Another paedophile scare hits the news. I saw it yesterday on the news bulletin and was singularly unimpressed. But, then, the news rarely impresses me. It merely makes my blood pressure rise. Anyway, we get Twitter being accused of not doing enough to stop online paedophiles grooming children.
Twitter’s child protection policies are lagging behind other social networking websites, a watchdog has warned.
Here we go…
Now, it is entirely possible that some people are using this as a means to identify potential victims. But then, that would apply to any medium. Yet the operators of the medium are being urged to do something. Something about a problem that is largely blown out of all proportion, frankly. Given that it is just a means of communication, I would argue that the operators have no such responsibility. Sure, if notified, then closing the relevant accounts and reporting the matter to the authorities would be the right thing to do and that is precisely what Twitter does. Its responsibility is, therefore, exercised. But beyond that, nothing should be necessary. After all, the safety of children online is a matter for their parents, not the operators and owners of websites.
But former detective Mark Williams-Thomas, who works as a child protection expert, claims some users have still been active on the site days or even weeks after they have been reported to the firm.
“There is always going to be a problem with social networking sites, because where there is an opportunity offenders will seek that out,” says Mr Williams-Thomas.
“Clearly what Twitter needs to do is to take responsibility for its users. And when they identify there is somebody promoting child abuse material, swapping it or even discussing it the site must come down straight away.”
Ah, yes, Mark Williams-Thomas, who now makes his living out of this. Not a vested interest at all. Oh, no. No rent seeking going on here. Not one jot.
But Mark Williams-Thomas believes that is a problem when privacy settings allow account-holders to hide their conversations from everyone but their followers.
“Clearly you can communicate whatever you want within a protected profile,” he says.
To which I would say: Yes? And? So? It would seem, though, that privacy and keeping conversations concealed is a problem. Well, it is to the self-appointed guardians of decency who see a paedo behind every tweet.
I wasn’t disposed to listen to such blatant scaremongering anyway, but when ‘the watchdog’ was revealed to be the thoroughly discredited CEOP, I was even less so!
XX But Mark Williams-Thomas believes that is a problem when privacy settings allow account-holders to hide their conversations from everyone but their followers.XX
So, he will be wanting to allow total censorship of letters passing through the G.P.O then?
It has never been the responsibility of a seller of a product or service to police what the end user does with that product or service, yet now we have supermarkets refusing to sell booze to adults because they may give it to a child, internet providers blocking porn at source and social networking sites made responsible for the things people say on them.
Folk use legal things for illegal activity all the time. Fair enough, if you spot something then report it, but other than that it’s the responsibility of the police to prevent and detect crime. And also, like you say, the parents to protect children.
“seller of a product or service to police what the end user does with that product or service”
Have you seen the SOPA laws in the USA, they do exactly that.
I know of no other country which is held in the thrall of paedophile-phobia like England is.
I was going to comment further but I really hate foaming at the mouth. I’m going to have a nice quiet whisky and hope that this all goes away.