hypochondriac

That's a non-answer. In reality we know that even with billions in revenue it is currently impossible to manually review the amount of content on something like twitter and remove content deemed hateful in the almost immediate timeframe that some are asking for. The easiest and cheapest way to do this is to use machine learning and bots to do the moderation for them rather than employing thousands of employees solely to moderate twitter content. Machine learning will obviously include the in-built biases of the programmers who created them and will by design be overly cautious to prevent trouble for the big tech companies. So you're saying you want to hand big tech the power to decide what is and isn't acceptable across different countries and the power to use bots and machine learning to go on a mass censorship drive? Sounds awful.

If those on the hard left like Morning Star support Corbyn, does that make him hard left? Just wondering.

Additionally, TV and print is relatively easy to control. You aren't dealing with anything like the same volume of content. If you want immediate or extremely quick removal of content deemed hateful as some countries are calling for then inevitably you're calling for machine learning and bots and all the in built bias and lack of context this method provides.

Except that BBC1 is broadcast and regulated in Britain. How could regulating Facebook work in the same way? If there are more lax laws in America for example what would prevent someone setting up a vpn pretending they are from Florida and then sending out so called "hate speech" to their hearts content.

Behold the floating voter everyone!

But that would be the case whoever was in power so its a bit pointless to use it as a stick to beat the tories with just because they happen to be the ones who have most recently held power. That's the case for whichever party is in government.

He certainly means don't vote for corbyn.

It's not a "fake" story, it's an overly exagerrated pr piece released to friendly journalists to make the club look better. It's a fairly standard pr tactic and it's one we have employed on a number of occasions. It's very clear that it's worked too, many fans are more satisfied simply by the talk of ambitions and exciting signings even if ultimately they don't come off. When we ended up not signing promes for example we got weeks of mileage out of that story and undoubtedly fans were less critical than they would have been had there been radio silence from the club at the time. Do you think its a coincidence that immediately following a massive defeat the Telegraph suddenly invents a positive news story? And what that does is gives the fans somethibg else to talk about and speculate on something that may happen a few months in the future rather than ruminate for too long on the defeat itself. Immediately following the Leicester loss, the club told those working in marketing not to release anything through the clubs official channels over the rest of that weekend, knowing there would be a lot of backlash and they got the newspaper piece out to allow that to do the talking for them and yes I know that happened because I spoke to some people who were given those instructions. Maybe you could say why you consider this sort of thing unlikely for the club to do? As I, said, you clearly haven't had a lot of experience with how PR works if you don't think that carefully planted positive news stories aren't utilised to influence fan opinions and quieten discontent even if only for a period of time.

Believe what you want. I know for certain that one tactic from club pr is to feed things to the telegraph to quell fan disgruntlement. It's a tactic which worked under pellegrino, it worked in the January window with reports about Walcott and promes and its worked now after the 9-0. We have specific scenarios for what to do after a heavy defeat for example or after a prolonged period of bad form or just before a transfer window opens. One of the things involved were those cringey interviews we used to do with krueger and planting unattributed stories with contacts in the media is another tactic. I'm not saying we aren't looking to recruit some more leadership at the club, but this article has quite transparently been released by sources at the club to demonstrate that they are in control in the immediate aftermath of a heavy defeat and they will have exagerrated some areas to make themselves look good. If you think its stuff all invented by the papers then you clearly have very little experience in this area.

The reason the club plant this stuff in papers is so that they have plausible deniability and useful idiots can dismiss it all as paper tall when the events they've pushed out to placate fans doesn't happen. It's really amusing that you dismiss this sort of thing as simply paper talk seeing as I know personally people working at the club's media department and I know what they are instructed to do.

Oh dear. Religious leaders out in force to condemn Corbyn and his lack of action in combating anti semitism.

It's not like we've learnt much before anyway.

It's a correct opinion.

That's one example. Who appoints the independent body? Does it oversee the Internet in the UK or does it have worldwide jurisdiction? At least your realistic about the impossibility of censoring the lone voices.

Purely and simply because Boris represents the best chance at brexit occurring. Many on the right of the party also support brexit so they support Boris to get that done. All the rest is just noise.

A rebadged New Labour with a personable and moderate leader whose a good orator would clean up at this election if brexit were not a factor. That's a fact.

Tony Blair won three elections, something that corbyn could only dream of abd really its the only thing that matters. You probably don't remember that period as you wouldn't have been old enough to vote so I don't need a lecture about New Labour from you.

What's your solution Jonnyboy.

Or perhaps a personal anecdote isn't representative of the wider public? I predict that Tories after brexit will still be more popular than Labour if the continue with corbyn type policies.

Well then presumably that will reflect in the results of the election? The way you carry on, you'd think that the Tories were 12 points behind and heading for a sound thrashing.

Well I don't have a side but I don't think it's hard to find criticism of the right on here seeing as every instance is posted and forensically analysed by the usual suspects. I have no particular love for the conservatives but they are vastly preferable to Corbyn and his ilk. I'll be happy once their is a Labour party with decent moderate ideas that may allow me to vote for them again like I voted for Blair.

See. Like I said it happens accross the political spectrum. Weird that people would highlight it when the "side" they aren't on does it but ignore it from their own side.

OK so you've acknowledged its hard. What's the action to take if that's not an excuse? My point is that a workable option doesn't exist and I'd like to explore any ideas that someone has that would actually work without handing masses of power to people I don't trust and without being overly censorious. Just to be clear I don't think anyone will be able to come up with anything and so virtually anyone can shout from the sidelines about their dissatisfaction with social media. Let's also bear in mind that my version of censorship and the likes of someone like soggy will be wildly different. Multiply that by a million and you realise that even agreeing a standard for censorship is virtually impossible. I've just listened to sasha above and I struggle with his nazi point in the context of calling for censorship. The nazis loved to censor things they didn't like, surely allowing freedom to criticise ideas would be anathema to 1940s Germany.

A majority of the country didn't vote Labour or lib dem either. Your point only means something if you want the moral high ground, otherwise utterly pointless if you don't win power. It's like Hilary Clinton fans banging on and on about the popular vote.

Every election you get a slew of candidates from all political persuasions who do and say stupid things. We've had a ton already including it seems this one from all colours and it's been exacerbated with things like twitter. What's your point?