Facebook have threatened to sue the Daily mail over potentially libellous claims in a story published earlier on in the week.
The article entitled "I posed as a girl of 14 online. What followed will sicken you" is the headline you can currently read on the website, but the title once contained Facebook which can still be seen in URLs and searches. However, the site that was used has been only indentified by not being Facebook.
The scare mongering article, written by ex detective Mark Williams-Thomas, outlines that when he posed as a 14 year old girl online he was approached within seconds by older men who wanted to perform a sex act in front of them.
With the tragic death of a teenage girl who was murdered by a deeply disturbed individual at the forefront of most people’s minds this week, it is no wonder that parents and the authorities are worried about the impact social networking can have in the increase of these crimes.
This is why Facebook want the site named, so that appropriate security measures are taken to stop crimes as barbaric as those that have recently happened from happening again. The author of the article, however, has different plans. He claims that by releasing the information it will only cause panic and create a stream of perverse offenders to the site.
I believe Facebook have every right to be angry for something that wasn’t anything to do with them. The name of Facebook being added to the article was probably by a middle aged news editor who does not fully understand social networking and as they had heard of that site, they added it. Of course their reputation has now taken a battering in middle England, by those who also do not fully understand social networking.
Social networking sites such as Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, Bebo etc were never meant to be as big a phenomenon as they are when they were created. Facebook was designed for college students in America to keep up to date with each other on assignments and activities. In fact, even when the site started becoming popular in the UK, it was still only university students who could use it because you had to select your university as your network.
However, the increase in use and invariable popularity has seen 23 million people in the UK have an account. Because of this Facebook’s security controls have been tightened. I have held an account for about 5 years and only accept fiend requests from people I know and have never had any problems at all. Not one sick message or comment. Nothing. A couple of people I know have had pervy comments, but they’re the ones who insist on putting up pictures of themselves falling out of their clothes.
I can’t believe for a second that this guy who wrote for the mail joined Facebook, set up a profile and a picture, added information and found some friends and innocently ambled along on the site until some bag bad nasty man posed as a teenager. That’s why I KNOW it couldn’t have been Facebook. As far as I was aware you had to be 18 to use Facebook anyway. When did that change?
The only way to combat misuse of social networking sites it through improved security, i.e. pages for people under 16 are blocked by those over 16 unless approved by a parent, and through better education. Parents should research and learn about social networking and what the potential threats are, and children should be taught only to speak to people that they know and if they are not sure to raise the alarm. As soon as people become aware that it is not all Facebook’s fault and they have to think about their own personal security too, the panic will stop.
If anything MySpace is the one that should really be monitored more closely, I had a page when I was about 20 and got some very crude messages and pictures sent to me, that was slightly disturbing, but as soon as Facebook came along I deleted my page.
Parents should listen to their children when it comes to social networking and learn how it works so that if they want to intervene they can. It is pretty irresponsible to allow children that much time on the internet in the first place. Haven’t they got homework to do, or even an activity that keeps them fit and healthy? Some parents are allowing children to potentially become victims and it should be their responsibility to protect them.
Friday, 12 March 2010
Wednesday, 10 March 2010
Why the Daily Mail really irritates me
I won’t use the word hate in this blog, although my feelings sometimes edge towards that direction, as that is exactly what they want – a reaction. A reaction either way is fine, as long as it is a reaction.
My first reaction is disgust and blood boiling anger when I come across some of their stories. They are designed to provoke their readers and with they language they use, it is always in the way that they want them to think.
Morality issues, injustices, immigration and plain scare mongering tactics are employed to make their readers, by definition middle aged women from middle England, think the world is a bad bad place.
As a former student of journalism, I read all sorts of news sources. I’m not happy with reading one article on a subject, I read a few. Why? Because I gain a clearer picture on what is going on in the world. This is why it worries me that some people’s only news source is the Mail.
Take the MailOnline today (I’m not going to buy a copy, why on earth would I do that?) the term ‘Broken Britain’ is mentioned quite a few times. This is one of my favourite phrases they spout out, as it just makes me laugh out loud. If it was a reference to Britain’s mounting financial crisis and looming economical implosion, it would make sense. However, they are referring to society. As far as I am concerned, there are the minority who spoil it for everyone, but doesn’t every other country in the world have this too?
The term ‘Broken Britain’ lets the readers know what ‘class’ of society is causing all the trouble in their ‘cricket and village green’ country and encourages them to stereotype everyone who may dress or live like the troublemakers. I am from a good family, am well educated, settled in a relationship and have a good job but society is let know that I am a contributing factor to society’s troubles as I like to go out, possibly to a club in a busy town centre, and drink more than a small dry sherry.
Fair enough that the reference to Broken Britain today was a story on a 90 year old woman being held at knife point as she opened the door, but the offender is in no way the story of Britain’s society today. This is an extreme crime and one that must, and will be, punished. It is a sad fact that it happens, but it does not characterise the way Britain is becoming. Sorry it’s not all tea and cakes at fetes, but times change and it is constantly raining or cold.
The scare mongering is what gets me too, it’s as if the Mail’s readers do not live in the real world. I have a few older relatives that take what the paper says as gospel. ‘Oh Sam, you’re not going to have the cervical cancer jab are you, it kills you!’ Firstly, the relative that uttered this wasn’t informed well enough by the article that I am, in fact, too old to have the jab, but also decided to gloss over the FACTS that the girl who died has underlying health problems, as did those who had swine flu.
The issue that has annoyed me most over the past few weeks is the newspaper’s hell bent plans on disgracing every member of the England football team. I am also infuriated they let Piers Morgan write for them, but it is the football thing I am most annoyed about. So, you’re going to start a public hate campaign against the (then) England captain less than 4 months before the world cup. Fantastic, thank you. I read stories and readers comments on a lot of newspapers websites and blogs, but the Mail’s was the worst. People that do not normally care about football were sticking by their views on an issue that was in John Terry’s private life. Did it matter that he is fantastic at his job and is realistically the only player that could lead us at the world cup? No, some even wanted him dropped from the team. One of our best players. Imbeciles.
This was then followed up this weekend with some model claimed to have spent the night with Rio Ferdinand – the now current England captain. Great to fill the gossip pages with, but they will be the first to shame the players when they come back from South Africa with nothing.
Although I dislike the newspaper, it is very well written, I might say too well written. The persuasive language leads the reader to have the view of the paper rather than thinking about it from a different point of view. I can tell the Mail’s point of view coming out in group conversations over immigration, Muslims, same sex marriages and those on benefits and it disappoints me. Why can’t people expand their horizons and experience and see new things instead of worrying about problems that really aren’t.
In case you’re wondering I read The Times…. The Guardian, The Telegraph, FT, Bloomberg, Reuters, BBC and various specialist magazines, websites and blogs. If you’re reading this getting angry that I’m lampooning your favourite middle class newspaper, try reading a few of the sources of news I read. You may be surprised.
My first reaction is disgust and blood boiling anger when I come across some of their stories. They are designed to provoke their readers and with they language they use, it is always in the way that they want them to think.
Morality issues, injustices, immigration and plain scare mongering tactics are employed to make their readers, by definition middle aged women from middle England, think the world is a bad bad place.
As a former student of journalism, I read all sorts of news sources. I’m not happy with reading one article on a subject, I read a few. Why? Because I gain a clearer picture on what is going on in the world. This is why it worries me that some people’s only news source is the Mail.
Take the MailOnline today (I’m not going to buy a copy, why on earth would I do that?) the term ‘Broken Britain’ is mentioned quite a few times. This is one of my favourite phrases they spout out, as it just makes me laugh out loud. If it was a reference to Britain’s mounting financial crisis and looming economical implosion, it would make sense. However, they are referring to society. As far as I am concerned, there are the minority who spoil it for everyone, but doesn’t every other country in the world have this too?
The term ‘Broken Britain’ lets the readers know what ‘class’ of society is causing all the trouble in their ‘cricket and village green’ country and encourages them to stereotype everyone who may dress or live like the troublemakers. I am from a good family, am well educated, settled in a relationship and have a good job but society is let know that I am a contributing factor to society’s troubles as I like to go out, possibly to a club in a busy town centre, and drink more than a small dry sherry.
Fair enough that the reference to Broken Britain today was a story on a 90 year old woman being held at knife point as she opened the door, but the offender is in no way the story of Britain’s society today. This is an extreme crime and one that must, and will be, punished. It is a sad fact that it happens, but it does not characterise the way Britain is becoming. Sorry it’s not all tea and cakes at fetes, but times change and it is constantly raining or cold.
The scare mongering is what gets me too, it’s as if the Mail’s readers do not live in the real world. I have a few older relatives that take what the paper says as gospel. ‘Oh Sam, you’re not going to have the cervical cancer jab are you, it kills you!’ Firstly, the relative that uttered this wasn’t informed well enough by the article that I am, in fact, too old to have the jab, but also decided to gloss over the FACTS that the girl who died has underlying health problems, as did those who had swine flu.
The issue that has annoyed me most over the past few weeks is the newspaper’s hell bent plans on disgracing every member of the England football team. I am also infuriated they let Piers Morgan write for them, but it is the football thing I am most annoyed about. So, you’re going to start a public hate campaign against the (then) England captain less than 4 months before the world cup. Fantastic, thank you. I read stories and readers comments on a lot of newspapers websites and blogs, but the Mail’s was the worst. People that do not normally care about football were sticking by their views on an issue that was in John Terry’s private life. Did it matter that he is fantastic at his job and is realistically the only player that could lead us at the world cup? No, some even wanted him dropped from the team. One of our best players. Imbeciles.
This was then followed up this weekend with some model claimed to have spent the night with Rio Ferdinand – the now current England captain. Great to fill the gossip pages with, but they will be the first to shame the players when they come back from South Africa with nothing.
Although I dislike the newspaper, it is very well written, I might say too well written. The persuasive language leads the reader to have the view of the paper rather than thinking about it from a different point of view. I can tell the Mail’s point of view coming out in group conversations over immigration, Muslims, same sex marriages and those on benefits and it disappoints me. Why can’t people expand their horizons and experience and see new things instead of worrying about problems that really aren’t.
In case you’re wondering I read The Times…. The Guardian, The Telegraph, FT, Bloomberg, Reuters, BBC and various specialist magazines, websites and blogs. If you’re reading this getting angry that I’m lampooning your favourite middle class newspaper, try reading a few of the sources of news I read. You may be surprised.
Thursday, 4 March 2010
I'm all for airport security, but should there be alternatives?
Like most people I would rather not have the outline of my bits on show if I had to be scanned before I went on holiday. However, if I was made to do it I would, just for the pure reason that I wanted to get on the plane.
For those who have strong views whether moral or religious about the full body scanners in airports, there should be another option open to them. Although I agree that more should be done to eliminate terrorist threat in the skies, authorities have their hands tied as we are all protected by fundamental human rights.
The case today widely reported in the press about two muslim women refusing to be scanned, and therefore not allowed on their plane to Pakistan, came as no surprise. Muslim women are subject to harsh sanctions should anyone but their husbands see their body, this is why they cover up. For them to be scanned at an airport where the picture pretty much reveals anything goes against every moral fibre of their culture.
As the Timesonline reported: "She was warned that she would be stopped from boarding the plane but she decided to forfeit her ticket to Pakistan rather than submit to the scan. Her female travelling companion also declined to step into the scanner, citing “medical reasons” for her refusal."
Fair enough, they didn't want to go through it so forfeited their tickets willingly. Good for them. However, it does make you wonder why they were picked 'at random' to go through the scanners in the first place. Manchester Airport claim that 15,000 people have been through the scanner since it was put in place after the events in America on Christmas Day. It would be handy to know the statistics of who exactly had been picked to be scanned. Surely to make it fair there would be and even number of people from different races going through the scanners at Manchester and Heathrow. You would certainly hope so anyway.
The point though is that there is obviously no alternative procedure in place for those who have a legitimate reason not wanting to go through the scanner. A private room with a couple of female staff patting the women down would have been more than enough. What about those who have been terminally ill and truly believe a scan could put their health at risk, there should be alternatives for them too.
I'm all for security at airports, but not everybody that goes through the terminal is a potential suicide bomber and there should not be treated as one. However, there should be alternatives for those who have deep rooted reasons as to why they should not go through the scanner.
The most worrying thing about the whole article were some of the comments left by readers. I sincerely hope they get to know what it feels like to get a body scan. Bet they feel violated, and we live in a democratic society where sexuality is encouraged.
For those who have strong views whether moral or religious about the full body scanners in airports, there should be another option open to them. Although I agree that more should be done to eliminate terrorist threat in the skies, authorities have their hands tied as we are all protected by fundamental human rights.
The case today widely reported in the press about two muslim women refusing to be scanned, and therefore not allowed on their plane to Pakistan, came as no surprise. Muslim women are subject to harsh sanctions should anyone but their husbands see their body, this is why they cover up. For them to be scanned at an airport where the picture pretty much reveals anything goes against every moral fibre of their culture.
As the Timesonline reported: "She was warned that she would be stopped from boarding the plane but she decided to forfeit her ticket to Pakistan rather than submit to the scan. Her female travelling companion also declined to step into the scanner, citing “medical reasons” for her refusal."
Fair enough, they didn't want to go through it so forfeited their tickets willingly. Good for them. However, it does make you wonder why they were picked 'at random' to go through the scanners in the first place. Manchester Airport claim that 15,000 people have been through the scanner since it was put in place after the events in America on Christmas Day. It would be handy to know the statistics of who exactly had been picked to be scanned. Surely to make it fair there would be and even number of people from different races going through the scanners at Manchester and Heathrow. You would certainly hope so anyway.
The point though is that there is obviously no alternative procedure in place for those who have a legitimate reason not wanting to go through the scanner. A private room with a couple of female staff patting the women down would have been more than enough. What about those who have been terminally ill and truly believe a scan could put their health at risk, there should be alternatives for them too.
I'm all for security at airports, but not everybody that goes through the terminal is a potential suicide bomber and there should not be treated as one. However, there should be alternatives for those who have deep rooted reasons as to why they should not go through the scanner.
The most worrying thing about the whole article were some of the comments left by readers. I sincerely hope they get to know what it feels like to get a body scan. Bet they feel violated, and we live in a democratic society where sexuality is encouraged.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
