Should the public be allowed to make sweeping statements regarding political parties

[Beso]

I'm not sure how to word this but imagine being one egg of all the eggs in a basket..do you think it's healthy for the UK that the country is so politically divided on social media especially?


:shrug:

[Tom4784]

Yes, people should be allowed freedom of speech...

[Beso]

Yes, people should be allowed freedom of speech...

Is social media the place for that though?

[Marsh.]

People should be allowed opinions, yes.

[bots]

Is social media the place for that though?

it's up to people to validate what they are reading and not blindly believe everything. This is a fundamental skill that everyone has always required

[Amy Jade]

Yes.

[thesheriff443]

People are being allowed to make sweeping statements.

[Tom4784]

Is social media the place for that though?

The medium doesn't matter, People can share their views however they please and no social media platform that's run by a private or public company of note ever bans someone based solely on their view of political parties.

If you think Labour are full of anti-semites then that's your view, if I think the voting public are gullible and don't know what they are truly voting for then that's my opinion. There's no reason to censor either view but you can certainly try to argue against it if you disagree.

[Beso]

it's up to people to validate what they are reading and not blindly believe everything. This is a fundamental skill that everyone has always required

But it's the sway social media has on the millions unable to realise that skill, that is the problem.

[Marsh.]

But it's the sway social media has on the millions unable to realise that skill, that is the problem.

That could be said for anything, including newspapers and television.

[Beso]

That could be said for anything, including newspapers and television.

The public don't get an opinion on those, so even though they may be swayed by those media platforms..Online is the only way to air those opinions that the telly and papers have swayed them into.


So that should mean no...the public shouldn't be allowed to make sweeping statements about politics because they have been mis led by certain media and tv outlets already

[Marsh.]

The public don't get an opinion on those, so even though they may be swayed by those media platforms..

Online us the only way to air those opinions that the telly and papers have swayed them into.

So, the journalists and TV personalities get opinions but the public don't. :shrug:

You will get gullible people who believe whatever they read/hear social media or no social media.

[Marsh.]

"The public" is a sweeping statement of its own. Not everyone has the same opinion and not all of them are easily misled.

[Beso]

That could be said for anything, including newspapers and television.

So, the journalists and TV personalities get opinions but the public don't. :shrug:

You will get gullible people who believe whatever they read/hear social media or no social media.

Ive edited the post.can you edit yours after reading it again

[Marsh.]

I've made another post. :hee:

[Beso]

"The public" is a sweeping statement of its own. Not everyone has the same opinion and not all of them are easily misled.

But the info that those uneasily led people have gathered, that made them come to thier leanings on subjects must have come from somewhere...IE tv, papers, social media.

[Kizzy]

But it's the sway social media has on the millions unable to realise that skill, that is the problem.

Don't you think other forms of media have any sway?.. should evrything be monitored, d you want state controlled media?

[Beso]

Don't you think other forms of media have any sway?.. should evrything be monitored, d you want state controlled media?

If it means the public don't sit arguing on social media platforms, then yes. I do.

Perhaps we should never have put cameras in the house of commons for a start. :shrug:

[Marsh.]

But the info that those uneasily led people have gathered, that made them come to thier leanings on subjects must have come from somewhere...IE tv, papers, social media.

Right?

Do people need to get knowledge from a crystal ball or something?

[Marsh.]

If it means the public don't sit arguing on social media platforms, then yes. I do.

The public have argued long before social media platforms. People discuss, debate, argue their opinions, thoughts and feelings and always will do.

[Scarlett.]

It isn't the public you should worry about, its the supposed 'impartial' press (that goes for left and right leaning outlets)

[Mystic Mock]

Personally I have no issue with someone taking an issue with a political party, it's up to that political party to break that particular individual's opinion of them imo.

[GoldHeart]

The lies & hate printed about Corbyn seemed ok at the time though didn't it ???? . Bit late to question these things now :idc: .

Corbyn went from Hero to zero so quickly, the poor guy wasn't given a chance . Members of the public etc ,on the news were talking about him like he was a demon.

The contradictions & hypocrisy as bojo got his ass covered & stuff brushed under the carpet :bored: .

[thesheriff443]

The lies & hate printed about Corbyn seemed ok at the time though didn't it ???? . Bit late to question these things now :idc: .

Corbyn went from Hero to zero so quickly, the poor guy wasn't given a chance . Members of the public etc ,on the news were talking about him like he was a demon.

The contradictions & hypocrisy as bojo got his ass covered & stuff brushed under the carpet :bored: .

He had the platform of being on tv to defend himself in his own words.

And answer all accusations laid at his feet, the truth was, he was a shifty looking guy who sealed his own fate by defending terrorist and trying to keep us in Europe when the public voted to leave.

Plus he still never had the dencency to admit defeat and leave like a man instead choosing to hold on like a child to a swing when it’s time to leave the park.

[Nicky91]

yes people should be allowed opinions

[Kizzy]

If it means the public don't sit arguing on social media platforms, then yes. I do.

Perhaps we should never have put cameras in the house of commons for a start. :shrug:

What is discussed in the house if commons is in the public interest. I really despair that you appear to be preferring you remain ignorant to what happens when those who make the laws in our land get together.. your attitude that it shouldn't be open for discussion or debate is worrying.

You might prefer to live your life in the dark to these issues but others don't, why does political discussion amongst the electorate upset you so much?

Before the the internet there were other places people went to discuss the politics of the day, it is engaging like this that inspires some to become more active politically. To shut down social media discussion would be a gross infringement on freedom of speech.

[Livia]

The Internet has allowed everyone, even the most stupid, the most evil, the most ridiculous people to share their opinions in a way never known before. While I uphold the right to freedom of speech, that doesn't mean every fanatic, every fundamentalist, can spill every half-baked thought that enters their head.

But then, it never takes long to see who's got a point and who's ranting with blinkers on.

[Kazanne]

it's up to people to validate what they are reading and not blindly believe everything. This is a fundamental skill that everyone has always required

We don't have freedom of speech though do we ? hasn't for example Katie Hopkins been silenced on Twitter . If some people don't like what others say,they try and shut them down.

[bots]

We don't have freedom of speech though do we ? hasn't for example Katie Hopkins been silenced on Twitter . If some people don't like what others say,they try and shut them down.

we do have freedom of speech. Hopkins is still free to put her views across. Her posts were deleted because the broke twitter guidelines, and twitter is not and never has been a platform for free speech

Free speech comes from being able to express views publicly, which she can still do not from popularity on twitter ... i think people confuse the 2 things

[Kazanne]

we do have freedom of speech. Hopkins is still free to put her views across. Her posts were deleted because the broke twitter guidelines, and twitter is not and never has been a platform for free speech

Free speech comes from being able to express views publicly, which she can still do not from popularity on twitter ... i think people confuse the 2 things

Thanks Bots, I see what you mean.

[Josy]

We don't have freedom of speech though do we ? hasn't for example Katie Hopkins been silenced on Twitter . If some people don't like what others say,they try and shut them down.Freedom of speech isnt freedom from consequence

[GoldHeart]

We don't have freedom of speech though do we ? hasn't for example Katie Hopkins been silenced on Twitter . If some people don't like what others say,they try and shut them down.

The term "freedom of speech" gets abused .

Hopkins was on twitter a very long time before her account was suspended, half the stuff I didn't know what she said as I don't follow that gargoyle .

She's nothing but full of hate , she's 100% toxic .

For e.g Calling Greta Thunberg an "autistic Wench" :facepalm: .

[bots]

it's very difficult for a company like twitter to implement its guidelines. For example, if Trump were a "normal" user, they would have deleted the majority of his posts, but they took the view that where world leaders are concerned, it's better to allow them to express their views and let the public decide in the voting booth. Normal users are not subject to the ballot box and so different guidelines can apply

[Oliver_W]

People should be allowed to say what they want. I'm all about freedom of speech, but not freedom from consequences - people can say "I think all Tories are Nazis" or "Labour are all Commies" and I can think saying that makes them stupid.

[Kizzy]

People should be allowed to say what they want. I'm all about freedom of speech, but not freedom from consequences - people can say "I think all Tories are Nazis" or "Labour are all Commies" and I can think saying that makes them stupid.

But that is your right to say that... you are getting confused there would be no consequences from you saying those things because you are not inciting hatred of a minority group.

[Oliver_W]

But that is your right to say that... you are getting confused there would be no consequences from you saying those things because you are not inciting hatred of a minority group.

People should be allowed to incite hatred - it would make them a scumbag, and they'd deserve the backlash they got in return. But hatred is an emotional response, and emotions shouldn't be regulated. If it leads to violence, then the perpetrator should be punished.

[Beso]

Aftet reading the responses, I think maybe public leaders and any person of authority should be banned from online platforms..

For thier personal accounts. .we obviously need government Statements.