LadyInBed
Well-Known Member
I can't help having a chuckle when I see Spi D's thread over on PBO has been deleted when the title says it all 
Deleted Thread
- Thread starter LadyInBed
- Start date
capnsensible
Well-Known Member
Im wondering how many others also went and looked!
:encouragement:
:encouragement:
LittleSister
Well-Known Member
Where? What? Do tell!
RichardS
N/A
I can't help having a chuckle when I see Spi D's thread over on PBO has been deleted when the title says it all
But that thread is over 4 years old and several of us have contributed to it over the years. Has it taken the Mods that long to latch on?
Richard
LadyInBed
Well-Known Member
Apparently so!But that thread is over 4 years old and several of us have contributed to it over the years. Has it taken the Mods that long to latch on?
Richard
Neeves
Well-Known Member
I don't know the thread I don't know if this is applicable but this has come to a head recently:
My understanding is that publishers are now responsible for statements they 'allow' to be published on social media. Not the individual who has posted - presumably as individuals are more difficult to trace, might be outside the jurisdiction of those trying to charge them, the publisher is an easier target, and the publisher has more cash. The rules have changed, publishers need be more stringent.
What was allowed previously will be carefully scrutinised now and as this has a cost some 'social media' might close and or rules might need to be changed (and/or underlined).
I might stress this has nothing to do with YBW, that I am aware of. But the suggestion is that some parts of the legal profession are combing social media as a means of finding new litigation to pursue.
The times we live in
Apologies if this is totally irrelevant
Jonathan
Edit,
Given I request confirmation and quantification of comment I find questionable I thought I might take a leaf out of my own book, set a good example and substantiate my comments, above.
I confess I had not realised, forgotten or taken no notice but the article, that was the foundation of my post, is Oz - centric - and maybe not relevant in the real world.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...facebook-comments-looking-for-nuggets-of-gold
close edit
My understanding is that publishers are now responsible for statements they 'allow' to be published on social media. Not the individual who has posted - presumably as individuals are more difficult to trace, might be outside the jurisdiction of those trying to charge them, the publisher is an easier target, and the publisher has more cash. The rules have changed, publishers need be more stringent.
What was allowed previously will be carefully scrutinised now and as this has a cost some 'social media' might close and or rules might need to be changed (and/or underlined).
I might stress this has nothing to do with YBW, that I am aware of. But the suggestion is that some parts of the legal profession are combing social media as a means of finding new litigation to pursue.
The times we live in
Apologies if this is totally irrelevant
Jonathan
Edit,
Given I request confirmation and quantification of comment I find questionable I thought I might take a leaf out of my own book, set a good example and substantiate my comments, above.
I confess I had not realised, forgotten or taken no notice but the article, that was the foundation of my post, is Oz - centric - and maybe not relevant in the real world.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...facebook-comments-looking-for-nuggets-of-gold
close edit
Last edited: