Private Eye and Teesside freeport

grumpyoldgit said:
Of course it helps keep things opaque if you keep a tight grip on the local media and flood social media with disinformation:
www.teesvalleymonitor.com

TVCA Mayor: Questions over Social Media Misinformation

The mayor has been challenged about claims about jobs made in this social media posts, and the lack of TVCA support for business. Press needs to investigate
www.teesvalleymonitor.com www.teesvalleymonitor.com
Click to expand...
If an elected official wants unfettered access to social media it should be implicit that they are agreeable to take criticism on that platform. If they deliberately block or remove critical responses from validated members of the electorate the right for that person or body to use the platform should be removed.

That should also include deliberately misleading or false posts or posts that appear to be from members of the general public but are part of the individual or bodies support network.

We have to get on top of the misuse of social networking in politics to stop the ongoing assault on democracy.

Personally I believe that social media is that dangerous to society that you should have to have a personnel id in much the same way we have a passport or driving licence. You have to show photo id to vote but it appears anyone to include subverted bodies and enemy states can interfere with democracy with no checks in place.
 
TheLodger said:
I agree with the ID idea for social media and misinformation removed at the posters expense. Not sure how it would work.
Click to expand...
You'd have a social media account/ID backed by a valid form of government ID, passport, NI number, driving license , to be used on any platform that was registered with the government (social media platforms should have validated quality assurance body approved by legislation.

You could chose any username or names you want on a platform but that username/id would be backed by your personal id that you used to register. Any post made would therefore be traceable by police/government body etc. inflammatory posting/bots/hostile state interference would instantly cease or be accountable.
 
MoggasDog said:
Aye. They do seem hell bent on achieving nothing but Tory-Lite. Its tragic. And a betrayal.
Click to expand...

This all sounds a bit odd to me
I need to understand it a bit better - finding it hard to believe Rayner would give them a free pass.

Just hope she has something up her sleeve
 
Yarmblue said:
Amazing really how Private Eye won't let this go. They must realise it reeks to high heaven and suspect corruption. The great shame is the authorities aren't bothered one bit. Good on Private Eye
Click to expand...

They could do with some support.
PE do a great job in persistency (Post Office, Letby) but it needs momentum from other media outlets to get cut through.
Remember how long it took for the Post Office
 
grumpyoldgit said:
As has been asked earlier in the thread, why is it just PE maintaining the pressure here? Why aren't the national press taking more of an interest?
Click to expand...
To be fair Jennifer Williams of the FT is doing a pretty good job, but because she is behind a paywall she is not getting as much publicity?

Of more importance what are the Gazette and Northern Echo doing, other than reprinting Lord Bent's press releases?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top