Why cant we have regulated internet?

Osboro

Well-known member
I don't mean doing away with feed speech, even for th Trump bumps are the cowardly suck who went for Yusef.
Can we as a nation (or a world) not produce a system that allows you to publish, opinionate, search, research, buy, sell etc etc free from those who utilise anonymity to do ill.
Keep the current internet as it is , for those who want it, but have a separate internet where your identity is known or logged ( or you are licenced) so the fraudsters, the mentally ill ( trolls , sexual deviants and Makums) and all others who hide them selves can be traced if they " cross the line" can be dealt with by the law.

I'd give my info if I knew everyone else had also recorded theirs.
 

Osboro

Well-known member
So my nephew who got scanned trying to by an Xbox , Yusef who got abused and grannies who get scammed, where the list of sites they should aviod??
 

Scrote

Well-known member
There is a big push-back against an ID scheme from domestic abuse victims amongst others.

Whistleblowers and people trying to expose atrocities in various countries would also struggle.

where the list of sites they should aviod
The problem with the unregulated web is that people just assume it's a big safe playground when in fact it's a Darwinian nightmare. You wouldn't go wandering into all the cages in a zoo so why would you wander aimlessly around the interweb super-highway without doing some research?

There are plenty of 'safe' gate-keeping sites and you can black/white-list if you really want - parental controls exist.
 

Redwurzel

Well-known member
The internet is still the Wild West - its still run to asome degree by liberal types who beleive people should not be restricted unless they are completely evil. A few years back Zuckerberg to a congressional committee he employed 250 people to police Facebook Worldwide and he thought that was adequete.
 

Londons_Moggie

Well-known member
One of the principals at the heart of the internet is libertarianism. With that you get marginalised people able to express themselves in ways they never could before, but with that you also allow for marginalised offensive opinions to be expressed in ways they never could before.

The nerds inherited the digital world and they’re not prepared to relinquish that to governments and therefore they almost regulate themselves.

it’s a dark ugly place at times, a social experiment, but it’s also one of mankind’s greatest inventions. We’ve just not fully worked out how best to make it truly benefit us or how best to use it.
 

Caesium137

Well-known member
I think the problems are probably threefold.

Big Tech. The will of big tech firms to do something while they are in charge and making bank. They won’t regulate themselves to lose customers, income and share price. I assume if any new controls aren’t worldwide, China, Russia or someone will offer unregulated internet and the current big boys will cease to exist.

Regulation agreement. Realistically it will have to be pretty much global. I think most people accept that the Cummins and Trumps of this world along with Russia etc. have concerted campaigns to flood social media with nonsense to push their agenda and spread influence. This has given some big democracies where the election results are skewed by misinformation, the people who have gained power won’t want to lose this tool. Full transparency of content with traceable sources would massively impact this I feel. They won’t want that at all turkey’s voting for Christmas springs to mind.

Technological. The people who want to get round it will. Government and giant slowing moving bureaucracies are in no way set up or swift enough to deal with the next Napster, Facebook or Twitter tech genius start-up doing something new and different.

I believe it needs regulating in some way, and have no problem myself having verified social media accounts etc. But if you can just set up a Thai or whatever Facebook and Twitter through a VPN with no regulations, a lot who want to troll and post bile will simply do that.

I don’t ever see the political will, financial support or technical viability for this to happen currently.

Unless there’s a massive killing spree or attempted coup wholly organised on social media. The public and political outrage from which tips the scales in favour of instigating change.
 

ThirdLeg

Active member
So my nephew who got scanned trying to by an Xbox , Yusef who got abused and grannies who get scammed, where the list of sites they should aviod??

Your nephew could stick to purchasing electronics from official(!!) retailers, Yusuf could avoid mainstream social media and racist football message boards, and I'm honestly not aware of that many grannies getting scammed online but it would be quite easy to curate an online environment for them that would reduce the opportunity for such occurrences dramatically, and much easier than it would be to reduce the risk of people at their door.
 

Randy

Well-known member
If the main internet we all use gets regulated your only going to see a rise in people accessing the dark web. If people thought this version of the net was bad, the dark web is a whole other level.

(Disclaimer, I've never accessed it myself, wouldn't even know how, hell I can't even get a VPN to work properly 😅)
 

Alvez_48

Well-known member
For regulation of the internet see the great Chinese Firewall.
It's easy to want to 'regulate' for people to not receive abuse and that's perfectly honourable however the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
It would make more sense for police to use existing laws to actually prosecute vile behaviour online.
 

Expat Smoggie

Active member
yes the further we go down to the Chinese way of the internet the more we'll succumb to lockdown's for any old reason-- - in regards to Yusef he's a hard nut to crack is the lad -- just get behind him and try to make him feel not alone. What would be good especially on twitter would be an AI that could determine immediate violations of behaviour so senseless disgusting replies or retweets would censored in some form of way.
 

Randy

Well-known member
yes the further we go down to the Chinese way of the internet the more we'll succumb to lockdown's for any old reason-- - in regards to Yusef he's a hard nut to crack is the lad -- just get behind him and try to make him feel not alone. What would be good especially on twitter would be an AI that could determine immediate violations of behaviour so senseless disgusting replies or retweets would censored in some form of way.
To be fair to twitter I believe they have something like that in place. Once you've been suspended once or warned they are usually quick to pick up any re offenders.
 

Laughing

Well-known member
Why would anyone want to regulate the internet? There are laws that can be enforced if there is a will and structure put in place to uphold those laws. Yes some of them are outdated and need a revisit, but they exist.

It gives a platform for free speech, why would any reasonably minded person want to stop that? Because some people post stuff that is distatseful? that is the price we pay.

Why should your view, or my view be OK when someone elses view isn't OK. That is personal perference.

As I said above their are laws in place to bring people to account who break the law, we just don't have the apetite nor resources to enforce it.

I have noticed lately, on here and more generally on social media there is a movement gathering pace to ridicule people with opposing opinions. If you believe the world is flat, have at it, I don't care. If you believe Bill Gates is using vaccinations to micro-chip us all, go ahead, enjoy indulging yourself.

Gallileo was imprisoned for championing heliocentrism, good on him. Anyone who thinks, a regulated internet wouldn't result in the government spoon feeding us propaganda hasn't really been following the news.
 

Londons_Moggie

Well-known member
No facts and truth are important. Untruths and lies do not have equal validity to the truth.
Facts are objective, truths (other than scientific truths) are subjective. It could be argued that truth in certain circumstances is irrelevant, such as the legal system. It's not who is telling the truth, but who has told the most believable story.
 

Laughing

Well-known member
No facts and truth are important. Untruths and lies do not have equal validity to the truth.
If you want facts Mutley go to the library mate. The internet has very little to do with validity, it's full of crap. You wouldn't ask the barman down the dog and duck whether to get vaccinated, would you? You don't really address the main point though, what's wrong with someone having a web site about a flat earth? I don't see the problem. Some people believe this, let them. Some people believe in God, let them, there are plenty of religious websites about, enjoy the rabbit hole.

I fail to see the issue. If someone is breaking the law, then it doesn't matter whether its on a forum, in a newspaper, in print or down the pub, there are laws to deal with that.

Let people indulge themselves in their beliefs.
 

Londons_Moggie

Well-known member
If you want facts Mutley go to the library mate. The internet has very little to do with validity, it's full of crap. You wouldn't ask the barman down the dog and duck whether to get vaccinated, would you? You don't really address the main point though, what's wrong with someone having a web site about a flat earth? I don't see the problem. Some people believe this, let them. Some people believe in God, let them, there are plenty of religious websites about, enjoy the rabbit hole.

I fail to see the issue. If someone is breaking the law, then it doesn't matter whether its on a forum, in a newspaper, in print or down the pub, there are laws to deal with that.

Let people indulge themselves in their beliefs.
If we're going to ban websites related to things people shouldn't believe in we could start with SAFC.co.uk and NUFC.co.uk
 
Top
X