's hardly social media now come on.
FB, Insta and twitter is what we are talking about.
What is it then?
So you only want to ban the ones you don't like?"
No, we could easily do without Fab too.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Taking away or placing restrictions on social media isn't solving the problem it's treating the symptoms. The cause of the negatives are people who use it, a general lack of respect is prevalent and its accepted/not addressed.
Old fashioned, yes but the problems/solutions start in the home at a very young age. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Taking away or placing restrictions on social media isn't solving the problem it's treating the symptoms. The cause of the negatives are people who use it, a general lack of respect is prevalent and its accepted/not addressed.
Old fashioned, yes but the problems/solutions start in the home at a very young age. "
Agree 100% |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"To change social media then you would need to change society and over the longer term society does change - it maybe slow and not obvious at the time you are living in it but it is happening.
Laws might counteract short term perceived harms and behaviours but they won't stamp out racism just move it from mainstream websites to less mainstream ones.
And, as is often cited, the internet is designed to route around damage and any form of censorship or control can be seen as 'damage' and there are ways to circumvent this if you really want to.
Any new technology throws up these questions of 'is it good or bad?' or 'does it do more harm than good?' In the short term the technology seems 'bad', as hyped up by another sector of the media, but in the longer term the benefits outweigh the 'harm' and the technology gets normalised.
Between 1951 and 2006 309,144 people were killed and 17.6 million people were injured in road traffic accidents in Britain. Should we ban roads? Looking at road safety over the long term fatalities/injuries on roads are declining.
Laws have improved road safety but people still die and are injured due to accidents. You can reduce risk but you can't eliminate risk completely.
When it comes to mental health issues and social media I find it a bit like the chicken and the egg problem. Does social media cause mental health problems or do people with existing mental health problems (whether they realise it or not) find social media difficult? I tend to fall in the latter camp (and know from personal experience).
There might seem to be more mental health problems today than ever before but that maybe because they are diagnosed better than before and there is more awareness within society.
Social media is just another bugbear for people to blame for the perceived decline in civilisation (specifically 'western' civilisation). But this civilisation has supposedly been in decline since forever and it's still here and thriving but it's now a different beast than the one you grew up in."
There's an argument that says the reason mental health issues are becoming more common is that we live in a period of pretty much unparalleled luxury and stability. The human brain evolved in a high stress environment where it daily made decisions that affected life and death. We now seek to shelter our children more and more from lifes difficulties with the rather unintended consequence that they grow up utterly incapable of dealing with hardships, difficulties, threats to their happiness.
Mr |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"To change social media then you would need to change society and over the longer term society does change - it maybe slow and not obvious at the time you are living in it but it is happening.
Laws might counteract short term perceived harms and behaviours but they won't stamp out racism just move it from mainstream websites to less mainstream ones.
And, as is often cited, the internet is designed to route around damage and any form of censorship or control can be seen as 'damage' and there are ways to circumvent this if you really want to.
Any new technology throws up these questions of 'is it good or bad?' or 'does it do more harm than good?' In the short term the technology seems 'bad', as hyped up by another sector of the media, but in the longer term the benefits outweigh the 'harm' and the technology gets normalised.
Between 1951 and 2006 309,144 people were killed and 17.6 million people were injured in road traffic accidents in Britain. Should we ban roads? Looking at road safety over the long term fatalities/injuries on roads are declining.
Laws have improved road safety but people still die and are injured due to accidents. You can reduce risk but you can't eliminate risk completely.
When it comes to mental health issues and social media I find it a bit like the chicken and the egg problem. Does social media cause mental health problems or do people with existing mental health problems (whether they realise it or not) find social media difficult? I tend to fall in the latter camp (and know from personal experience).
There might seem to be more mental health problems today than ever before but that maybe because they are diagnosed better than before and there is more awareness within society.
Social media is just another bugbear for people to blame for the perceived decline in civilisation (specifically 'western' civilisation). But this civilisation has supposedly been in decline since forever and it's still here and thriving but it's now a different beast than the one you grew up in.
There's an argument that says the reason mental health issues are becoming more common is that we live in a period of pretty much unparalleled luxury and stability. The human brain evolved in a high stress environment where it daily made decisions that affected life and death. We now seek to shelter our children more and more from lifes difficulties with the rather unintended consequence that they grow up utterly incapable of dealing with hardships, difficulties, threats to their happiness.
Mr "
Bravo
But sadly people don't like to hear the truth nowadays either and prefer to bury their heads and adopt the "someone to blame" culture that is today.
Mr
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Recode Daily podcast had a recent episode on the 'harms' of social media - 'How Social Media Threatens Humanity' - and one on racism - 'Social media's Racial Bias Problem'. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
