Regulation of social and digital media

[arbabarshad]

I would like some suggestions on what methods could be used to regulate social and digital media.

In the past five years, the role digital and social media has played in world events has been significant.

You can go from politics to climate change to sports and the influence has been huge.

Left wing people cry foul when right wing media try and distort facts and reality.
Use of personal data in influencing opinions/elections has been significant around the world.
Us fans crying foul when sports media are having a free run at our club in light of the FFP ruling last week.
Awareness around climate change has risen greatly because of social media.
Clickbait, Twitter trolls, Facebook Bots are common occurrences in digital life (can add all the sports journalists in there except Samuel).

There are some positives of the social and print media for sure, climate change awareness would be a classic example. But many negatives at the same time. But it feels like an environment of Chaos which surely appeals to some people, especially in politics. However, is there a way to regulate these platforms whereby the negative impacts can be filtered out or reduced to insignificance.

Before people say, this has gone on in the print media for decades. I feel print media is still regulated better than digital platforms but it has been around for decades and therefore regulation has matured over a number of decades.

So is it just a case of regulation of digital media will mature over the coming years. If that is the case, can the world afford to wait years before digital media regulation matures enough to accepted (subjective i know) levels. Or the damage it is doing, at the speed it is doing, to current situations around the world makes it the biggest issue the world has faced, along with climate change.

 

[WestGorton]

The public owned BBC not having threads for comments. Appalling that that is countenanced. What the private sector does is impossible to regulate.

 

[urban genie]

Your examples are flawed and this thread is pointless as every exmple are aleady being discuused in their own threads.

Why not try searching the forum.


And ys I am being contrary

 

[everythingchangesbutblue]

Fine for those who use hate speech, bullying etc. Just like speed cameras. It will be a goldmine for governments and may make dickheads think twice about posting vile hateful shite. It would need some sort of credible set up though.

 

[arbabarshad]

Your examples are flawed and this thread is pointless as every exMple are aleady being discusse din their own threads.

Why not try searching the forum.


And ys I am being contrary

Nothing wrong with the contrary argument. But, there is a reason to combine it all together in this thread. It is to emphasise the point of all the wrongs that are ongoing in one place and have suggestions in one place that will cover most if not all situations.

The fact these examples are being discussed in various threads is the reason they all get washed in arguments relating to each thread. And no overlapping credible suggestions come out of it.

 

[arbabarshad]

Fine for those who use hate speech, bullying etc. Just like speed cameras. It will be a goldmine for governments and may make dickheads think twice about posting vile hateful shite. It would need some sort of credible set up though.

Even more incentive for them to act objectively rather than thinking of power and becoming part of the problem.

 

[East Level 2]

Your examples are flawed and this thread is pointless as every exMple are aleady being discusse din their own threads.
Why not try searching the forum.
And ys I am being contrary

Bans for people who don't proof read their pists before posting.

 

[blueinsa]

Agree with the OP but its not just the right using it to tell lies!

 

[Gelsons Dad]

I would like some suggestions on what methods could be used to regulate social and digital media.

In the past five years, the role digital and social media has played in world events has been significant.

You can go from politics to climate change to sports and the influence has been huge.

Left wing people cry foul when right wing media try and distort facts and reality.
Use of personal data in influencing opinions/elections has been significant around the world.
Us fans crying foul when sports media are having a free run at our club in light of the FFP ruling last week.
Awareness around climate change has risen greatly because of social media.
Clickbait, Twitter trolls, Facebook Bots are common occurrences in digital life (can add all the sports journalists in there except Samuel).

There are some positives of the social and print media for sure, climate change awareness would be a classic example. But many negatives at the same time. But it feels like an environment of Chaos which surely appeals to some people, especially in politics. However, is there a way to regulate these platforms whereby the negative impacts can be filtered out or reduced to insignificance.

Before people say, this has gone on in the print media for decades. I feel print media is still regulated better than digital platforms but it has been around for decades and therefore regulation has matured over a number of decades.

So is it just a case of regulation of digital media will mature over the coming years. If that is the case, can the world afford to wait years before digital media regulation matures enough to accepted (subjective i know) levels. Or the damage it is doing, at the speed it is doing, to current situations around the world makes it the biggest issue the world has faced, along with climate change.

Forum posters using their opinion as fact?



Here is how you regulate social and digital media:
Take it with a pinch of salt.

 

[mexico1970]

If regulation means trying to shut down political opponents then no, it doesn't need regulating. In fact just because we don't like a particular view it doesn't mean it has to go away (Regulated) there is enough of that going on already.

If it's getting to you then log out.