Is our Prime Minister really this dense?

FB is not capable of flagging things up from all the millions of FB posts every day. The cookies that deliver ads to our FB pages that seem oddly pertinent are not on FB servers but on our own computers. Companies like M&S use cookies for ad tracking and that's how we get ads from sites we visit.

DH is a programmer, a good one. He agrees, and so do I, that it is the responsibility of everyone who comes across possible terrorist threats to report them to the appropriate authorities (police, presumably), but there is no way it is the responsibility of an ordinary commercial company (FB) to monitor social media messages that come through its system, even—and it's a big even—if it could, which it can't.

I'm sure that sophisticated software such as that used in FB is more than capable of "flagging" words and/or phrases deemed to be unusual. In which case a message such as the ones exchanged (pretty graphic and certainly not encoded) should have alerted the powers that be.

Jinglbellsfrock

I take your point.

I did ask if anyone had seen it? I was genuinely interested to know as some other GN's mention they watch Parliament too.

POGS we can't be expected to watch all of it. Some of us don't have the telly on during the day. It is fine to just watch the videos of the important bits.

Has anybody watched the 'Lee Rugby Murder' statement and questions session in parliament this afternoon I mentioned earlier on in this thread?

Call David Cameron a t--t call him an idiot but watch him speaking today and it does get the point he was trying to make in context.

Then you can make an informed decision on facts not supposition or whether you like the man or not. You can make your own astute decision, rather than rely on media bias or lack of information in print.

Different roles. Different filters. Facebook is only one way to potentially monitor internet traffic. Its not a case of either or. MI5 should be busy on the dark net. Everyone should contribute who can. It's not worth getting all worked up about Cameron. He's just the current PM. This war on terror will go on for years

Facebook may be able to do more than they do currently, however it seems as if the fault [if you want to call it that, as this man's death may not have been preventable] is down to MI5, as they did have knowledge of these men and perhaps could have done more [or not! It's hard to really know isn't it?]

Is that what you mean Jane10?

My mind is trying to grasp all this.

I think I saw recently that people are being told by Facebook what words to look out for if someone using Facebook might be thinking of committing suicide?
So Facebook could be proactive in advising people what words to look out for if someone using Facebook is genuinely plotting terrorism

MI5 can't do it but Facebook can. OK. Gotcha.

By developing and using smart software. They have the technology to find out what to sell us. They can put their minds to helping us detect potential threats. That's how!

How?

Be more thorough> As the threat of being into Court might encourage them to be.

They delete stuff that breaks their rules when they know about it. Same as Gransnet. What more can they do?

worth reading It seems Facebook say they do not allow their site to used for terrorist purposes, whereas, in fact, they do.

How many loudmouthed t****s each day post on Facebook that they are going to kill a soldier?

How many of those boasts can Facebook verify each day and forward to the FBI or other relevant authority?

How many front doors can the FBI break down each day to arrest those same loudmouthed t***s?

How many angry parents of misguided teenagers each day will sue Facebook and the FBI for harassing thier sweet little children for childish exaggeration?

But you can't sit back and allow terrorists to use Facebook to plan, and recruit for, their atrocities.

Thanks, trisher.

I think there is a worrying side to this. The government is trying to introduce more legislation to spy on individuals and in blaming Facebook they produce "evidence" that this is a necessary intrusion.
Quote from the article
"Human rights group Liberty said the ISC had "shamelessly" spun the facts in order to shift the blame on to communications companies."

"He's only whining at social media because there has been a CameronMustGo hashtag (which I'm not following). Tit for tat. Childish"

!!!!!!!!!!

You have got to be joking! (or projection)

Have you actually listened to what Rifkin said? (on the link I put up) He made an exception of this part of the whole thing. He acknowledged that the knowledge might have helped.

"where is his statesmanship"??!!! He is suggesting making new laws to control the internet in the face of terrorism. What more "statesmanship" than that do you require?

Oh! Obviously I wasn't really comparing Facebook to Gransnet! I really thought anyone would be able to see the intended humour in that.

Yes. MI5 knew about them. And if the facebook message had been brought to their attention they would have done something about it.

Yes. Facebook is H U U U etc G E. Which means they can afford to employ many moderators.

He's a bloody prime minister. Where is his statesmanship?

It's DC's stupidity that's annoying me. News now saying that the murder could not have been prevented (oresumably by intelligence services).

He's only whining at social media because there has been a CameronMustGo hashtag (which I'm not following). Tit for tat. Childish.