Take Down All Social Media

[numbersrule]

The way I see it, the negative effects of social media far outweigh any minor positivities they offer.

Take them all down.

The Government should get a proper grip on the internet and take control.

 

[NickGrogan]

The way I see it, the negative effects of social media far outweigh any minor positivities they offer.

Take them all down.

The Government should get a proper grip on the internet and take control.

What made you want to post this on Social Media?

 

[fisicx]

How is the government going to police something hosted overseas?

And there are lots of positives to social media. Without it I’d not see my grandchild growing up.

 

[Mark T Jones]

I think this is a very literal version of 'don't shoot the messenger '

 

[numbersrule]

What made you want to post this on Social Media?

I was very angry on Monday evening.

The way I see it Elon Musk has been extremely irresponsible.

And what that tells me is that at least one person ( and I believe probably a lot more ) with a controlling influence over social media is not a fit and proper person for such a role.

This means that there are severe negative influences at the helm.

Like I say, the Government ( or to clarify for @fisicx ) the Governments of the World need to get a collective grip on this to prevent a concatenation cataclysm of negative influences.

When considering the highly damaging effects of social media, in my opinion, the communication benefits are far outweighed.

Roll it all back and start again.

Start again with a Gobal Identity Card System that makes every user of the Internet immediately identifiable to the security services in real time. Make it so that you can't access the Internet or mobile networks without what will come to be known as Global Total Transparency.

 

[JEREMY HAWKE]

`You must stop getting angry Its not good for your blood pressure and this can also set off other problems

Remember social media is not real its just a game on the telly with the type writer its not real life !

 

[numbersrule]

`You must stop getting angry Its not good for your blood pressure and this can also set off other problems

Remember social media is not real its just a game on the telly with the type writer its not real life !

Yes, but it is real life when riots can be co-ordinated via social media.

 

[numbersrule]

I heard a comment on a respected news media outlet (BBC) that the difficulty with the Global Tech Social Media Enterprises is that there is no International System of Legislating against them on a holistic co-ordinated global scale.

( Yet )

( Please do correct me if I am mistaken )

I have started work on a strategy to solve this.

 

[numbersrule]

I think this is a very literal version of 'don't shoot the messenger '

But with regard to fuelling riots, the messenger is the problem.
I am not suggesting we shoot the messenger, as I am a very peaceable person, but what we do need to do is make the messenger retreat, unravel their systems, and recreate them in a safer and more manageable form.

Like I say, roll it all back and start again (with a globally recognised Internet identity system ).

Global Total Transparency.

 

[JEREMY HAWKE]

Yes, but it is real life when riots can be co-ordinated via social media.

Yes but look at the backward morons doing it

If they took my advice they would not be in jail now The bone heads

 

[numbersrule]

Yes but look at the backward morons doing it

If they took my advice they would not be in jail now The bone heads

Yes, I fully appreciate what you are saying, but think about this:

Historically, going back to the times when there were letter bombs, the postal services in their capacity as responsible organisations, they put systems in place to detect letter bombs.

It seems to me that the social media companies know full well what is possible to transmit on their sites and the people in charge are not acting swiftly enough to control it. This means these companies are not responsible organisations.

In fact the people in charge are kind of denying that they have any responsibility in this regard.

This is totally unacceptable.

I call on all people who are concerned about the lack of control on social media sites to boycott them.

 

[Nico Albrecht]

The Government should get a proper grip on the internet and take control.

It's quite shortsighted and naive to believe that governments don't exert significant control over these entities. Facebook, for instance, began as a project linked to DARPA, a CIA program. In fact, many major tech companies with social media platforms or cloud tech , such as Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, and Apple, have former U.S. generals and CIA personnel on their boards of directors.

Quick article but there are many more

Social media thrives primarily because it allows governments to monitor citizens, gathering real-time intelligence through current photos, behaviors, social circles, and connections.

 

[numbersrule]

It's quite shortsighted and naive to believe that governments don't exert significant control over these entities. Facebook, for instance, began as a project linked to DARPA, a CIA program. In fact, many major tech companies with social media platforms or cloud tech , such as Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, and Apple, have former U.S. generals and CIA personnel on their boards of directors.

Quick article but there are many more

Social media thrives primarily because it allows governments to monitor citizens, gathering real-time intelligence through current photos, behaviors, social circles, and connections.

Nico Albrecht, thank you for your comments, which I do not dispute at all except for the bit about being shortsighted and naive.

The way I see it, even though there may be high level intelligence influences in these Global Companies, the problem seems to be that there are deficiencies within the 'nuts and bolts' of the technology.

The ex CIA guys are said to be participating in high level policy making. But that is not where the problems lie.

These Global Companies should be focusing more on the fundamentals that lead to clear abhorrence as opposed to paying inflated salaries to ex CIA boffins to theorise about security and democracy.

 

[Ozzy]

Facebook, for instance, began as a project linked to DARPA, a CIA program.

No, Facebook started as a uni project to rank female students based on who was the "fittest" for the lads to rate.

 

[numbersrule]

No, Facebook started as a uni project to rank female students based on who was the "fittest" for the lads to rate.

Hi Ozzy

Do you think Facebook are now trying to re-write history?

The link in Nico 's post was from a well known Newspaper, but the amount of misinformation generally in the media about the Global Tech companies is appalling.

I don't have accounts with any of Facebook, X, Instagram.

I do have Linked In.

It all needs proper Regulation.

I have opened a channel of communication with the
United Nations Internet Governance Forum. I'm trying to establish what if anything is being done to create a Global Companies House.

That way there could be a Global Companies Act and a starting point for International Level Legislation,

 

[fisicx]

Never going to happen.

There is already a lot of governance but this doesn’t stop the hate, misinformation and bullying.

There are millions of posts, videos and chats published every second. Policing everything is impossible.

Does all the regulation stop rogue bookkeepers ripping people off? Does it stop bookkeepers published duff info on their websites?

 

[numbersrule]

Never going to happen.

In my opinion it will.

There is already a lot of governance but this doesn’t stop the hate, misinformation and bullying.

The aim would not be to stop hate, nor misinformation nor bullying, but the aim would be to create a digital media environment with suitable and sufficient controls to impede all the hateful, misinforming and bullying people.

The way I see it, at present the social media companies clearly are not trying hard enough.

Conditions are required. Postings on social media should be subject to Conditions. Conditions can be prescribed in the AI Algorithms. There should be Criteria for social media accounts which determine the Rights to Publish of Individuals. Everybody starts on Level D where there is a lengthy delay to all your posts while they are assessed. After a period of Good Standing, individuals can have their Rights to Publish Level increased to Level C, and then after another year to Level B then Level A. On Level A individuals have the Right to Publish instantaneously. If subversive activity is detected an individual is relegated to a lower Level where there are delays to Publication and Instantaneous Publication is no longer possible.

With the above system, the cretins who posted subversive content during the England Riots would never be capable of reaching Level A and would therefore be unlikely to ever hold accounts capable of posting instantaneously.

I propose a social media meritocracy.

Like I say, roll it back and start again with a safer, more secure and more stable system.

There are millions of posts, videos and chats published every second. Policing everything is impossible.

It is possible when suitable and sufficient tiered safety criteria are applied to the systems.

The problem at present is that the Governments of the World haven't got their heads round how to prescribe specifications for a safe Internet. This means there is not sufficient pressure on the social media companies because the world at large cannot see how badly they are performing with regard to safety and security.

This is where Global Companies House comes in because whilst companies are required to File Annual Accounts to their National Level Companies House, all Global Companies will be required to File Annual Audited Security and Stability Reports to the International Level Global Companies House.

 

[ecommerce84]

No, Facebook started as a uni project to rank female students based on who was the "fittest" for the lads to rate.

If only you’d launched UKBabeForums instead - that $160 billion and Time person or the year could have been you.

 

[Ozzy]

If only you’d launched UKBabeForums instead - that $160 billion and Time person or the year could have been you.

FFS, I missed the joke at first and started Googling thinking a forum with that name really did sell. Now my search history needs clearing!

 

[Porky]

@B2 Bookkeeper
If I were you I would switch the lot off, including the BBC

None of this is good for your blood pressure and it’s all totally outside your control so why waste time fretting out over it.

Mind you, it’s nice in some ways that this is all you need to worry about. I suggest you go out and get some sunshine, take care

 

[fantheflames]

Facebook has become an essential part of my daily life, especially since so many of my family and friends have moved away. It’s how I stay connected with them, share memories, and keep up with what’s happening in their lives. While it might have its downsides, hearing from people I care about, whether that's a direct message or something they wanted to share, it helps me to keep those relationships I've built. For all its flaws, Facebook has been a positive space and it wouldn't be possible to keep in touch with all of the people I've connected with.

 

[thetiger2015]

Historically, going back to the times when there were letter bombs, the postal services in their capacity as responsible organisations, they put systems in place to detect letter bombs.

....but...they couldn't stop people sending a letter? Social media is the modern letter in a different form. Postcards become picture posts, letters become tweets.

You want the government to control social media and citizen discussion? You're saying MPs are more trustworthy than any citizen and will decide which citizens are allowed to have opinions, in line with government guidance and agreed policies?

Should people only have a government email address with an approved address book? To stop them having multiple aliases, linked to a barcode that allows them only access to things the government approves of.

 

[numbersrule]

....but...they couldn't stop people sending a letter? Social media is the modern letter in a different form. Postcards become picture posts, letters become tweets.

You want the government to control social media and citizen discussion? You're saying MPs are more trustworthy than any citizen and will decide which citizens are allowed to have opinions, in line with government guidance and agreed policies?

Should people only have a government email address with an approved address book? To stop them having multiple aliases, linked to a barcode that allows them only access to things the government approves of.

I did not intend this thread to be about controlling opinions.

That is not my intention at all.

Social media usage should be structured in a way that creates a safe and secure environment for all contributers and for all who may be influenced by it.

I'm sure no-one can dispute the fact that social media do not provide a safe and secure environment on a number of levels.

In my opinion, the people managing social media companies have created an environment that positively promotes unsafe and insecure activity.

This results in an environment that is 80% negative and highly detrimental to the majority of users.

 

[numbersrule]

Facebook has become an essential part of my daily life, especially since so many of my family and friends have moved away. It’s how I stay connected with them, share memories, and keep up with what’s happening in their lives. While it might have its downsides, hearing from people I care about, whether that's a direct message or something they wanted to share, it helps me to keep those relationships I've built. For all its flaws, Facebook has been a positive space and it wouldn't be possible to keep in touch with all of the people I've connected with.

It's always nice to hear about the minority of people who have positive outcomes with social media.

Sadly, the reality is that social media creates a majority of negative outcomes.

In my opinion it's typically 20% OK and 80% negative.

The effects resulting from the negative aspects far outweigh any minor 'nice to have's'.

Ultimately, the risk of concatenation is the main problem with social media.

 

[fisicx]

Many of my friends use social media to keep in contact. My children live in Germany to WhatsApp is a very useful app.

Nobody I know sees any negatives, hate or harmful content. Maybe it’s how you are using SM @B2 Bookkeeper thats the problem.

 

[fantheflames]

Hi @B2 Bookkeeper! I find that Facebook is probably more positive than other platforms, but every space, digital or IRL has its downsides. If your reliance on Facebook detracts from your life instead of adding to it, it can lead to negative experiences. For example, while I enjoy connecting with friends and family through Facebook, I’ve noticed that excessive scrolling can sometimes make me feel disconnected from the real world. I have self-awareness that this can happen so I often stop myself from that behaviour, whereas someone else may not realise or ignore that behaviour which could lead to harm.

 

[alan1302]

Many of my friends use social media to keep in contact. My children live in Germany to WhatsApp is a very useful app.

Nobody I know sees any negatives, hate or harmful content. Maybe it’s how you are using SM @B2 Bookkeeper thats the problem.

I can't see how any one can use social media and never experience negatives/hate or harmful content -that would be like not seeing any negatives/hate or harmful things in the real world which is just not possible.

 

[fisicx]

I can't see how any one can use social media and never experience negatives/hate or harmful content -that would be like not seeing any negatives/hate or harmful things in the real world which is just not possible.

It’s because I limit my use of SM. And make good use of all filters. Anyone who shares anything I find troublesome gets blocked. I have 23 friends on Facebook all of whom I know very well.

 

[alan1302]

It’s because I limit my use of SM. And make good use of all filters. Anyone who shares anything I find troublesome gets blocked. I have 23 friends on Facebook all of whom I know very well.

So you do see it - if you did not see it you would not need to block it. I don't see much of it either but don't really use it that much but know it is there.

 

[fisicx]

I don’t see it anymore. I used to but it’s now just pictures of cats and babies and vegetable gardens.

 

[numbersrule]

I believe there has been much proper progress recently which is beginning to look like contributing towards what needs to be a real world reality check for the social media companies.

This proper progress has shown the power of public opinion which is certainly starting to move in the right direction regarding social media and it's downsides.

 

[lesliedocherty]

Elon saved Twitter from the dangerous path it was going down, the last interview i seen he said he will allow all free speech, unless its illegal, then he will remove it.

 

[alan1302]

Elon saved Twitter from the dangerous path it was going down, the last interview i seen he said he will allow all free speech, unless its illegal, then he will remove it.

He doesn't really believe in free speech - he just wants you the user to think that he does.

 

[numbersrule]

I see more proper progress recently as Brazil moves ahead of the curve and in the right direction.

 

[lesliedocherty]

He doesn't really believe in free speech - he just wants you the user to think that he does.

How do you know what he believes

 

[Justin Smith]

The way I see it, the negative effects of social media far outweigh any minor positivities they offer.

Take them all down.

The Government should get a proper grip on the internet and take control.

What's the difference between that and censorship ?
Who gets to decide what "misinformation" is ?
Here's a classic (but true) tale..... :

Robert Jenrick (he’s standing for the Tory leadership) was on the radio the other day and stated that “big tech” had a responsibility ‘to prevent the spread to misinformation’.
So who gets to decide what “misinformation” is ?
I suspect Jenrick thinks he should be one of those to do that.
But this is the same Robert Jenrick who, on the 29th of March 2020, stated (in an official government Covid briefing no less) “This virus is indiscriminate”.
No misinformation there at all, obviously.

And here's the punch line.
Robert Jenrick is, apparently, one of the favourites to be the next Tory leader !

 

[alan1302]

How do you know what he believes

You can see in his actions he does not believe in free speech - he wanted the Twitter that posted the whereabouts of his private jet shutting down - even though it is public information. If he believes in freedom he would have no issue with it.

 

[numbersrule]

Yes, I agree, these days there seems to be an increasing amount of confusion about what free speech should be.

Free speech should be the freedom to express verbal, visual or written opinions in a well meaning way, be it negative or positive.

Free speech does not mean allowing people to conspire together to actively encourage violent disorder nor criminal behaviour.

 

[lesliedocherty]

That is not the Free Speech that people are pushing back on, I think its safe to say we all know that behaviour is illegal and not Free Speech.

If you look at the interview from Zuck this week about what the US governemnt wree making Facebook do, thats more the Free Speech debate.

 

[alan1302]

An interesting article about Musk/Twitter:

https://www.theverge.com/2024/9/4/24235213/x-brazil-suppression-speech-elon-musk-india-turkey