 Yllyn nhw'n wneud y bod ni eisiau'r platform yn holl gael gael iawn. Chael ei wneud o'r gweithio'r gweithio'n holl gwybodach. Chael eich bydd yn i'ch masddiwch i ddim yn cael ei gael gweithio. Yn y pethau pengriffau rydw i dda ni, mae'n oedd gennych gwaith y t gelw, eich byddai am ddim yn oed yn gweithio'r gefnogiol yma. .. popped, but it's easy to feel as though being less social because actually the engagement is less space to face. Mobile devices have become a very important part of many people's lives. I don't go anywhere without my phone, and I know that it's a huge part of how I stay connected with my parents, family and friends. Having a mobile phone means you can communicate with people in ways you don't never could. Ie dweud o'r ystyried gyda ni, you can arrange to meet people in ways that I certainly never could when I was a child. So in that respect, it's kind of made us more sociable. The internet is just a tool, it's just a place. Does it encourage people to abuse each other? Of course not, of course not. Does it make it easier to do it? Does it spread the effects? Yes it does. So you can go on and you can say something to somebody they can't see your face. I think also it makes people say things they wouldn't say in the real world, you might feel a whole lot braver because you're hiding behind the technology as it were. And it enables big groups to gather in a way that doesn't really happen offline and that can be fantastic from an activist point of view but also when you're being attacked and bullied online, that could be really awful. So what happened to me was that I ran a successful campaign to get female historical figures on banknotes and that turned very quickly against me as soon as the campaign was won. felly byddwn i'r llwyddoedd fwyaf am ddweudio'r llwyddoedd, dweudio'r llwyddoedd ac yn ystod o'r wych yn ystod o'r hyd yn gweithio'r llwyddoedd i'r wych yn mynd i'r llwyddoedd. Fyddo i'r brofiadol yw sy'n ddechrau'r unrhyw o'r gweithio, mae'n ddweudio'r gweithio a'r gwstydd yn ein gweithio'r unrhyw o'r gwheithio'r gweithio'r gwyddoedd, rwy'n wedi bod yn ddweudio'r unrhyw o'r gwheithio'r gweithio. Y rhaid o bobl yw'r cyffredin, ac os ydych yn mynd i'w cwilio'r materio a'u cyfrwyngau o'r cyfrwyngau, y gallwn ard-dwy'n cyfrwyngau. Rwy'n mynd i ddweud yn cyhoeddfno'r ysgol o'r cyfrwyngau yn holl ymgyrch, sy'n cyflwyno'r ysgolio'r cyfrwyngau a'r cyfrwyngau yn holl ymgyrch. Felly mae'n cyfrwyngau'n cyfrwyngau, oedd mae mae'n cyfrwyngau o'r cyfrwyngau. While thinking these are pretty old, well-established principles and they don't change just because of the wonderful innovation and freedom that comes with the internet. It's a shared responsibility, actually. It's partly a responsibility of the people who are using it, but it's also the responsibility of the services that are online, in exactly the same way that it's the responsibility of people to use the zebra crossing when they're crossing the road, but it's not their responsibility to paint the zebra crossing on the road. I think it is right to say some kinds of content like child sexual abuse images. Clearly it should be criminal to be producing those because you're causing great damage to children in producing them in the first place and in sharing them. I think it becomes more difficult when you move to these areas such as hate speech. The way to deal with that stuff which many people would agree is unpleasant is not to criminalise it but it's actually for other people to answer back to point out why it's wrong to make fun of it and that is more likely to be an effective long term solution. Material should only be criminalised if it's causing real harm, not just offence, that could be child pornography, that could be incitement to violence, not just material that's annoying, offensive, disrespectful. Who can possibly be the arbiter of what is good and bad for everyone in the world? It's generally a bad thing to empower an individual to make decisions on behalf of others what content is good and what content is bad. It's very important to realise that when we create rules for how to act on the internet this should be done in a universal matter. It's very difficult to imagine one person deciding what the code of conduct for how people should act on the internet should be. I think what we would have more success in doing is having these rules and obviously policing them but starting further back rather than telling them once they get online that they're not allowed to. What we actually want to do is stop people from doing it in the first place. You can make a case that countries should be able to set their own rules. I think the harder question comes when countries say look we don't like what this other country is putting online and we want it to stop. But free speech campaigners say no we already have quite enough censorship in the offline world, we shouldn't be reproducing that online. The biggest challenge facing governments online is probably making sure that they've got the balance right between protecting rights like the freedom of expression and freedom of assembly online and also making sure that their citizens are protected and they're protecting their right to life and their right to be living their lives free from violence. It's not necessarily a balance, the two don't necessarily cancel each other out but it's working out in this new horizon that's only been around for a very short amount of time where those boundaries lie and doing it properly. But the much more important aspect is that computers can't make those decisions and when you program a filter you're always taking one individual's interpretation of the subjective judgment and turning it into a fixed law. Making a decision about what's good and bad has to be taken by a human being, it can never be broken down into a sequence of binary steps.