Idiot BBC journalist is slander. In any case it would not have been an individual's decision.

If you go "Hey we reported these images as inappropriate and you've done nothing about it!" and they go "Send us some examples so we can investigate" then it seems blindingly obvious to me that they're not asking for the images themselves (which they obviously already have on their system) but references to allow them to identify what you're complaining about. That the BBC guys (if you were paying attention I used the plural so wasn't making any comment about any individual) thought it a good idea to mail the images themselves to someone seem like a particularly foolish/clueless thing to do to me, but as my opinion clearly offends you so much I'll remove it.


Serves me right for engaging with the 'general' forum I suppose. I'll not make that mistake again.

Doesn't offend me at all.
I was just saying that what you said could be interpretted as slander - and given the speed at which people sue nowadays......

UK law is as corrupt and pathetic as US.
The issue here is with "strict liability" -- if you've ever seen, or had stored an any medium belonging to you, a "child abuse image" without being part of an investigation with the relevant warrants then you are a child rapist and must have your life ruined. There are absolutely no defences.

The other issue is that Facebook is a criminal* organisation owned by a piece of ecrement -- but that's widely know and even BBC journalists ouight to have seen that coming.


*Does depend a little on jurisdiction but lots of robbery and fraud going on in daylight.

I agree with Hazel that expecting Facebook to police (or moderate) every post is digital wishful thinking. At the same time, Facebook's attempt to sidestep and tarnish an investigation by one of the most respected news organizations in the world leaves me almost speechless, something which, I assure you, seldom happens to me.

The Zuckerborg is only in it for the money, but, along the way, it has become an enabler of the vile.

As a side note: https://www.thelocal.de/20170307/ger...ainst-facebook

Oh, no, I don't think it's "wishful" at all. Yes, Facebook does have a responsibility to know that its service is not being used to distribute nor to store pornography ... let alone child porn. Yes, we most-definitely can create strict legal liability on their part. If we do this, then I assure you that Facebook will change.

I firmly do not believe that you can put up a web site, open it up to the general public, and then bear no responsibility whatsoever for what the public does with it. No, you cannot just sit back and let them police themselves. You are the owner, and I believe that you can be held (criminally) liable if you fail to exercise due diligence and in so doing facilitate a felony.

"Suck it up. The Internet is starting to grow up now."

Note that I do not disagree with you about their moral responsibility, nor can my opinion of Facebook's business practices get much lower than they are already. My snap opinion is that Facebook would fold rather than hire enough moderators to moderate all the stuff that needs to be moderated (afterthought: not that such a possibility would cause me to weep). Facebook is not a service; they're in it for the money, and implementing moderation on that scale would suck too much money out of their pockets into doing something useful. At a site such as LQ, users are willing to be moderators because they believe in and benefit from the site; I can't see that a model of volunteer moderators would work for a profiteerin--er profit-making outfit like FB.

As regards the question of legal liability, in US law, the liability of websites for user-generated content is limited and the caselaw is still developing. I do not know about the law in other countries.

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/immu...ns-decency-act

I'm not saying the law is morally correct, just that it is.

Without, it though, sites that post legitimate opinion and participate in the discourse in good faith could be harassed with frivolous legal actions and perhaps driven out of existence just because some bozo doesn't like what they did. Just look what happened to Gawker (full disclosure: I was never a fan of Gawker, but I'm just sayin'). My point is, the issue is not cut-and-dried, because people are not cut-and-dried.

Just a few thoughts.

The Internet is "growing up" now. It has never been a good idea that you could do anything you want just because it is technically possible to do it. (And they're doing it, "just because they can," as the recent CIA leaks revealed. Not just the CIA but also private companies are "the mice will play.") And, no, you should not be permitted to escape legal liability for the web site or other Internet-accessible service that you provide. Telecommunications laws have been on the books for decades: it is time to begin enforcing them, specifically with regards to the Internet since we, and our children, are there!"

Saying that Facebook couldn't hire enough moderators is like saying that AT&T can't hire enough telephone operators. They've got the money and they can spend it. They will do whatever the law requires them to do.

I think that FDR said it best when he quipped: "I agree with you. Now, make me do it." When the public demands that communications decency laws (and other laws) do apply to "this [no-longer] wonderful new thingy called the Internet," they will be applied.

The Internet isn't a new thing anymore. Its customary "get out of jail, free" cards need to begin to be revoked. If you provide a web site, free to the public or otherwise, "you, too, are legally liable for what is done with it." You must remove any illegal content, and you must take pro-active steps to be sure that illegal content does not get posted. If that changes your now-lucrative business model so that providing the service costs you more money, c'est la guerre. "Suck up and comply with the [new] law, just like everybody else has to do."

I agree wholeheartedly. Ever since my BBS days, when I was communicating over the internet via BBS "conferences" such as FIDONET, I've always tried to remember that the internet is a public place.

If more persons remembered that, the level of discourse would rise somewhat. Of course, there are always those who don't care how they act in public, but most persons do.

I think part of it is that persons use their computers/phones/tablets in intimate private settings and forget that they are parading before the whole Big Wide World.

Also, I think I've said before in these electrons that "because you can" is not in and of itself a sufficient reason for doing things. Because you can spy on little children through their toys, for example, does not mean that you should.

Just one small quibble. I didn't say that Facebook "couldn't" hire enough moderators.

I said in admittedly a rather roundabout manner that they "wouldn't" do so--they wouldn't be willing to devote that much of their income to the public good. Indeed, I am rather skeptical that they believe there is any such thing as the public good. The concept seems to have become quite declasse.

Again, I agree with you completely on the moral issues here, and I think Facebook's treatment of the BBC reaches a whole new level of "skeevy" (which, from the Zuckerborg, does not surprise).

Nevertheless, I think that the legal issues as regards liability and enforcement are not as straightforward as the moral ones, which is a quite common occurrence. Legality tends to be a an either-or sort of thing; it does not recognize the shades of grey that morality does.

Yet another reminder that we live in the age of stupid.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/articl...ses-loneliness
(sorry it's the BBC...)

The fact that paedos, terrorists, other criminals, etc are using it, is just a symptom of the overall rottenness and damaging nature of these "social networking" sites, which ironically are leaving many young people barely able to converse face to face...

In this climate of truly paranoid Political Correctness as rule by consensus (inflamed by over the top drummed up fanfare worthy of a Goebbels) it saddens and sometimes angers me that such efforts are merely "kisses on the wound", having psychological value only. Any one who imagines taking down pictures will have any effect whatsoever on mistreatment of children is, IMHO, not only living in a fantasy world but seriously endangering Art and Information all likely swept away like "the baby with the bathwater". Some people these days are actually offended and/or imagine all others should be, by the mere likes of Classical Cherubim for crying out loud. Do these people not realize that to real pedophiles Department Store catalogues of children's clothing, not just underwear mind you, is to them, Porn?

The evil is in the mind or the wiring of that mind, not in a picture. Healthy people are not titillated by such pictures and are rightfully outraged at any real depiction of mistreatment of anyone and especially the defenseless. Since the vast majority of criminal pedophilia (and please note that by definition "pedophilia" means BEFORE puberty as there are other terms for post pubescent obsession)and the focus should be on "defenseless" not age, is best guarded against by proper sec education AND most importantly by easy avenues of communicating offenses. Pedophiles thrive on secrecy and lies as well as misdirection. The first step is to let the outrage pass and get serious about doing something effective, and that starts at home, not on the internet.

I've never used Facebook and never will but I am against nebulous Witch Hunts, whether IRL or virtual. Censorship is provably counterproductive, not to mention misguided and ignorant of reality.

.....

they reported who? the ones that sent them the photos or the ones that had them posted on Facebook. As I could see them reporting the ones sending them the photos for evidence for sending them indecent images of children.

(I can't resist.)

Prove it.

This is one of the problems, namely what is considered "indecent" ib different communities and different times. There was a time when National Geographic, Life, Look, even the NY Times could display a photo of gleeful little children running naked through a lawn sprinkler on a hot day and all would smile in remembrance. These days they would risk lawsuit and public outcry. Lowest common denominator tends to lower everything.