Off Topic Social Media and the death of Twitter

[Steven Toast]

Can we just close this thread and be done with it? Nobody is going to change their opinion and this will 100% spill out into other threads like it always does.

Like I said, I would prefer it stay open so that such topics can be discussed openly and people can challenge one another if they choose to.

Closing the thread on the basis of assuming nothing will change kills any chance of that change taking place. And if it does spill out onto other threads, which, I don't see why it would, it could just be dumped in here.

 

[balkan tiger]

Some bloke (ex politician) on the telly explaining why keeping things out of the news to ensure a fair trial by jury was a thing, however he went on to ask how can you have a fair trial by jury these days when everything true and false is on social media platforms.

As Bob Dylan said the times they are a changing. We can't keep working to rules and a system developed hundreds of years ago.

 

[DMD]

Like I said, I would prefer it stay open so that such topics can be discussed openly and people can challenge one another if they choose to.

Closing the thread on the basis of assuming nothing will change kills any chance of that change taking place. And if it does spill out onto other threads, which, I don't see why it would, it could just be dumped in here.

It consistently does spread on to other threads, either with direct comments or attitudes based on assumptions gleaned on peoples often misguided opinions from such discussions.

There are plenty of places on the web for political discussions, and they are more liable to result in changes than arguing on one piece of a football forum.

 

[Steven Toast]

Some bloke (ex politician) on the telly explaining why keeping things out of the news to ensure a fair trial by jury was a thing, however he went on to ask how can you have a fair trial by jury these days when everything true and false is on social media platforms.

As Bob Dylan said the times they are a changing. We can't keep working to rules and a system developed hundreds of years ago.

I agree, it's difficult to have impartiality when the means to induce bias are so widespread.

I'm not sure how or when the laws would change because any government that does it will immediately piss off the people on the other side of the political spectrum and draw accusations of fixing the law in their favour.

They would have to be objectively beneficial changes that uphold a fair and balanced, apolitical rule of law. I don't think I'd trust any of the current parties to put that into practice.

 

[Chazz Rheinhold]

It consistently does spread on to other threads, either with direct comments or attitudes based on assumptions gleaned on peoples often misguided opinions from such discussions.

There are plenty of places on the web for political discussions, and they are more liable to result in changes than arguing on one piece of a football forum.

This place would have died years ago if we had a free for all
FACT

 

[Steven Toast]

It consistently does spread on to other threads, either with direct comments or attitudes based on assumptions gleaned on peoples often misguided opinions from such discussions.

There are plenty of places on the web for political discussions, and they are more liable to result in changes than arguing on one piece of a football forum.

Fair, you're a mod so you probably see it on a daily basis, like I said dumping those comments into a single thread and deleting the posts that are directly attacking people would be one way to go, with a harsh penalty for those that break it.

I mean, you'd barely hear from me ever again, so there's at least one positive right?

 

[Kevin Francis]

Yeah, imagine getting angry at seeing Elon Musk on stage doing a Nazi heil at the inauguration of the US President.

**** me, what's going on?

It’s not so much that. I just couldn’t personally get so worked up about a highly autistic lunatic doing something stupid, whether it was purely accidental, him trolling, or something more sinister. Why put so much stock in it?

 

[TwoWrights]

This place would have died years ago if we had a free for all
FACT

Rot, have a look at the Leeds606 long running political thread, shower required afterwards though.


The views expressed in my posts are not necessarily mine.

 

[balkan tiger]

I agree, it's difficult to have impartiality when the means to induce bias are so widespread.

I'm not sure how or when the laws would change because any government that does it will immediately piss off the people on the other side of the political spectrum and draw accusations of fixing the law in their favour.

They would have to be objectively beneficial changes that uphold a fair and balanced, apolitical rule of law. I don't think I'd trust any of the current parties to put that into practice.

How about rather trying to keep things secret until the trial put out the truth and facts, why not know the charged persons previous? The case in question still has to be proved in court, how do we know he's guilty because the evidence presented to court shows it to be.

 

[Drew]

How about rather trying to keep things secret until the trial put out the truth and facts, why not know the charged persons previous? The case in question still has to be proved in court, how do we know he's guilty because the evidence presented to court shows it to be.

Because that’s an easy way for a jury to convict based on a persons past and not whether they are guilty this time or not.

Jurys are not perfect and can hold the same biases all of us do. The less information they know about a defendant the better in my eyes - unless it is explicitly relevant to the case.

 

[balkan tiger]

Because that’s an easy way for a jury to convict based on a persons past and not whether they are guilty this time or not.

Jurys are not perfect and can hold the same biases all of us do. The less information they know about a defendant the better in my eyes - unless it is explicitly relevant to the case.

A long time ago I did jury service in one case we had a real hard time with two other jurors who didn't want to find guilty "oh he seems such a nice boy we should give him a second chance" reiterating over and over we told them its not our job to give chances, witnesses had seen him climbing out the window with the stolen goods. Eventually we got I think it was majority not unanimous. Sentencing was deferred for social worker reports and 10s of other offences to be considered.
You may say justice prevailed and as I said if the evidence shown in court proves the case it doesn't matter if previous is known or not.

 

[Drew]

A long time ago I did jury service in one case we had a real hard time with two other jurors who didn't want to find guilty "oh he seems such a nice boy we should give him a second chance" reiterating over and over we told them its not our job to give chances, witnesses had seen him climbing out the window with the stolen goods. Eventually we got I think it was majority not unanimous. Sentencing was deferred for social worker reports and 10s of other offences to be considered.
You may say justice prevailed and as I said if the evidence shown in court proves the case it doesn't matter if previous is known or not.

I think your last point is in a perfect world personally.

In a perfect world we wouldn’t be affected by previous - sadly I think we all are. That’s why it’s so hard to change your image if you are a former criminal.

 

[Steven Toast]

How about rather trying to keep things secret until the trial put out the truth and facts, why not know the charged persons previous? The case in question still has to be proved in court, how do we know he's guilty because the evidence presented to court shows it to be.

Because it would definitely interfere with the jury selection process and bias any proceedings before they started.

A case doesn’t just prove guilt or innocence, it establishes MMO and other facts that weren’t apparent at the time of arrest. If that case is conducted of the basis of “the person was a criminal anyway”, then that’s not a fair trial and sets a precedent that any crime, no matter how small or irrelevant to the case, can influence the outcome regardless of evidence.

I guess the question is, why do we *need* to know every detail about a suspect under arrest? What does that do? How does it benefit individual members of the public, who can’t do anything about the trial or case, to know their entire life history in every case? I’m not trying to be obtuse so please don’t think I’m trying to be, it’s a genuine question in light of what some folk have been calling for. I could understand that information being made available to victims, but why does everybody need to know?

 

[Howdentiger2]

Because it would definitely interfere with the jury selection process and bias any proceedings before they started.

A case doesn’t just prove guilt or innocence, it establishes MMO and other facts that weren’t apparent at the time of arrest. If that case is conducted of the basis of “the person was a criminal anyway”, then that’s not a fair trial and sets a precedent that any crime, no matter how small or irrelevant to the case, can influence the outcome regardless of evidence.

I guess the question is, why do we *need* to know every detail about a suspect under arrest? What does that do? How does it benefit individual members of the public, who can’t do anything about the trial or case, to know their entire life history in every case? I’m not trying to be obtuse so please don’t think I’m trying to be, it’s a genuine question in light of what some folk have been calling for. I could understand that information being made available to victims, but why does everybody need to know?

Imo no details about any crime, the victim or the person(s) accused should be common knowledge until after a trial has been completed. Especially more so these days where you're guilty by social media before you've even made it from your house to the police station

 

[Newlandcasual2]

And another child is murdered today in Germany.

They are not the same as us !

 

[Steven Toast]

Imo no details about any crime, the victim or the person(s) accused should be common knowledge until after a trial has been completed. Especially more so these days where you're guilty by social media before you've even made it from your house to the police station

Exactly this, I just don’t understand what purpose it would serve to know the details of something that we can’t impact, especially as in most violent crime cases we don’t know about the accused until they’re already under arrest.

My worry would be doing that would encourage retribution against family and friends of the accused by members of the public, or those that feel the defendant was innocent would start causing problems.

 

[balkan tiger]

Imo no details about any crime, the victim or the person(s) accused should be common knowledge until after a trial has been completed. Especially more so these days where you're guilty by social media before you've even made it from your house to the police station

But surely it can work the other way too, if untruths are spreading via social media is it not better to correct that.

As I put first the laws and systems we have were designed 100s of years ago, social media has changed the way the world works and we need to watch up.

 

[Drew]

And another child is murdered today in Germany.

They are not the same as us !

Who isn’t?

 

[Steven Toast]

But surely it can work the other way too, if untruths are spreading via social media is it not better to correct that.

As I put first the laws and systems we have were designed 100s of years ago, social media has changed the way the world works and we need to watch up.

Yes, it is better to correct it and that’s why they broke with the rules to release the name of the Southport killer despite them being a minor at the time the murders took place.

The rules we have as laws get updated all the time, the issue lies with how good some people are at manipulating information and the flow of it.

The current social-political climate is incredibly Orwellian, asking people to reject the evidence of their eyes and ears and to just “trust me bro, I’m on your side” without a second thought. We need to be better at ensuring the people actually reporting what’s genuinely, apolitically going on are amplified and the people telling us how bad it is because of a leader or a specific cultural maxim dialling waaaay down.

 

[Steven Toast]

Who isn’t?

Ze Germans.