View Poll Results: Who is responsible and what action should be taken?

Voters
17. This poll is closed
  • Government

    2 11.76%
  • ISP

    0 0%
  • Facebook

    5 29.41%
  • Parents

    11 64.71%
  • Children

    3 17.65%
  • Facebook permanently blocked

    1 5.88%
  • Facebook block violent videos

    8 47.06%
  • Facebook issue 5 second warnings before watching the video

    4 23.53%
  • No action should be taken

    0 0%
Multiple Choice Poll.
+ Post New Thread
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 77
General Chat Thread, Facebook - Where do you stand? in General; Originally Posted by X-13 Eh, why not? We've tried censorship and classification. They obviously don't matter that much considering the ...
  1. #46

    tmcd35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    5,655
    Thank Post
    849
    Thanked 890 Times in 737 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    327
    Quote Originally Posted by X-13 View Post
    Eh, why not?

    We've tried censorship and classification. They obviously don't matter that much considering the amount of kids here talking about violent films and games.

    Everything legal is accessible. It's up to parents to choose what their kids see.
    I'm 100% behind you on this. Don't believe it's the states role to censor material, I aquiesce because it's accepted rules of the society I live in, but don't agree with it in principle. It's in even more aborhant that we should give powers of censorship to private organisations. I reserve the right to freedom of self determination in these matters. Personally I think the only people with the "god given right" to withhold that freedom from minors are the parents. And even that starts becoming questionable from about 14/15 years (suppose it depends on the individual).

    Makes me something of a hypocrite considering the schools filtering policies, but personally I think perants implecity, by sending the kid to school, charge us with withholding the pupils freedoms while educate them (if that makes sense).
    Last edited by tmcd35; 23rd October 2013 at 03:19 PM. Reason: when useing long words - make sure you know how to smell them ;)

  2. #47

    X-13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    /dev/null
    Posts
    9,093
    Thank Post
    592
    Thanked 1,953 Times in 1,351 Posts
    Blog Entries
    19
    Rep Power
    814
    Quote Originally Posted by tmcd35 View Post
    Makes me something of a hypocrite considering the schools filtering policies, but personally I think perants implecity, by sending the kid to school, charge us with withholding the pupils freedoms while educate them (if that makes sense).
    In loco parentis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    While the pupils are here, we're the parents. [sort of.]

  3. Thanks to X-13 from:

    tmcd35 (23rd October 2013)

  4. #48

    AngryTechnician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,730
    Thank Post
    698
    Thanked 1,212 Times in 761 Posts
    Rep Power
    394
    Quote Originally Posted by tmcd35 View Post
    Don't believe it's the states role to censor material, I aquiesse because it's accepted rules of the society I live in, but don't agree with it in principle. It's even more aborhant that we should give powers of censorship to private organisations.
    I agree with your stance on government censorship, but why should Facebook not have the right censor their own website? It's their site, their rules. You're still free to say or post whatever you want somewhere else.

    Example: I invite you to my house (a private abode) and ask if you'd like leave a message using my fridge magnets. If you write something I find offensive, I'll remove it. Does that amount to me infringing on your right to free speech?

  5. #49

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,680
    Thank Post
    516
    Thanked 2,451 Times in 1,897 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    832
    The role of the government is to create and enforce laws according to the 'joint morals' of the nation.

    The majority of people believe that some censorship is necessary. For example, to protect the mental health of children (eg. footage of extreme violence can and will damage a child's mental well-being.)

    Videos of this sort should be stopped through law for people who are not of legal age, not through the whims of individual organisations based on whoever shouts the most (eg. Daily Mail). Law means consistency.

    If a site can't ensure the age of the user then it should not allow such footage to be shown. Much like pornography in this country.

    The idea that government censorship is inherently a bad thing is just as idealistic as saying its completely a good thing. It has its place.

  6. #50

    tmcd35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    5,655
    Thank Post
    849
    Thanked 890 Times in 737 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    327
    Quote Originally Posted by AngryTechnician View Post
    I agree with your stance on government censorship, but why should Facebook not have the right censor their own website? It's their site, their rules. You're still free to say or post whatever you want somewhere else.
    My bad, badly worded, I was thinking more along the lines of ISP filtering. I think I did say above that it's facebook servers and they set the rules we use them by...

    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    The role of the government is to create and enforce laws according to the 'joint morals' of the nation.

    The majority of people believe that some censorship is necessary.
    The idea that government censorship is inherently a bad thing is just as idealistic as saying its completely a good thing. It has its place.
    As you say, it's my liberal idealology, and as I said above - I aquiesce to societies greater wisdom.


    EDIT: Aquiesce - I like that word, seems apt. Sometimes I wonder if we aquiesce too much power to the state because it's easier than taking personal responsibility?
    Last edited by tmcd35; 23rd October 2013 at 03:18 PM.

  7. #51
    Sdrawkcab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    298
    Thank Post
    1
    Thanked 96 Times in 52 Posts
    Rep Power
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by tmcd35 View Post
    Aquiesce - I like that word, seems apt. Sometimes I wonder if we aquiesce too much power to the state because it's easier than taking personal responsibility?
    That's pretty much a given, isn't it? It's always easier to let someone make your decisions for you, after all. Most people wouldn't even be aware that they were letting it happen.

  8. #52
    Galway's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    West Yorkshire
    Posts
    1,337
    Thank Post
    9
    Thanked 304 Times in 213 Posts
    Rep Power
    100
    @Disease You are entitled to your opinion, im entitled to mine.

    Do you think its ok for anyone, without logging into you tube can see the following?

    *****Dont click if easily offended*******
    NOT FOR SCHOOL IMO

    Graphic content warning: Baboon eating gazelle alive - YouTube

    At least FB you have to register.

    "While we are on the subject, having seen people killed for real whilst in the Army, why on earth would anyone think looking or want to look at another human being having their head cut off as acceptable in any medium, really sort it out it's real person for christ's sake."

    Censorship is not the answer.

  9. #53


    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,002
    Thank Post
    265
    Thanked 794 Times in 602 Posts
    Rep Power
    289
    Quote Originally Posted by witch View Post
    So just out of interest - those people who believe that facebook shouldn't censor its own content in any way, shape or form, even though they are allowing minors onto the site - do you think that nothing - films, books, nothing should be censored at all, ever?
    (as I said, I want to be able to choose, but I am an adult)
    As I understood it, Facebook and other sites would like to have a status of "common carrier", essentially they are not liable for the content or it's effect beyond a very basic legal responsibility. So if you publish defamatory statements on Facebook, FB might be obliged on receipt of a complaint to take down the content and supply the complainant with your details so you can be sued for defamation, but they can't be. The more FB acts as an arbiter of content, the more they become a publisher rather than a simple carrier.

    Personally I think censorship has a place in protecting the vulnerable. Children for instance have a right to be protected from disturbing and explicit images. In the main, it is parents who have that responsibility, not Facebook, Google or BigWogglers.Net. If you are relying on Facebook to protect your child, then you are already failing (because it is simply not possible for FB to do so effectively).

    On the other side, do adults have a right to be protected from seeing the consequences of their actions? Hiding from people the bloodbath horrors that results from Drone Strikes in Pakistan, or the tens of thousands of deaths every year in Mexico as a result of the "War on Drugs", seems to me to be very wrong. So often the cry of people is "If *only* I had known". That simply isn't compatible with "hide away all the horror" and IMO, people must have the right to information which allows them to make an informed judgement.

    There is an element of (wait for the yelling and screaming here) pandering to the worst dregs of society here as well. Why would any decent human being want to watch such horror is beyond me.
    I think that is a tautology constructed around your definition of "decent". I don't think there is a simple answer and I doubt you can justifiably characterise everyone who "wants" as "indecent" for wanting to make their own judgement (which necessitates watching it).

  10. #54
    JoeBloggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    544
    Thank Post
    160
    Thanked 75 Times in 52 Posts
    Rep Power
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Galway View Post

    *****Dont click if easily offended*******
    NOT FOR SCHOOL IMO

    Graphic content warning: Baboon eating gazelle alive - YouTube

    At least FB you have to register.
    The reason that video was shot, was to film animals in the wild etc etc

    The reason a dude got his head chain saw'd off and plastered online is obviously to cause terror

  11. #55


    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,002
    Thank Post
    265
    Thanked 794 Times in 602 Posts
    Rep Power
    289
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeBloggs View Post
    The reason a dude got his head chain saw'd off and plastered online is obviously to cause terror
    Does the intent matter (and if so at what stage)? Why was the video shot? Why was it distributed? Why was it then published? I watched "The Act of Killing" a while back. It is a most profoundly disturbing film. The subjects quite obviously have a different intent in participating than the creators. Who's intent wins?

    Witch's statement might read for that film "Why would any decent human being want to sit and watch men who perpetrated evil on a huge scale, justify themselves and celebrate their acts". For me that answers the question of intent, at least to say that the intent of (x) is not always a factor.

  12. #56
    JoeBloggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    544
    Thank Post
    160
    Thanked 75 Times in 52 Posts
    Rep Power
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by pcstru View Post
    Does the intent matter (and if so at what stage)?
    I think it does when the beheadding video is being compared to a baboon and a gazelle

  13. #57

    witch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Dorset
    Posts
    11,133
    Thank Post
    1,373
    Thanked 2,377 Times in 1,674 Posts
    Rep Power
    703
    Quote Originally Posted by pcstru View Post



    I think that is a tautology constructed around your definition of "decent". I don't think there is a simple answer and I doubt you can justifiably characterise everyone who "wants" as "indecent" for wanting to make their own judgement (which necessitates watching it).
    I don't think "indecent" is the correct opposite of "decent" in this example and yes, of course this is my opinion. I can see, of course, why people investigating/studying/reporting on such dreadful things might watch these things but you don't need to watch it all to make a judgement if you are sure that it is what it is - and there is not really any comparison between humans being killed and animals doing what animals do - killing for food. @X-13 Tell me. If you believe that parents are entirely responsible for their children (other than in school or whatever), then a) what about the poor children who do NOT have parents who help them or support them. Also, if you were walking down a street and a child got away from its parent and started to head for a busy road, would you really not stop them? I'm sure you would, but that is the extrapolation of your "its the parents responsibility" spiel.

    I think @AngryTechnician s point about Facebook having the right to censor their own website - especially in the light of the minors who are on there is a very good one. Yes, children can search about to find this stuff, as can anyone else, but perhaps Facebook should take a stand because of their readership.
    Last edited by witch; 23rd October 2013 at 08:40 PM.

  14. #58


    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,002
    Thank Post
    265
    Thanked 794 Times in 602 Posts
    Rep Power
    289
    Quote Originally Posted by witch View Post
    I don't think "indecent" is the correct opposite of "decent" in this example and yes, of course this is my opinion.
    It might be my misappropriation of language :-)!
    and there is not really any comparison between humans being killed and animals doing what animals do - killing for food.
    The point is perhaps context - intent and impact. If I give a 3 year old child a cuddly toy gazelle and encourage them to personalise and love it and then show them graphic footage of one being eaten - how does that compare to showing the death of a human to a war veteran experienced with horror and death? Better or worse?
    Also, if you were walking down a street and a child got away from its parent and started to head for a busy road, would you really not stop them? I'm sure you would, but that is the extrapolation of your "its the parents responsibility" spiel.
    Is that fair? Of course most people would stop the child. The question is really what is the parents expectation - a more correct comparison might be that they expect someone else *should* stop the child (and they can let their child run free because other people should do that).
    I think @AngryTechnician s point about Facebook having the right to censor their own website - especially in the light of the minors who are on there is a very good one. Yes, children can search about to find this stuff, as can anyone else, but perhaps Facebook should take a stand because of their readership.
    Which IMO is fair enough. It is not really a simple black and white question of censorship or not. I might want adults always to have the right to examine evidence for themselves and not be protected from it, while at the same time, I do want children to have a right to be children (and be protected from adult content). For me the real complexity comes with the issue of education. An expectation that people can suddenly deal with horrific evidence at an arbitrary age is unrealistic. But how do people learn to deal with such things without exposure to them/awareness of them? And how can you expect Facebook to arbitrate that better than parents?

    [ETA- supposing FB proposed a solution based on a "watershed" - content moderation based on a local bedtime norm. No one would be happy - parents would say "how dare *they* decide what is an acceptable bedtime from my little babes" and no one would really think such a thing was workable. But actually nothing but close parental supervision can protect children from the horrors available on the internet, so actually such a scheme would be no worse than any other].
    Last edited by pcstru; 23rd October 2013 at 09:10 PM.

  15. #59

    witch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Dorset
    Posts
    11,133
    Thank Post
    1,373
    Thanked 2,377 Times in 1,674 Posts
    Rep Power
    703
    Quote Originally Posted by pcstru View Post
    It might be my misappropriation of language :-)!

    The point is perhaps context - intent and impact. If I give a 3 year old child a cuddly toy gazelle and encourage them to personalise and love it and then show them graphic footage of one being eaten - how does that compare to showing the death of a human to a war veteran experienced with horror and death? Better or worse?

    Is that fair? Of course most people would stop the child. The question is really what is the parents expectation - a more correct comparison might be that they expect someone else *should* stop the child (and they can let their child run free because other people should do that).


    Which IMO is fair enough. It is not really a simple black and white question of censorship or not. I might want adults always to have the right to examine evidence for themselves and not be protected from it, while at the same time, I do want children to have a right to be children (and be protected from adult content). For me the real complexity comes with the issue of education. An expectation that people can suddenly deal with horrific evidence at an arbitrary age is unrealistic. But how do people learn to deal with such things without exposure to them/awareness of them? And how can you expect Facebook to arbitrate that better than parents?

    [ETA- supposing FB proposed a solution based on a "watershed" - content moderation based on a local bedtime norm. No one would be happy - parents would say "how dare *they* decide what is an acceptable bedtime from my little babes" and no one would really think such a thing was workable. But actually nothing but close parental supervision can protect children from the horrors available on the internet, so actually such a scheme would be no worse than any other].
    Well, I've never seen someone being killed and I really don't see that I need to "deal with such things" I could watch it if I wanted to but I don't want that choice taken away from me - either by it being taken off "the internet", OR it being thrust in my face without my agreement. The war veteran argument is null and void. You join an armed force that you know goes into war zones and deals in death, and you have to deal with it. That's your choice. I want the choice too.
    The "three year old with a toy gazelle" reinforces my argument. You cannot expect a three year old to understand nature red in tooth and claw, but neither should a 13 year old or even an adult have to be faced with watching a murder because they can understand it (and can they? I doubt it)
    With regards to FB watershed - FB doesnt have to have a solution that makes anyone "happy". It should do what it needs to do to protect the minors it allows on the site. There was an article somewhere - can't find it now that mentioned "corruption of minors" or something similar as being something that campaigners can use to stop FB allowing such content on a site.

  16. #60
    Sdrawkcab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    298
    Thank Post
    1
    Thanked 96 Times in 52 Posts
    Rep Power
    49
    After reading this thread I'd be interested to know which of you have children and which don't. My guess is that the majority of those arguing against censorship don't.

  17. Thanks to Sdrawkcab from:

    Sunnyknight (24th October 2013)

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Where Do You Order Your Stuff From?
    By stevenlong1985 in forum Budgets and Expenditure
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 21st August 2008, 05:41 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 6th June 2007, 08:40 AM
  3. Where do you get your patch cables.
    By Kyle in forum Wireless Networks
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 29th May 2007, 06:14 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •