Monday 10th September 2018
Posted: Mon 10 Sep, 2018 7:12 am
Morning all.
Doesn't mention the BBC, but suspect it's one of the media outlets being accused here of poor reporting. This bit of the article particularly caught my eye:Sweden's election is being misreported abroad – and this is a problem
Sounds familiar somehow, reminds me of something, a recent election where a party with some extreme views was used by a traditional ruling party to get a budget through...Most importantly, they could be forgiven for not realizing that while there's a chance the next government will do a deal with the Sweden Democrats to get its budget through, it will almost certainly not include Sweden Democrat ministers.
while in their weakened state some capital - the most backward and socially useless sections as it happened - stuck with them, the bulk threw their lot in with Blairism. That is until the crash came along. Gordon Brown saved their system, and they demonstrated their gratitude by abandoning him for Dave's shiny, socially liberal Toryism.
with May we see a weird form of Bonapartism in her party. Rather than contending factions cancelling each other out and the administration in the middle rising to power from a position of strength, May's authority - such as it is - derives from the fact none of the competing factions want her job.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i-ca ... -b22w97jt7" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;Dr Fox said that fellow Brexiteers needed to beware of succumbing to "irrational positivity"
Liked this bit on the "magic hand" --"" During the Dave years the shrivelling of the Tories at the top and the bottom started catching up with it. For all Osborne's talk of the long-term economic plan, Dave's liberal Toryism amounted to a doubling down on the Thatcherite settlementgilsey wrote:This is a good piece on the recent history of the tories.
https://averypublicsociologist.blogspot ... elite.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;while in their weakened state some capital - the most backward and socially useless sections as it happened - stuck with them, the bulk threw their lot in with Blairism. That is until the crash came along. Gordon Brown saved their system, and they demonstrated their gratitude by abandoning him for Dave's shiny, socially liberal Toryism.with May we see a weird form of Bonapartism in her party. Rather than contending factions cancelling each other out and the administration in the middle rising to power from a position of strength, May's authority - such as it is - derives from the fact none of the competing factions want her job.
The comments are almost unanimously critical ! My caps-lock --gilsey wrote:https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i-ca ... -b22w97jt7" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;Dr Fox said that fellow Brexiteers needed to beware of succumbing to "irrational positivity"
You couldn't make it up.
These factionsAnatolyKasparov wrote:And the "corporate" wing behave very much like the self-styled Labour "moderates" over here.
HindleA wrote:Thoughts?
I don't; but that's an asideWorryingly, it is on Facebook, which most of us in Britain use...
Isn't this already the law? Content posted above and below the line on news outlets are the responsibility of the owners of those news vendors. Am I mistaken?By establishing legal accountability for what’s published in large online forums, I believe we can force those who run these echo chambers to stamp out the evil that is currently so prominent.
Given them up.HindleA wrote:Thoughts?
It's my understanding the commenting platforms underneath some articles online are the responsibility of that news website; the news outlet providing that commenting platform is responsible for for the content of people making posts.HindleA wrote:Run rather than provide the platform? Equally I may be mistaken.
Online papers are classed as publishers and thus responsible for everything they print, including letters and comments.citizenJA wrote:HindleA wrote:Thoughts?I don't; but that's an asideWorryingly, it is on Facebook, which most of us in Britain use...Isn't this already the law? Content posted above and below the line on news outlets are the responsibility of the owners of those news vendors. Am I mistaken?By establishing legal accountability for what’s published in large online forums, I believe we can force those who run these echo chambers to stamp out the evil that is currently so prominent.
excellent pointHindleA wrote:Giving up thoughts is a thought.
(cJA edit & emphasis)Willow904 wrote:---
Online papers are classed as publishers and thus responsible for everything they print, including letters and comments.
Social media providers aren't classed as publishers - they are "platforms" or so they contend and thus have been able to duck laws designed for the print era.
Given many operate news feeds, an update to the law is long overdue. I haven't read the article your comment responded to yet, I should add, I'm just responding generally to your question. So apologies if what I've just posted isn't relevant.
Who's going to moderate social media platforms?We should educate people to be more resilient and better able to spot fake news and recognise hate, but we must also ensure there are much stronger protections to spread decency and police our online communities. The responsibility to regulate these social media platforms falls on the government. It is past time to act.
That’s why I am introducing a bill in parliament which will do just that. By establishing legal accountability for what’s published in large online forums, I believe we can force those who run these echo chambers to stamp out the evil that is currently so prominent. Social media can be a fantastic way of bringing people together – which is precisely why we need to prevent it being hijacked by those who instead wish to divide.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... ebook-bill" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
oh, damn it!HindleA wrote:Unfortunately still f''ing Tory.
She seems to have left out the whole bit about what her parliamentary bill entails and how it would achieve the end result she seeks. Not exactly the most informative article I've ever read.citizenJA wrote:(cJA edit & emphasis)Willow904 wrote:---
Online papers are classed as publishers and thus responsible for everything they print, including letters and comments.
Social media providers aren't classed as publishers - they are "platforms" or so they contend and thus have been able to duck laws designed for the print era.
Given many operate news feeds, an update to the law is long overdue. I haven't read the article your comment responded to yet, I should add, I'm just responding generally to your question. So apologies if what I've just posted isn't relevant.
I agree with your call for an update for social media platforms providing news feeds
Laws have to be consistent
What is considered actionable is from legislation passed in the House, from government
It's private news outlets' responsibility and resources monitoring their content and removing liable contributions
The last two paragraphs in the articleWho's going to moderate social media platforms?We should educate people to be more resilient and better able to spot fake news and recognise hate, but we must also ensure there are much stronger protections to spread decency and police our online communities. The responsibility to regulate these social media platforms falls on the government. It is past time to act.
That’s why I am introducing a bill in parliament which will do just that. By establishing legal accountability for what’s published in large online forums, I believe we can force those who run these echo chambers to stamp out the evil that is currently so prominent. Social media can be a fantastic way of bringing people together – which is precisely why we need to prevent it being hijacked by those who instead wish to divide.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... ebook-bill" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Libel laws are different depending on the country
I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable with some of Powell's article
Online Forums: Ten Minute Rule Motion
Lucy Powell
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make administrators and moderators of certain online forums responsible for content published on those forums; to require such administrators and moderators to remove certain content; to require platforms to publish information about such forums; and for connected purposes."
TUESDAY 11 SEPTEMBER
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/c ... 180905.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Whoever sets up the facility is responsible for contentHindleA wrote:Eg.Admin/moderators not whoever sets up the facility?
It's not really detailed enough to grasp exactly what this bill is proposing, but "to require platforms to publish information about such forums" sounds interesting. It seems to imply the likes of Facebook, while not responsible for what individuals post, would be at least responsible for knowing who has set up and runs groups on their platformcitizenJA wrote:Online Forums: Ten Minute Rule Motion
Lucy Powell
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make administrators and moderators of certain online forums responsible for content published on those forums; to require such administrators and moderators to remove certain content; to require platforms to publish information about such forums; and for connected purposes."
TUESDAY 11 SEPTEMBER
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/c ... 180905.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;