US Election

That's him. An unbiased news channel presented by a Brexit party candidate
Andrew Neil and Rupert Murdoch are hardly going to present unbiased news either.

I think I'll just stick to Radio 4.

 

I honestly don't believe there is a body impartial enough to regulate. Don't get me wrong it should be regulated, but what you and I would agree on being regulated would be completely different. My concern being the interference in free speech.

Take Trump as the example again, as I think the capitol is the one thing we agree on, where he well overstepped his position. But should he be silenced on social media, certainly if he is inciting violence, but the problem with that is we are all so silencing his right to free speech.

Yes, he deserved to lose it, but at what point is he allowed to have it back. It raises lots of questions. That's not me speaking up for Trump, it's just me suggesting free speech is at serious risk once you start regulating it.

 

I could imagine you lot actually if social media got regulated...

brb would have a list things passed by the regulator that could not be said or posted on this forum.

I reckon within a week most people in this section would be banned.

Think before you wish for something.

 

We have a clear understanding on incitement of violence, racial abuse, hate speech etc though. So there is a framework to work with.

My take on free speech is that it is a right that you have, and with rights come responsibilities. If you can't use it responsibly then you lose your right to have it.

A sitting President inciting an insurrection is about as bad as it gets. He's abused his privilege in the worst possible way. Once he is out of office, I think Twitter should give him his account back.

 

Would that be the same Ofcom that somehow allows the likes of Mike Graham & Julia Hate Spewer on Talk Radio and Maajid Nawaz on LBC to put out misleading and factually incorrect information on COVID and conspiracy theory bollocks about Trump?

Ofcom are largely responsible for ridiculous ‘balance’ that’s seen the largest news channels interviewing an actual expert on whatever the issue of the day is, and for ‘balance’ here’s some talking head with no expertise in this field whatsoever chatting bollocks about it.

 

There is that

 

Piskie's out before we've even started.

 

Told yer mate, it's a bloody minefield.

 

It is. I don't disagree.

For the record though, as much as organisations like Twitter & Facebook have tried to champion the right of free speech, they have done the right thing in shutting down Trump.

 

I look on how much things have changed in life...

If you smoke these days you're treated like a rabid dog, get outside

If you want a beer all the fooking pubs are closed

I can't even have sugar in my coke anymore

I got a cctv camera following my every movement in town

Along with a mobile that logs every step of my life

Now they want to regulate speech...

I've even started to say to myself it's not my world anymore....once i pop off, all the vegan looney green lefties can have it, just wait until i die ffs.

 

We won't even have real meat in decades to come

 

It's a double edged sword. Ofcom's rules on impartiality mean that media have to offer differing views, so you'll get the bobble heads chatting **** for 'balance', but there's nothing in their rules that states that media outlets have to give equal coverage to opposing views.

This will be the angle that channels like GB News and News UK TV will use to get their licences. They will be heavily right leaning, with the lightest nod to an counter view.

 

Look mate if you want an example of how regulating would look if you was a regulator, go look at your Arsenal board....it's fooking dead.

 

I think those are always valid points. Maybe the answer is not to look for the perfect answer but just something better than what we have right now when it comes to social media.

Say for example you had a regulator made up of reasonable people who are centre right and centre left. They would not agree on everything but there are common things they would agree on. So they accept there will be things they can't regulate, but everything they can agree on and then put in place measures to tackle, will imo be infinitely better than the abuse of misinformation we're seeing now.

The best thing about this is the process will always be fluid. At first fledgling measures will be put in place, then tweaked or withdrawn as the right balance is eventually determined. You only achieve that if you at least begin to do something about it. If we just think it's not possible then the situation won't just stay as it is, it will get worse.

 

That was down to protecting the free speech of moderators.

 

Sounds well thought out that mate, better than Piskie's ideas.

 

Regulation will begin by bannishing Piskie for starters... to the Arsenal board. Hoisted by his own petard

 

See if people put moderate views into it, I'm happy. Just keep this quiet from Archers ffs, I don't need a headache.

 

I like your middle ground thinking where they have to agree. See I'm easily pleased. I hate all this left v right stuff, does my nut in.

 

Nobody wants over regulation, and like I said, you have quite clear guidelines on inciting violence, racial abuse, hate speech etc. So there is a framework in place.
You're never going to be able to regulate perfectly, but as you mention, clear attempts at misinformation or deliberate disinformation need to be better managed and whoever is regulating, needs to be able to draw a line in the sand and say, this is unacceptable.

Kudos to the BBC for having a dedicated misinformation and fact checking service, some may argue it's not perfect. But it's certainly better than just allowing it to circulate unchecked.