₦airaland Forum

Kundagarten:
Just noticed CaptainMeks is same person as Simplyleo

CaptainMeks:
Nobody is paying me a dime. Sensible countries which you claim to look up to are doing the same thing you are against in Nigeria.

Social media is like a country of its own which needs taming otherwise it will consume us all

Even the USA whom a lot of you claim holds freedom of speech dearly is working on regulating same social media as my post above shows

Simplyleo:
The point is: stick to the topic and stop runing from pillar to post.

Danzakidakura:
copy the hospital, good roads,rail line,and good economy of those countries before you go for social media.dont try to cage the people when you have not developed them, and you are scared of them asking you what you do with their money . keep collection #30,000, and sell your unborn children future

Danzakidakura:
you are a paid member of Buhari media. Why wont our leaders learn other good things from those countries you want to copy social media regulation from. Cant they their electricity,good roads,water supply,good hospitals and other things that will help the economy grow like this countries economy. Is it only social media regulations that Buhari want to copy from developed countries ? Social media regulation bill kee you dia

Simplyleo:
At least it is me that is collecting 30k to sell my unborn children future. But what I don't understand is how that should be your problem since the future of your unborn children have been fully secured in paradise. Which kind problem be dis? Is it your unborn children?

Now, @ the topic, the noise is not about whether we copying economy or not. The question is; is regulating social media an abomination as most of you whose children future is already secured have been shouting?

This is the problem. Previously, they have rented the air screaming social media regulation is threat to democracy, now a report has shown even the countries they worship do regulate their social media, since that doesn't favour their narrative, they are now saying something entirely different. Pls answer, is regulating social media an abomination? Why limiting the problem to infrastructure & economy? Why not tell us to start going to planet Pluto before regulating social media? Which kind people be This?

The good thing is that all these runing from pillar to post searching for the non existent wouldn't stop what should be.

gtown:
Since they thrive on spreading fake news and hate speeches, regulating social Media will unsecure the secured futures of their born and unborn children.
They are even everywhere saying why can't the dead penalty punishment for corruption as being practice by the Chinese be copied instead. But the truth is the day such law is proposed, it is these same Media Defenders of the Corrupts crew that will attack it. They have condemned themselves to wailing over any policy, action or inaction (meritorious or not) coming from the government in power today, as marked protest against the 2015 defeat suffered by their hero and darling party.

CaptainMeks:
Nobody is paying me a dime. Sensible countries which you claim to look up to are doing the same thing you are against in Nigeria.

Social media is like a country of its own which needs taming otherwise it will consume us all

Even the USA whom a lot of you claim holds freedom of speech dearly is working on regulating same social media as my post above shows

Kundagarten:
If they can copy social media bill they can as well copy their good economy

Kundagarten:
Why are you BMC more concerned about social media than the economy?

CaptainMeks:
UK
The government has proposed measures to regulate social media companies over harmful content, including "substantial" fines and the ability to block services that do not stick to the rules.

It will run a consultation until 1 July on plans to create a legal "duty of care towards users", overseen by an independent regulator.

At the moment, when it comes to graphic content, social media largely relies on self-governance. Sites such as YouTube and Facebook have their own rules about what is unacceptable and the way that users are expected to behave towards one another.

This includes content that promotes fake news, hate speech or extremism, or could trigger or exacerbate mental health problems.

Self-governance
YouTube has defended its record on removing inappropriate content.

The video-sharing site said that 7.8m videos were taken down between July and September 2018, with 81% of them automatically removed by machines, and three-quarters of those clips never receiving a single view.

Globally, YouTube employs 10,000 people in monitoring and removing content, as well as policy development.

Facebook, which owns Instagram, told the BBC that it has 30,000 people around the world working on safety and security. It said that it removed 15.4m pieces of violent content between October and December, up from 7.9m in the previous three months.

Some content can be automatically detected and removed before it is seen by users. In the case of terrorist propaganda, Facebook says 99.5% of all the material taken down between July and September was done by "detection technology".

If illegal content, such as "revenge pornography" or extremist material, is posted on a social media site, it will be the person who posted it, rather than the social media companies, who is most at risk of prosecution.

This is a situation that needs to change, according to Culture Minister Margot James. She wants the government to bring in legislation that will force social media platforms to remove illegal content and "prioritise the protection of users, especially children, young people and vulnerable adults".

So if the UK has so far mainly relied on social media platforms governing themselves, what do other countries do?

Germany

Germany's NetzDG law came into effect at the beginning of 2018, applying to companies with more than two million registered users in the country.

They were forced to set up procedures to review complaints about content they are hosting and remove anything that is clearly illegal within 24 hours.

Individuals may be fined up to €5m ($5.6m; £4.4m) and companies up to €50m for failing to comply with these requirements.

In the first year of the new law there were reported to have been 714 complaints from users who said that online platforms had not deleted or blocked illegal content within the statutory period.

The Federal Ministry of Justice confirmed to the BBC that the figure had been considerably below the 25,000 complaints a year it had been expecting and that there have been no fines issued so far.

European Union

The EU is considering a clampdown, specifically on terror videos.

Social media platforms would face fines if they did not delete extremist content within an hour.

The EU also introduced the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) which set rules on how companies, including social media platforms, store and use people's data.

But it is another proposed directive that has worried internet companies.

Article 13 of the copyright directive would put the responsibility on platforms to make sure that copyright infringing content is not hosted on their sites.

Previous legislation has only required the platforms to take down such content if it is pointed out to them. Shifting the responsibility would be a big deal for social media companies.

Australia

Australia passed the Sharing of Abhorrent Violent Material Act on 5 April, introducing criminal penalties for social media companies, possible jail sentences for tech executives for up to three years and financial penalties worth up to 10% of a company's global turnover.

It followed the live-streaming of the New Zealand shootings on Facebook.

In 2015, the Enhancing Online Safety Act created an eSafety Commissioner with the power to demand that social media companies take down harassing or abusive posts. Last year, the powers were expanded to include revenge porn.

The eSafety Commissioner's office can issue companies with 48-hour "takedown notices", and fines of up to 525,000 Australian dollars (£285,000). But it can also fine individuals up to A$105,000 for posting the content.

The legislation was introduced after the death of Charlotte Dawson, a TV presenter and a judge on Australia's Next Top Model, who killed herself in 2014 following a campaign of cyber-bullying against her on Twitter. She had a long history of depression.

Cardboard cut-outs were used at demonstrations over Facebook in Washington and Brussels last year

Russia
Under Russia's data laws from 2015, social media companies are required to store any data about Russians on servers within the country.

Its communications watchdog is taking action against Facebook and Twitter for not being clear about how they planned to comply with this.

Russia is also considering two laws similar to Germany's example, requiring platforms to take down offensive material within 24 hours of being alerted to it and imposing fines on companies that fail to do so.


China

Sites such as Twitter, Google and WhatsApp are blocked in China. Their services are provided instead by Chinese applications such as Weibo, Baidu and WeChat.

Chinese authorities have also had some success in restricting access to the virtual private networks that some users have employed to bypass the blocks on sites.

The Cyberspace Administration of China announced at the end of January that in the previous six months it had closed 733 websites and "cleaned up" 9,382 mobile apps, although those are more likely to be illegal gambling apps or copies of existing apps being used for illegal purposes than social media.

China has hundreds of thousands of cyber-police, who monitor social media platforms and screen messages that are deemed to be politically sensitive.

Some keywords are automatically censored outright, such as references to the 1989 Tiananmen Square incident.

New words that are seen as being sensitive are added to a long list of censored words and are either temporarily banned, or are filtered out from social platforms.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47135058

gtown:
Since they thrive on spreading fake news and hate speeches, regulating social Media will unsecure the secured futures of their born and unborn children.
They are even everywhere saying why can't the dead penalty punishment for corruption as being practice by the Chinese be copied instead. But the truth is the day such law is proposed, it is these same Media Defenders of the Corrupts crew that will attack it. They have condemned themselves to wailing over any policy, action or inaction (meritorious or not) coming from the government in power today, as marked protest against the 2015 defeat suffered by their hero and darling party.

DMerciful:
Why is UK and US focusing more on the social media companies like FB, Google, etc rather than their citizens?