With one little word I can fell him !
I think Parliament could do a lot to restore sense by
-- ensuring all participants can be identified as persons and in that way make the system accountable and self regulating.
- doing what FB did before and open it up , not close it down
--encouraging all authors ,groups and sites to do their own regulating..
- to advise all readers where their authors have gone when they get cancelled
--to not get into a panic about this delicate matter
--not necessarily forcing host agencies to regulate BUT to insist groups do their own .
- to not expect AI will resolve conflicts because it won' t .
Whose speech was effective and helpful in that story ?
Lots of important areas to consider in the real and quite profound threats to children, people, small minorities and free speech ( just to name a few ) .
CAUTION
I would like to remind us that while the internet is new, the problems of libel slander, grooming, overlording, dominance and free speech, to name just a few critically important and even quite domestic issues are not new; for example ; in our homes and on the field.
IMO We best keep the caution and conservative ( been around a while) nature of the old problems and 'solutions" in mind before we think we can easily eliminate these old hornets' nests completely. We cannot IMO completely control speech (and would not want to ) but we can discipline, as our own houses do, and as the 2 houses do; discipline "the spelling out "of the issues; largely inhouse
As all Parliaments on these matters should know, new quick fix solutions on these extremely difficult matters can be worse than the old.
The temptation to use bigger hammers, that, I suggest, is all around us, is not going to work. We might all be jail tomorrow , according to law !
AI maybe at the heart of the current maladaptive responses
The huge avalanche of canceling on Facebook this very week suggests the move to a thoroughly AI to remain a seriously incompetent driver of irrational blocking non solutions when values and paradox are involved.
Remember the power you might attempt to wield if you try to control what humans can say
Libel slander grooming, and free speech
I only want to deal with two just now.
1, What existing principles of law can bolster and build our response to the real threats?
These are things that facebook with its extensive staff have inthe past been doing well .
Any limits to the use of AI . All hosts are under great pressure,, I am not against using AI but just to limit its power.
AI is useful and its use can increase, but it should NOT take over because the final accountability should involve human values and judgement ( limited liability, punishment to fit the crime for starters )
2. What particular principles should be reinforced in new and adaptive legislation applying to net users, net hosts and complaints processing.
As an key author and administrator of hundreds of blogs for 30 years, I think reinforcing one old principle will keep us from falling more into the big hole ( that of cancelling participants ) that is happening right now: Complete cancelling .
AI could even help in the hard work in digesting a passage, showing why its offensive and giving complaints and authors a good hearing about what particular things can or should be redacted. This process could be inhouse and , like in Parliament particular authors could be asked to retract paragraphs ( at least till the matter's resolved)
The situation is , as at 27th August 2025 is serious because Facebook hosts are denying access to authors complete works ,
Common law would suggest hosts could be liable if they withdraw access completely to that work. Certainly the principle is worth fighting for .
Hence
RECOMMENDATIONS
A suggested alternative to forced processing by the host (all words in draft form only )
Prioritize the self guiding principle
A Host agents, can in their initial agreement with authors ( esp group admins )
get agreement that if someone objects to words used , the host agent or admin can be expected. after an agreed period of exposure of those words, and those words only, can be automatically removed on written complaint by another author who is a person: but only after an agreed period ( based on ............) and a public trial ( complete with public publishing of an accusation.
No behind the scenes moves against authors !
The discussion of what is at issue should THEREFORE , as far as possible, be held on line and in public court .Host agents would then not be obliged to monitor and act closely depending on the audience , Does this suffice to direct effective censure action to specifically unsafe sites ( say for children) within any big hosts world (Host agency then HELP admins rather than focus on individuals?
This online court method avoids the host agency having to do much work and be seen as taking sides . As in real court, the trial summary will follow a good hearing in the public court , It is clearly not safe sound or any fun for host agencies to employ their own judges when public court of open robust conversations is the rule on the net and in real life ( could FBook become just a nice place to post pictures like tik tok ?) ,Noone apart from a robot wants that judging job after the first day of doing it .
Why not keep the best traditions , just as they operate in Parliament . Maybe there is a role for the host humans to act as the speaker does in Parliament ? Points of order can operate with an incourt audience but everyone will leave the room if the noisy nonsense and pedantry aren't dealt with QUICKLY .
>
The idea of allowing host agents or even AI to act as judge and jury is not always necessary Nor is it as efficient if we desire to preserve as best as possible house framing of everyone's right to speak freely and or be heard .
Hosts current temptation to deny a right of reply can often be dealt with by not getting involved at all OR until the dispute is fully aired on the net .It happens quite efficiently on all my many sites . Other readers, in my experience, will tell intruders to shut up and keep quiet if there ambition and gripe exceeds their helpful content ,
Hosts powers to adjudicate must be questioned when public court is our tradition -And it works .
I have had a policy for 35 years of not cancelling anybody on my hundreds of sites . These sites are on both facebook and blogs )They are all designed to have a set agendas which mean calling for "off topic" stop talking " is easy and effective
When complaints arise, I pester those who abuse the privilege of being heard ( mainly talk too much, going off topic , repeat same old sameold or cut and paste same old same old -- and I ask them to take stuff down , readers too soon call for sh removal so it happens with time and patience . Anything to reduce anger is good but it cannot and should not be removed entirely, Adrenalin is normal and natural but only lasts a short time . Noradrenalin and other things can be expected to close us all down to find the rest we need from information overload. and the anger if we don't listen properly
I have had to remove content (easy done and that act as admin slows em down) , If you confront the author that has never been a big deal ; you can even make friends on Facebook just by being straight with them. Annoying pests have energy to speak but their content is very limited and will be cutoff by a walkout or a dismissal from the field/room.
This is the point :
1, Every person on the net must be a person. I don't believe anyone should publish with anon ( even institutions which should be fair game IMO) are required to identify the people involved.
It does not take much to verify that John Modra is a real person because he says so much and we know where to find him. The government should encourage and support all citizens to publish anything controversial in their own name wherever possible .
John Modra's place on the net must be retained on the net because only that way can anyone keep him in line That also goes for the rest of you. I am currently a non-person on Facebook despite a huge publishing volume on over 20 groups which i have authored and act as administrator on , .
You , not I at the moment can study some of them @Worthwatching, @Nerds in the Know ,@Wendsdownunder, @Conservation that works. Noone is told why i cannot be contacted on Facebook where i used to have over 1000 friends that i cannot currently contact .
on other sites , I am the author of http://politicaceleste. blogspot.com etc tec
I would not have a life if I checked every post , as some sites still do , Checking initial posts is fine but time consuming and IMO just not worth it ". Like the law often does . wait until someone breaks it and then hit em with it .
My point is that its a frustrating waste of time for the host to try and do it when full public exposure and court online will do it.
Facebook in the past has done a good job and I am back a few times after certain items were checked Infact i have made new friends after a good fight on Facebook .
The new practice of cancelling persons must stop. . The redacting of controversial paragraph's is fine , maybe with two or three witnesses if an admin has to get involved .
2. In providing guidlines for hosts require them to notify automatically when a person =s body of work has been removed from the public arena , that will slow down the cuurent growth in cancelling
3. AI seems to be the reason many of us are having our work remioved , Dont let Ai be the arbitor - it simply doesn;t know enough to make theses judgements
4.
Open to your suggestions as this is a draft .
3. What quick fix changes should we resist ?
We should resist the quick fix hammers , The ability to speak freely as we do in families and at the footy is critical to outing anger ( often the need to be heard ) and frustration . We need to make sure people who get angry for not being listened to can protest freely as they should do in the bedroom , living room or the street. Otherwise someone is insisting that someone else just shuts up . Anger is a risky business but best dealt with by being open to it being expressed well and stopping it before it goes too far .
Cancelling, gas lighting and self righteous excuses will grow into greater tyranny if we don't use precision in any decisions we make in this area.
And it will never be a perfect balance. talk to Augusto Zimmerman .
Laws IMO , to be effective, must be clear short and easily understood by everybody.
The experienced computer bloke said
-- language use controls have become a serious threat to many users with no explanations given in cases he has finally managed to resolve. Tik tok is apparently worse.
I think Parliament could do a lot to restore sense by
-- ensuring all participants can be identified as persons and in that way make the system accountable and self regulating.
- doing what FB did before and open it up , not close it down
--encouraging all authors ,groups and sites to do their own regulating..
- to advise all readers where their authors have gone when they get cancelled
--to not get into a panic about this delicate matter
--not necessarily forcing host agencies to regulate BUT to insist groups do their own .
- to not expect AI will resolve conflicts because it won' t .
