Of course TallMike, but in many cases it's lapped up by those who see it as acceptable. And look at all the children who are persecuted by others who they consider friends. Hard yo miss when it's on your screen. And I in the main choose not to watch.

As in almost all cases, it's the vulnerable that suffer the most. Sadly too many choose to ignore their suffering and think they should just eat a bowl of concrete.

Start

ding

done

What are you saying, Phil, that people no longer have control over what is on their screens?

Are you saying that it is OK to run a live murder taking place on Facebook ???!!!!

..or in this case 50 people being callously murdered. Seriuosly?

I think you still have the death penaly in the US - so can we expect to see those executions run on Facebook?

As there are always copycat crazies I dread to think that the next mass shooting in the US will be shown 'live' on FB. There has simply got to be some level of censorship on FB and the like.

Done

Done

start

done

All this whining about the irresponsibility of social media in not censoring their content is serving at least three unworthy purposes.

First, it diverts attention away from the fact that when you give your child access to a web capable device you are opening an unrestricted window on the world. That's your responsibility, and if you don't like it then it's your job to control how it's used, just as it is (or used to be) a parent's responsibility to monitor a child's reading habits.

Second, it advocates for suppressing potentially useful information. If someone is committing or inciting a crime which can be observed online, there is a much greater chance of effective intervention.

Third, it encourages people to believe that they are incapable of handling knowledge of the world as it really is. It tells them they need to be protected from the harsh realities of life by a filter which only allows access to pleasant content.

Freedom of expression works both ways. Those who spread hate only succeed when their messages are not effectively countered by others. Try to hide the hate and you can't expose it for what it is.

EZPZ with UR. 14.

Stewart - Perhaps you are not old enough to remember this. I was under 8 when the Vietnam War (shot on tape at the time, of course) was shown on TV. The cameraman would run at the end of a line of soldiers, who were running through the jungle. I vividly remember watching soldiers being killed. One second they're running, the next second, the lead soldier just suddenly stopped, flung out his arms and fell to the ground. All the other soldiers would then fall to take cover. This was all in black & white, but I could well imagine the bright burst of red on his back. This was a daily thing. I would ask questions, and my parents would explain things to me. This was completely not traumatic for me, as they had already told me a great deal about their experiences fighting WWII. At times, one or the other would comment on bad formation, things like that. Yes, maybe if we see a real school shooting in action on TV, perhaps that would knock some sense into people re: gun control & mental health. No one seems to take these things seriously enough.

Phil, as I have said, the groups I belong to are 'closed' groups. If a person doesn't want to join, then just don't. There are, however, a great many of us who want to pursue our family histories, to be reunited with long lost relatives. Again, the researchers in these groups are outstanding. There is a great deal of respect in these groups, and, yes, also a wonderful feeling of family and relatedness. We all share the same murky history, we uncover it, we converse, we connect. Probably these groups might be unique among FB groups. It is FB that blurs pictures they decide are 'too violent,' - a dead body in a ditch, but FB is not consistent in this. Many times they do not blur pictures of hangings or people being torn apart by purposefully starved dogs. The vast majority of us, including mods, are totally against this blurring. Our belief is: This was what we ('we' being the Polish people) suffered through. This must be shown. Again, closed or private groups.

done

I am old enough Helen. I understand and appreciate your views but cannot agree with you in this instance. Viewing such violence to an extremely wide audience (and of all ages) is just not acceptable - the mental trauma it would cause let alone copycats or retribution is beyond the pale.

Stewart, there is no such thing as "viewing" violence to an extremely wide audience. While the social media platform is making the content available, it is the potential audience themselves who, by actually doing the "viewing," determine how wide the actual audience is, as well as the other characteristics of the actual audience, including their age range. The social media platform does not selectively beam content to each individual user and therefore has no way of controlling who sees what. It is the social media users themselves who determine that. So why are you putting the blame on social media?

Potentially traumatic material has been available since long before the web even existed. Newspapers, magazines, books, radio, movies, television, etc. all strive to reach extremely wide audiences and all have the potential to traumatize people who have access to them. Copycats have existed for as long as crimes have been reported. Retribution probably goes back to a time when humans communicated by gestures and grunts. It's all been beyond the pale and utterly abhorrent, but it's always been a part of the human experience. So why is your complaint directed at social media?