Online child grooming.

[Workingman]

This subject has reared its ugly head again, with the youngest victim said to be only five years old.

Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Instagram and WhatsApp are all in the firing line yet again, and probably rightly so. They are all 'supposed' to have a minimum age limit - 13 for most, 16 for WhatsApp - but their enforcement is said to be lacking.

Their criticism is fine and fair, but hang on....

In the UK minors, those under 18, can only enter into contracts for certain things - necessities. They do not include such things as motor scooters, electrical / electronic appliances or mobile phone packages. So, who is paying for all the data services on their phones - the ones that allow 24/7 access to all these platforms? You got it: mum and dad.

Isn't it strange then that mummy and daddy are absolved from any responsibility? No, of course it isn't. In our brave new world when things go wrong it is always, always, always, somebody else who is to blame.

[cromwell]

What's done online can be done offline as well. The internet gives groomers more opportunity.

What interests me more is that the government and our mainstream media are in a rush to censor the net, to regulate it.

In recent times we have had some startling political events. Brexit, the election of Donald Trump and Corbyn becoming leader of Labour.

And in some of these events, the "blame" has been laid at the door of Facebook, social media in general and Russian trolls.

So imo what's happening now is that the government (and many governments) are using the cry of "But who will think of the children?!" to crack down on the net, to neuter it. Already the right winger Tommy Robinson has been banned from Facebook and twitter. Another, anne Marie Evans was banned from Instagram the other day.

What is happening is that the mainstream is trying to mainstream the content of the net. To ban "inappropriate" political views They won't admit to it, but that is what is happening.

[Workingman]

The internet gives groomers more opportunity.

Only if parents / guardians put up the £s to get their children online. They are complicit in this.

Your other points interest me as well. I have always been for free speech and against any methods to censor it. I want to hear what those I disagree with are saying otherwise how can it be challenged?

I am also very suspicious of those who only want what "they" feel is appropriate to be delivered. Who the hell do these people think they are? Who gave them the power to decide what I should read, see, think and do? It certainly was not me and I absolutely refuse to join their silly game.

Thankfully the "net" is not neutered. If I see something contentious and feel it is being spun in a certain way I have the option to go look for other views. It saddens me greatly that that is not the case with many of us, especially those below a certain age. We are fast approaching the point where those who control the media can put out any old rubbish and the sheeple will gobble it up.