How long unti we can only say positive things on the internet

I agree with you there, words can be sharper than swords and in a world of easy to access information people are more easily influenced now than ever.

I don't want a world where freedom of speech does not exist. But there does need to be an element of people being held accountable for things they say on the internet. The atrocities after the Southport attack showed that very strongly.

Every year we seem to be heading toward a dystopian future so ominously portrayed by science fiction writers. Mostly they were written as a warning not an instruction manual!

TheCatWoman said:

Isn't compalining and moaning part fo the British psyche? How will centuries of grumbling be erased

Complaining only about the weather! 

Soon we’ll be hiding around the corner of our front rooms scribbling madly into a notebook listening for every creak or knock at the door. 

Unknown said:

think aiming for positivity is good, but not to shut down criticism or dissent, otherwise the strong criticism classed as "negativity" will move -like it was said- to the dark web.

In a way, I like -rather I need- freedom of thought, but controlling freedom of speech is to a large extent controlling freedom of thought.

I agree with everything you said. These things need to be open to criticism and debate. Governments need to be held to account so that ideas and policies can evolve and advance in a healthier way.

History be positive! No more bad news or disease!

So online therapy and doctors appointments will be banned then? If we can't say anything negative, then how will we tell our doctor we're unahppy and/or in pain, will we have to tell our therapists how happy we are that we feel totally lost and miserable?

Isn't compalining and moaning part fo the British psyche? How will centuries of grumbling be erased?

Interesting take. Some of this topic reminds me of Huxley's Brave New World (which I preferred the second part, called Brave New World Revisited)

I think aiming for positivity is good, but not to shut down criticism or dissent, otherwise the strong criticism classed as "negativity" will move -like it was said- to the dark web.

In a way, I like -rather I need- freedom of thought, but controlling freedom of speech is to a large extent controlling freedom of thought.

Maybe we should use Frell, and it's derivitives like they did on Farscape?

I have no doubt that positivity can improve mood and make life easier and happier for many people. I believe our governments have already been using psychological manipulation through the medium of TV, radio, social media and the newspapers. Just think of Starmer’s first months as Prime Minister when he made overly gloomy and boring speeches about the state of the UK that had been inherited from the Conservatives. It went on for weeks and was probably intended to absolve Labour from any responsibility for the state of the country, but it also had a subtler intention which was to make people believe that the country was even worse than it really was, so that anything Starmer did afterwards that was bad or unpopular would not be as big a shock as it would have been. The bad news went on and on…

The next period of government began with messages of hope (albeit delivered in a less than enthusiastic fashion) as Starmer talked about all the wonderful things that were going to happen with the NHS and so on, without actually answering journalists questions about how he would achieve these things, because he didn’t know. These (attempted) cheery messages were delivered at the opportune time after the country had listened to months of gloominess—with Starmer having been accused by some of bringing down the mood of the country. It was hoped that Starmer’s actions, after ‘years’ of gloom, would make people feel he was really doing something positive that would make a difference to each person.

I don’t think the government will ever go so far as China in curtailing freedom of speech. Apps are already used by companies who wish to track our movements, health, lifestyle and buying habits. I would imagine the government is talking about how to maximise the ability of the digital ID app to enable it to assess the mood of the nation and more. Algorithms would translate data into mood gauges of the population which in turn would enable advantageous (to the government) timing of announcements of new laws that may not be in our interest. 

I love made up swearing haha reminds me of collegebhimors almost slurs song

also frak(also can be spelt frack) and feldercarb from bsg and smeg,lagarr and goit from red dwarf 

I propose developing alternate swear words then TheCatWoman  :-)  I think it might be a flouboublig good Idea!

Omg the dark web scares me like not for thr fake ids and info selling the more dark stuff that goes on that we probably don’t even know about much 

the worst part is that apparently know the police have to be trained to use it as part of crackdown ops 

Well, that wont be allowed in the society you are supporting. (Surely hating on people for that is negativity.)

I am okay with someone hating on me (I think actors etc should speak up, but not must), or telling me things I dont like, that is the point of freedom of speech.

Sorry in advance if I missed the point of this my adhd is in overdrive so I kinda read the first bit and had to say this 

I find if you give out positivity it helps keep the meltodwns at bay or at least lessen the impact of them

Am reminded of the film life of Brian: "Always look on the bright side of life".  :-)

I concur that feeling good about things can reduce the amount of effort I am able to expend and to some extent the risks I am able to take.  Possibly also the type of "energy" that I employ is altered from something akin to anger to being more enthusiastic.  The expression "you are what you eat" extends to more than one type of consumption.

Psychological manipulation exists on both a micro and macro scale in social behaviour and politics is the "art and science" of this in evidence.

Therefore yes "I am happy" to accept your hypothesis regarding the use of positive reinforcement strategies as an alternative to negative reinforcement strategies in achieving population compliance Iain .

Personally I think this is at the least the lesser of two evils.

There then arises the perhaps implicit concern regarding whether the people and organisations employing any such strategies have the interests of the wider society and individuals as their primary motivation.  In effect can they be trusted in this matter.

A well known national media organisation has the remit to "Inform, Educate and Entertain".  Perhaps others have a remit to "opiate the masses" in respect of what sort of information and education is passed on. 

Personally my capacity to trust in this respect is difficult given the available evidence.  Openness overcomes this and is (in my opinion) far too often absent - either by neglect/omission or by covert action.  

Interestingly there is quite a body of evidence that having self control and what is called an "internal locus of control" correlates with happiness.

Training people to recognize their locus of control, accept personal responsibility, develop problem-solving skills, and employ strategies to develop a more proactive and resilient mindset which can lead to increased self-efficacy and well-being might be another way?

I think this approach ethically better - but harder for society to achieve.  I think this based on the evidence I observe and, I suspect, the limitations of some people in power and authority wishing to nurture this in "their" population.

(whistling) de doot, de doot de doot de doot...  :-)

Also I really hate people who say singers actors and comedians should speak up on politics … it’s not their job 

even as a retail worker i try snd avoid dicussing my politics views I talk on issues but not who I do or don’t support 

I think it will drive more people to the dark web. Some countries, like China, have a very different mindset to countries like ours, they're much more likely to follow such diktats, they don't have the freedoms we have.

I think it would make us more creative in our use of language, just think of how we get around rules about swearing and stuff that some people might find offensive, on the surface it all looks fine, but under the surface is a seething mass of things that will offend someone, usually those who create the programs designed to stop us swearing.

Yes, exactly.