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 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 77
General Chat Thread, Facebook - Where do you stand? in General; I've been thinking about this a bit more over night (as you do). At what point, by not applying sensorship, ...
  1. #61

    tmcd35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    5,243
    Thank Post
    772
    Thanked 804 Times in 670 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    299
    I've been thinking about this a bit more over night (as you do). At what point, by not applying sensorship, is FB complicite in forcing users to watch a video? Even if it appears on a users timeline it doesn't auto play, does it? The user still has to actively click the play button...

    @Sdrawkcab, I don't have children - so you're right there But let's turn that question the other way around. How many parents have let their children watch an 18 cert film? or play an 18 cert game? or smokea cigerrette? How many parents actively monitor the contents of games of movies before letting giving their child access? Should you be passing your responsibilties as a parent to government? or Facebook? If I had kids would I find it that easy to say no to them? (and reinforce it?).

  2. #62
    Sunnyknight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Above the clouds and under the core of the earth
    Posts
    1,401
    Thank Post
    116
    Thanked 114 Times in 79 Posts
    Rep Power
    68
    It truely is an eye-opener to see such a varied response from the Edugeek side.

    It seems that some of you don't care, some of you think it shouldn't be up there full stop, some of you think a warning is appropriate, and some of you are yet undecided.

    I think i may start a poll on this, just for the sake of figures.

    Please continue to discuss this, it's very interesting reading the responses.

  3. #63

    X-13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    /dev/null
    Posts
    8,004
    Thank Post
    508
    Thanked 1,591 Times in 1,122 Posts
    Blog Entries
    19
    Rep Power
    700
    Quote Originally Posted by witch View Post
    @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.
    A) Children without parents have SOMEONE who's responsible for them.

    B) I wouldn't help. At all. I've heard WAY too many stories of guys getting abuse because paedophiles.

    Hell, I've actually seen it.

    Kid running off, guy grabbed him before he got hit by a car, "LET GO OF MY CHILD, YOU PERVERT!"... No "thanks for saving my kid while I was busy talking to my friend about X-Factor", just rage.

    That, apparently, is deemed acceptable.

    Therefore, it's also acceptable that people refuse to do anything because they don't want this grief. [It's also a life ruining accusation.]
    Last edited by X-13; 24th October 2013 at 09:30 AM.

  4. #64


    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,813
    Thank Post
    546
    Thanked 232 Times in 173 Posts
    Rep Power
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by Sunnyknight View Post
    It seems that some of you don't care, some of you think it shouldn't be up there full stop, some of you think a warning is appropriate, and some of you are yet undecided.
    As I stated in my earlier post, I think they shouldn't be there, but I'm going to expand a little more.

    Yes, facebook is 'pushing' this onto our news feed if a friend shares it, or a group we're part of. I actually have no objection to that in concept. I have joined a group or added a friend because I am interested in what they have to say/want to share/etc. However, like all friends/groups/children's trading card games/tanning salons/kitchen sinks I don't agree with absolutely everything they post, therefore I am to use my own judgement when being provided with their content. You cannot, reasonably, chastise facebook for one of its primary functions.

    That being said, the warning is inefficient.
    This is what it needs. You can't decide if you do-or-don't want to watch a video, read a story, etc without some kind of insight. That's why news articles have headlines, that's why TV shows have a synopsis, that's why books have a blurb. 'This might upset you'. It might. But it might not. A chav flicking the V's at a bus might upset me. A boxing match where there's quite a bit of blood might upset me. A baboon eating a gazelle alive might upset me. A video of a woman being beheaded might upset me. Problem is, some oik sticking his fingers up at a bus won't upset me, but without a 'proper' warning, and neither will a boxing match. How do I know if that's what the video is? Or if it's a beheading video? Well, I look at the title presumably. That being said, a title, like the video, is user-generated content and thus, subject to misrepresentation. And we can safely say most people sharing these videos are doing this in a malicious manner, so I personally don't consider the title good enough, and I don't consider the current warning 'Graphic content that might upset you' good enough, either.

    Like I said, facebook actively allows 13 year olds to register. It is their duty to ensure the site is suitable for a 13 year old to use. All parts of the site, unless they are not able to access it. Admittedly I don't know if apps/groups/etc can be age restricted (I believe they should be able to be if they currently can't) but it's obvious these videos aren't. Yes, kids can use false birthdays, but then the blame lies with the child. Facebook would have taken reasonable measures to restrict that content and that would be acceptable for me.

  5. #65
    Galway's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    West Yorkshire
    Posts
    1,015
    Thank Post
    6
    Thanked 215 Times in 153 Posts
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Sdrawkcab View Post
    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.
    I have 2 kids under the age of 10. Both have access to online nintendos and laptops.
    Both have been educated in the Internet, dangerous roads and talking to strangers.

    Internet is filtered/monitored.

  6. #66

    witch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Dorset
    Posts
    10,396
    Thank Post
    1,105
    Thanked 2,091 Times in 1,471 Posts
    Rep Power
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by Garacesh View Post
    This is what it needs. You can't decide if you do-or-don't want to watch a video, read a story, etc without some kind of insight. That's why news articles have headlines, that's why TV shows have a synopsis, that's why books have a blurb. 'This might upset you'. It might. But it might not. A chav flicking the V's at a bus might upset me. A boxing match where there's quite a bit of blood might upset me. A baboon eating a gazelle alive might upset me. A video of a woman being beheaded might upset me. Problem is, some oik sticking his fingers up at a bus won't upset me, but without a 'proper' warning, and neither will a boxing match. How do I know if that's what the video is? Or if it's a beheading video? Well, I look at the title presumably. That being said, a title, like the video, is user-generated content and thus, subject to misrepresentation. And we can safely say most people sharing these videos are doing this in a malicious manner, so I personally don't consider the title good enough, and I don't consider the current warning 'Graphic content that might upset you' good enough, either.

    Like I said, facebook actively allows 13 year olds to register. It is their duty to ensure the site is suitable for a 13 year old to use. All parts of the site, unless they are not able to access it. Admittedly I don't know if apps/groups/etc can be age restricted (I believe they should be able to be if they currently can't) but it's obvious these videos aren't. Yes, kids can use false birthdays, but then the blame lies with the child. Facebook would have taken reasonable measures to restrict that content and that would be acceptable for me.
    What he said. Perfect AFAIC.

  7. Thanks to witch from:

    Garacesh (24th October 2013)

  8. #67

    tmcd35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    5,243
    Thank Post
    772
    Thanked 804 Times in 670 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    299
    Quote Originally Posted by X-13 View Post
    Kid running off, guy grabbed him before he got hit by a car, "LET GO OF MY CHILD, YOU PERVERT!"... No "thanks for saving my kid while I was busy talking to my friend about X-Factor", just rage.

    That, apparently, is deemed acceptable.

    Therefore, it's also acceptable that people refuse to do anything because they don't want this grief. [It's also a life ruining accusation.]
    That says a lot about the state of our society, and is worse than FB broadcasting that video on the frontpage surrounded by neon signs saying "free sweets for every 5yr old watches".

  9. #68
    Sdrawkcab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    234
    Thank Post
    0
    Thanked 73 Times in 37 Posts
    Rep Power
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by Galway View Post
    I have 2 kids under the age of 10. Both have access to online nintendos and laptops.
    Both have been educated in the Internet, dangerous roads and talking to strangers.

    Internet is filtered/monitored.
    You seem to be the exception rather than the rule here. I'm not trying to say that either side is wrong, but in my experience having your own children seems to rapidly change your opinion on things like censorship and other personal liberty issues.

  10. #69
    JoeBloggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    544
    Thank Post
    160
    Thanked 75 Times in 52 Posts
    Rep Power
    34
    I have no kids and you've seen my comments

  11. #70

    X-13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    /dev/null
    Posts
    8,004
    Thank Post
    508
    Thanked 1,591 Times in 1,122 Posts
    Blog Entries
    19
    Rep Power
    700
    Quote Originally Posted by Sdrawkcab View Post
    but in my experience having your own children seems to rapidly change your opinion on things like censorship and other personal liberty issues.
    I'm going to say it...

    Having a child in no way grants you permission to disregard the personal liberties of everyone else.

  12. #71


    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,813
    Thank Post
    546
    Thanked 232 Times in 173 Posts
    Rep Power
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by X-13 View Post
    Having a child in no way grants you permission to disregard the personal liberties of everyone else.
    Completely agree - which is why my argument is centred around the lowest-common-denominator (i.e. the fact that the content - however which way you put it - is not suitable for 13 year olds). I can't speak for anybody else.

    TL;DR of my opinion, now that I've had time to consider and discuss it, would be either:
    • facebook get rid of the videos, which is now what they'e u-turned and done.
    • facebook apply content restriction and display prominent and actually informative warnings, which would at least protect the young from seeing this content. As I said earlier, morbid curiosity is enough to scar a child for life. I don't want to use the 'think of the children' approach but, as someone who used to be a child myself, I honestly agree content filtering should be in place. Otherwise, I (personally, my opinion, etc) deem the site unsuitable for a person of that age.
    • facebook raise the sign-up age and deny access to the accounts of everybody still below that age, which they will never do, because that cuts off a huge chunk of their ad revenue. But even if they did, they should probably have better warnings either way.
    Last edited by Garacesh; 24th October 2013 at 10:37 AM.

  13. #72

    AMLightfoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Hampshire, England
    Posts
    1,757
    Thank Post
    317
    Thanked 498 Times in 303 Posts
    Rep Power
    227
    As I said before, I'm all for freedom of expression and expecting content to be censored is arguably not the job of Facebook any more than it is the job of Google, although:

    Now bear with me as I'm playing devils advocate here...

    Child Pornography is illegal in this country. The age of consent differs from country to country and there are many countries where 12yos are married off and have babies so the definition of a 'child' globally is a touch loose. HOWEVER, I have NEVER had the horrible misfortune to accidently run into child porn on either Facebook or Google - why is that?

    Because it is AGAINST THE LAW in this country. The fact that a video of a man having sex with a 12yo is NOT illegal in other countries (although I have no interest in finding out which ones, this is an extreme example to illustrate a point) doesn't have any bearing on the fact that it is blocked by most 'legitimate' websites such as Facebook and Google.

    Murder is illegal in this country too (although I know there are some countries with less rigid rules on what constitutes murder...Honour killings for example seem to be 'permissible' in certain places). We abolished capital punishment, so arguably videos of capital punishment are against the law too?

    So why is it that we are fine with censorship when it comes to child porn, but raise merry hell when they stop videos of murder appearing in our feed? The basic concepts are the same - a person doesn't CHOOSE to be murdered or beheaded any more than a child CHOOSES to be defiled, and both acts are equally against the law in this country and in fact Murder results in a longer jail sentence and in some countries (such as many states in the US) execution.

    A previous poster raises valid questions re: enforcement, although they neglected to consider peer review as a viable option. If ALL content was submitted behind a consent screen and tools given to allow people that CHOOSE to view it the opportunity to rate and tag the video, you would find that the 'tag cloud' for a video ends up considerably representative of the content, and people could choose to block videos with certain 'tags'. OFC this is not foolproof and the variety of tags, spellings and descriptions would be a factor, but there is a complex mathematical concept that I can't remember the name of that basically describes the 'hive mind' output of 'the masses' and how there will be exceptions and 'outfield' responses but the majority of responses will fall within a mean field. Or something.

    FTR I'm not interested in getting into debates about what does and does not constitute freedom of speech or whether people with children should expect society generally to participate in child protection (although in herd animals, the herd as a whole often acts in the interests of the young, regardless of their parent so in humans we really ought to act as a society, except basic concepts of society are breaking down because we no longer live in interdependent groups) I am merely interested in the actual mechanics of the problem.
    Last edited by AMLightfoot; 24th October 2013 at 10:48 AM.

  14. 2 Thanks to AMLightfoot:

    happymeal (24th October 2013), witch (24th October 2013)

  15. #73

    witch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Dorset
    Posts
    10,396
    Thank Post
    1,105
    Thanked 2,091 Times in 1,471 Posts
    Rep Power
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by X-13 View Post
    I'm going to say it...

    Having a child in no way grants you permission to disregard the personal liberties of everyone else.
    Agreed
    But not having children in no way grants you permission to disregard their protection.

  16. #74
    Galway's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    West Yorkshire
    Posts
    1,015
    Thank Post
    6
    Thanked 215 Times in 153 Posts
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by witch View Post
    Agreed
    But not having children in no way grants you permission to disregard their protection.
    Lobby your mp, thats what they are there for sweetie.

  17. #75

    X-13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    /dev/null
    Posts
    8,004
    Thank Post
    508
    Thanked 1,591 Times in 1,122 Posts
    Blog Entries
    19
    Rep Power
    700
    Quote Originally Posted by witch View Post
    But not having children in no way grants you permission to disregard their protection.
    True.

    But, I still think the buck should stop with the parents. If you can't be bothered to keep an eye on your kids internet browsing, you can't get angry when they go on something they shouldn't, and you can't blame the website for hosting it. [Unless it's something like adult content on CBeeies. I'll even support your rage at that.]

    Facebook started off as something for University students. So it's more adult oriented [grown-up, not XXX]. I'd also wager the majority of accounts belong to adults, so a blanket ban on anything that might upset children is wrong.

    Put a click-to-load disclaimer on every video "This is user posted content, and as such may contain material which is offensive and/or not suitable for minors".


    As for flagging videos by content... That would really need dedicated staff to do it. Automation misflags things all the time [Microsoft issued automated DMCA notices to Google about themselves...] and relying on users falls down when they don't do it properly [or at all]

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 5 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
  •