Should Online Influencers be Restricted Or Monitored?

[Parafox]

It seems to me that these individuals and groups have in some cases a quite positive effect but also can be adversely influential particularly amongst the younger and less life savvy amongst society.

Should there be a statutory code of conduct ?

Edited 23 July by Parafox

[leicsmac]

Bloody difficult dilemma.

 

On the one hand, the idea of restrictions on such things goes against all the ideals I think of regarding freedom of thought and action.

 

On the other, I see people like Andrew Tate using that freedom to directly incite immense harm both physical and mental, and I wonder how far a civilisation can run freedom of thought and action before someone, or somefew, use that freedom to destroy it. And what is that freedom worth then? Zilch.

Edited 23 July by leicsmac

[Mark_w]

Monitored definitely. Restricted in cases where they’re promoting violence and violent attitudes yes. Men like Tate, they could bring the Brazen bull back and I’d still think he was getting off too lightly.

[LiberalFox]

Interesting topic. I'll admit here that I couldn't name a single influencer. It's very much a post millennial phenomenon. My influencers were whoever I was trying to impress at school or copying to fit in.

 

I do think it's a bit sinister that you have grown adults very carefully and deliberately looking to target children's emotional immaturity either for pure profit or to push an agenda. 

 

I think it would be very hard to come up with a regulatory framework because I don't see how you could legally define what an influencer is.

[The Horse's Mouth]

Bit soviet that 

[MPH]

I would say that instead of influencers be banned, that certain behavior and topics be banned. That would take care of that particular influencer but allow the freedom  of  non destructive behavior.

 

 

what topics do I mean?  “ How  to harm yourself” yes really, I’ve seen it. “ how to harm others”  stuff like that… and anything that directly incites violence...

[Benguin]

No but parents should restrict what their children do online. 

[Jon the Hat]

I think the issue is even if you chose to do so, how do you technically do so?  Its all very well say China banning entire sites or apps, but it is a lot harder to ban specific activity or types of posts, especially if they are overseas based.

[fox_up_north]

I'd go with anyone with a reach/ subscriber count above X should have to sign a monitoring register/ official body like Corgi.

 

The idea being that your general "I like trains, here's my popular trains channel" will sign up and those that try to skirt it or avoid, will be the ones you actually want to keep an eye on.

Edited 24 July by fox_up_north

[davieG]

Isn't all advertising influencer based and can cause harm, where does one start and finish with the banning?

[Fox92]

They should be all shut down and get a proper job.

[Sampson]

As LiberalFox says, how can you legally define what an influencer is so it only affects those giving out potentially dangerous advice or opinions? That feels very legally iffy and can almost certainly be exploited if certain types of parties got into power. 
 

I think this thread just shows that humans of any country or society would happily embrace authoritarianism if it’s framed against people they don’t like. You can’t shut down or monitor a person’s livelihood because of a few bad apples or you don’t consider them a traditional way to work tbh. There’s countless great educational influencers and content creators out there.
 

I watch some YouTubers who just play video games or board games I like, I’m happy to see them earn a living off it so they can do it full time. Same with others who are educational channels who discuss a wide range of scientific topics I probably would’ve had little chance to learn about 25 years ago. 
 

Like a lot of things on the internet, humans just don’t know how to deal with and frame the overload of information. I don’t know what the answer is, none of us do, because we seem to have lost control on critical thinking and framing information and political debate to the point where everyone’s opinion is considered equal when it shouldn’t be, but I can’t really see how banning influencers is it. 

Edited 24 July by Sampson

[grobyfox1990]

Hell no.
Or yes actually, if that would lead to influencers on this forum being blocked 

[Bellend Sebastian]

My 93 Twitter followers (mainly bots, some friends that haven't been on it since 2015) will be bereft

[Sampson]

4 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

I think the issue is even if you chose to do so, how do you technically do so?  Its all very well say China banning entire sites or apps, but it is a lot harder to ban specific activity or types of posts, especially if they are overseas based.

The overseas point is an interesting one actually, because the internet is a global phenomenon and really requires globalist cooperation if you actually want to do things about the societal issues it causes. I’m not sure smaller nations could really have taken on mega corporation like Apple and Facebook in terms of tax and privacy laws in the way the EU has as a collective, as the companies would just threaten to pull out of those states altogether without probably taking too much of a financial dent into their empire, whereas pulling out of the EU as a whole would be massively damaging.
 

However we’re at a time now where the electorate in much of the western world is rejecting globalism and turning any supra-national organisation into a bogeyman (look at the bogeyman WHO became during the pandemic or Farage’s recent rant against the World Economic Forum) so it becomes harder and harder politically to actually create the organisations and bodies we need to cooperate on the massive amount of new issues humans need to deal with on a global level with the invention of the internet.
 

Most of these international bodies were created after WW2 when people were profoundly aware of the need of international cooperation and the need for nation states to succeed certain laws to global agreements and organisations, but that is long forgotten and doesn’t seem to be in vogue with voters anymore at a time I’d argue they’re the most needed. 

Edited 24 July by Sampson

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Sampson said:

The overseas point is an interesting one actually, because the internet is a global phenomenon and really requires globalist cooperation if you actually want to do things about the societal issues it causes. I’m not sure smaller nations could really have taken on mega corporation like Apple and Facebook in terms of tax and privacy laws in the way the EU has as a collective, as the companies would just threaten to pull out of those states altogether without probably taking too much of a financial dent into their empire, whereas pulling out of the EU as a whole would be massively damaging.
 

However we’re at a time now where the electorate in much of the western world is rejecting globalism and turning any supra-national organisation into a bogeyman (look at the bogeyman WHO became during the pandemic or Farage’s recent rant against the World Economic Forum) so it becomes harder and harder politically to actually create the organisations and bodies we need to cooperate on the massive amount of new issues humans need to deal with on a global level with the invention of the internet.
 

Most of these international bodies were created after WW2 when people were profoundly aware of the need of international cooperation and the need for nation states to succeed certain laws to global agreements and organisations, but that is long forgotten and doesn’t seem to be in vogue with voters anymore at a time I’d argue they’re the most needed. 

I'm not entirely sure it's an argument so much as a statement of fact given the current world situation, mate.

[Guest Col city fan]

*removed by request*

[leicsmac]

On 24/07/2024 at 12:06, Col city fan said:

*removed by request*

Not sure a lot of women and ethnic minorities would agree with that particular sentiment tbh, but each to their own.

[samlcfc]

I don't have any answers, but do find it interesting that better parenting is considered a protection against being manipulated by problematic influencers.

 

The influencing doesn't stop with children and whilst experience is useful for critical thinking, I can imagine there's a decent portion of parents who share similar opinions and values with their kids to an extent. 

 

Agree with the below.

 

7 hours ago, Sampson said:

Like a lot of things on the internet, humans just don’t know how to deal with and frame the overload of information. I don’t know what the answer is, none of us do, because we seem to have lost control on critical thinking and framing information and political debate to the point where everyone’s opinion is considered equal when it shouldn’t be, but I can’t really see how banning influencers is it. 

Problematic influencers understand manipulation enough to make it work well for them. Many of them are onscreen characters, quite different from how they'd act in their more intimate social circles. I imagine we understand psychology enough to present ideas to combat such behaviour, but the action required is probably incompatible with our present society.

 

It's like people trying to communicate Climate Change science. It appears pretty well understood and urgent, but action in this respect is at odds with how many people want to go about their lives. 

Edited 24 July by samlcfc

[FoxesDeb]

Ah yes, the glorious eighties, the halcyon times when women couldn't walk down the street without being verbally abused, never mind go to a football match. When we still went to the P*** shop on the corner, many found it acceptable to racially abuse those who weren't white, and gay people were afraid to be themselves.

 

When good old apartheid was still alive and well in SA, the Berlin Wall was still up, and the IRA were in full swing.

 

Yes please take me back 

 

 

[leicsmac]

32 minutes ago, samlcfc said:

I don't have any answers, but do find it interesting that better parenting is considered a protection against being manipulated by problematic influencers.

 

The influencing doesn't stop with children and whilst experience is useful for critical thinking, I can imagine there's a decent portion of parents who share similar opinions and values with their kids to an extent. 

 

Agree with the below.

 

Problematic influencers understand manipulation enough to make it work well for them. Many of them are onscreen characters, quite different from how they'd act in public. I imagine we understand psychology enough to present ideas to combat such behaviour, but the action required is probably at incompatible with our present society.

 

It's like people trying to communicate Climate Change science. It appears pretty well understood and urgent, but action in this respect is at odds with how many people want to go about their lives. 

There's something in that. Both important but somewhat abstract issues.

 

The consequences for not focusing on either will be quite severe, too.

[FoxesDeb]

On 24/07/2024 at 12:47, Col city fan said:

*removed by request*

Maybe much of the increase comes from women feeling able to actually report these type of crimes rather than during, say, the eighties, when it was common for us to be dismissed and told we were asking for it because our skirt was too short, or the bloke was just doing what blokes do.

 

On 24/07/2024 at 12:56, Col city fan said:

*removed by request*

I'm going to make the assumption that you are not a woman, so very easy for you to say. 

[Guest Col city fan]

23 hours ago, FoxesDeb said:

Maybe much of the increase comes from women feeling able to actually report these type of crimes rather than during, say, the eighties, when it was common for us to be dismissed and told we were asking for it because our skirt was too short, or the bloke was just doing what blokes do.

 

I'm going to make the assumption that you are not a woman, so very easy for you to say. 

*removed by request*

[Raj]

30 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

Ah yes, the glorious eighties, the halcyon times when women couldn't walk down the street without being verbally abused, never mind go to a football match. When we still went to the P*** shop on the corner, many found it acceptable to racially abuse those who weren't white, and gay people were afraid to be themselves.

 

When good old apartheid was still alive and well in SA, the Berlin Wall was still up, and the IRA were in full swing.

 

Yes please take me back 

 

 

i Loved being spat at  and told to fvck off back to my own country and being chased down the streets by NF!!!

[Jattdogg]

12 minutes ago, Raj said:

i Loved being spat at  and told to fvck off back to my own country and being chased down the streets by NF!!!

Was almost like all you needed was a soap bar for a free shower. Running=exercise and going back home was vacation. They meant well didn't they??? 

 

Yikes.

 

This thread won't last will it mate?