My friend's grandfather has decided to skip Friday prayers at his mosque today as he doesn't feel safe. Meanwhile Elon Musk is retweeting Tommy Robinson.
What is it with Musk? I'm full of admiration for his business and technological achievements, but he can be such a dick.
Ive just had a look at his last 3 days post and Musk is tweeting about Transgender, Venezuala where he seems to have challenged the president to a duel and various techhie things. No Yaxley-Lennon though.
If Trump loses then I give it a year before Musk follows in Henry Ford’s footsteps & sets up his own weird quasi-fascist political party that will crash & burn to the great amusement of everyone else.
At the risk of diverting the conversation into something serious
"It will also consider how we can deploy facial recognition technology, which is already used by some forces, more widely across the country. This will mean criminals can be targeted, found and brought to justice quickly."
There are serious concerns about using such technology - especially in relation to minority groups.
In the 20th century, the idea that the state could track your individual position from moment to moment with a camera constantly focussed on you would have been horrifying. In the 2020s it's not even passionately discussed
And it’s not being used by Harold Finch.
It being used by people of moral calibre of Post Office management.
Rather sadly, I didn't have to look that reference up. It was science fiction then. It's a Silicon Valley IPO now.
Nah, current AI capabilities are nowhere near that of the Machine or Samaritan. The hypers try to make it seem as though it is, but it is not.
In fact, I'd argue the current systems in no way show 'intelligence'.
We have the data feeds.
Combine that with biometric recognition (face, gait) and you will have a somewhat crapulent 24/7 surveillance of everyone. At least in terms of location.
With poor accuracy, even if you tie in ID from mobile handshaking with towers. But that's only a small part of the Machine's capabilities.
Thought was interesting how fast Starmer has pushed for expanded use of facial recognition. Labour party have historically been somewhere between very wary and absolutely against use of this technology, suggesting its a bit like stop and search, where issues with racial profiling etc.
Not really: Labour loves authoritarianism.
It's quite clear what we'll get from this administration, and it's similar to the last one: State, State and State.
Seems easier for some people here to throw the fascist card at Elon Musk than actually engage with the (pretty fascist) Labour policy proposal he is calling out.
I'll put my cards on the table: Tommy Robinson is a thug, and so are the motley crew that follow him, but one can't simply put every bit of disorder or protest that follows this as being down to the "far right" and then argue for massive increase in authoritarianism (which clearly Starmer gets off on) as a solution. That's just a cop out.
This happened because people suspected another cover-up was in play - no-one believed the " under 18 so anonymous" bullshit - and people are sick of being taken for fools and for "anti racism" and "community relations" (which only work one-way, bear in mind) being a bigger priority for the powers that be than the very real social and cultural problems brewing in some communities.
They should learn from it. In reality, they'll play the same old tune, only harder and stronger.
If the Rwandan 17 year old had turned out to be a Muslim, would ‘people’ have been justified in burning police vans and attacking mosques?
One of the sadder recent spectacles is conservatism/Conservatism abandoning a belief in personal responsibility for one’s actions. Perhaps it was always inclined that way and I just haven’t noticed.
That’s rather close to whataboutry
The simple fact is that the official statements on the matter inflamed an ugly situation.
The cure is to come up with better official statements to take the wind out of the sails of the EDL and other thugs.
As someone else on this thread has pointed out - the far right is small and splintered. Without useful idiots attaching themselves to such mobs, Yarxley-Lennon and chums will be outnumbered by the police.
I don’t have as much faith that “better official statements” will help. Robinson/Yaxley-Lennon was in the UK recently showing a film that he has been banned from doing so because it’s been found to be libellous. He knows it’s all lies, but he still showed it.
As with Trump and MAGA, they will believe what they want to believe. Robinson’s supporters were already agitating before the stabbing and they would have invented some other reason without it.
Musk’s Twitter doesn’t care about what’s true. It would have spread lies, however good you made the official statements.
We had people on PB who knew that the attack had nothing to do with Islam who still felt this was a great time to claim Muslims are problematic.
Sure, look at how official statements are made and think whether that could be improved, but the main problems here are poorly moderated social media and a far right, Islamophobic/anti-immigration movement. The cure is better moderation of social media, strong police action against perpetrators, and not excusing racism.
Moderation is of no use, when the message you want to project is feeble or non-existent.
Simply giving up the social media field to the scum is giving them a victory by default.
Get out, ahead of them, with the truth. Then push and amplify the truth.
Moderation of online disinformation generally works very well to reduce the spread of disinformation. This is not giving up the social media field to the scum: it is taking back the social media filed from the scum.
I hope you are joking....government moderation of anything about speech leads to censorship...we do it then saudi will demand the right and russia...and iran and the GOP in america. It will cause more issues than it solves.
I'm asking social media companies to moderate themselves.
Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and the GOP in the US do what they want anyway (but I like your grouping! a new axis of evil?).
Unfortunately the social media companies have a very poor record of moderating themselves, preferring to censor content based on ideology rather than correctness.
That's what the MAGA types like to claim. That doesn't make it true.
The social media companies do a lot of moderating of disinformation, misinformation, grooming, child pornography, criminal activity etc. etc. very effectively. In the face of orchestrated state action, e.g. Russian disinformation campaigns on Ukraine (see https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-60653-y ), I don't think the correct reaction is Muskian free speech libertarianism... not that Musk actually practises free speech. He's very ideological in his censoring.
Hedge funds are wise, they are nearly as brilliant as lawyers, heed their words. AI is the new AOL Time Warner.
Elliott says Nvidia is in a ‘bubble’ and AI is ‘overhyped’
Hedge fund tells clients many supposed applications of the technology are ‘never going to actually work’
Hedge fund Elliott Management has told investors that Nvidia is in a “bubble”, and the artificial intelligence technology driving the chipmaking giant’s share price is “overhyped”.
The Florida-based firm, which manages about $70bn in assets, said in a recent letter to clients that the megacap technology stocks, particularly Nvidia, were in “bubble land” and it was “sceptical” that Big Tech companies would keep buying the chipmaker’s graphics processing units in such high volumes.
AI is “overhyped with many applications not ready for prime time”, Elliott wrote in the letter sent this week and seen by the Financial Times.
Many of AI’s supposed uses are “never going to be cost efficient, are never going to actually work right, will take up too much energy, or will prove to be untrustworthy”, it added.
Elliott declined to comment.
Its warning comes as chip stocks, which have enjoyed a huge rally driven by investor fervour over the potential for generative AI, take a tumble on concerns about whether big companies will continue to spend heavily on AI. Intel shares fell 20 per cent following the US market close on Thursday after the chipmaker revealed plans to cut about 15,000 jobs.
AI is the new Dotcom. It's a bubble that will probably burst quite soon; but it will also very likely transform the word economy over time.
China is probably now grateful that US sanctions prevented them from forking out many billions of dollars on bleeding edge chips, which will probably drop in price by an order of magnitude within the next couple of years.
Intel's woes are something of a separate issue. And they are probably a buy at somewhere around current levels; replicating their fab assets would probably cost at least a couple of times what the stockmarket says they're currently worth.
Our government should put in a bid.
Intel's woes are not due to AI or even missing the whole GPU boom but because their latest chips are reported to be slow and crash-prone. The problem with AI is it's very clever but how do the big tech firms monetise it? I can now ask ChatGPT questions via Bing and maybe even replace my human clickbait writers but Microsoft is not getting rich off that.
The same way as Google got super rich data and adverts. Also the same way Microsoft doesn't make any real money out of selling windows to the plebs these days, they basically give it away to the public or don't care about it being pirated. Its all about B2B, basically every company pays Microsoft for their tools, same as Adobe for creative things.
Also these LLM can be specialised and that is where the real value is. Already, in you are in software development and if you aren't paying for Claude, Github Copilot, Supermaven, you are costing yourself time and money. The free accounts don't give you anywhere near enough tokens to be smashing those services day in day out.
I write maybe 20% of my code now and I don't even do mainstream stuff, and I pay out $100+ a month on these services per person.
My friend's grandfather has decided to skip Friday prayers at his mosque today as he doesn't feel safe. Meanwhile Elon Musk is retweeting Tommy Robinson.
What is it with Musk? I'm full of admiration for his business and technological achievements, but he can be such a dick.
Ive just had a look at his last 3 days post and Musk is tweeting about Transgender, Venezuala where he seems to have challenged the president to a duel and various techhie things. No Yaxley-Lennon though.
If Trump loses then I give it a year before Musk follows in Henry Ford’s footsteps & sets up his own weird quasi-fascist political party that will crash & burn to the great amusement of everyone else.
At the risk of diverting the conversation into something serious
"It will also consider how we can deploy facial recognition technology, which is already used by some forces, more widely across the country. This will mean criminals can be targeted, found and brought to justice quickly."
There are serious concerns about using such technology - especially in relation to minority groups.
In the 20th century, the idea that the state could track your individual position from moment to moment with a camera constantly focussed on you would have been horrifying. In the 2020s it's not even passionately discussed
And it’s not being used by Harold Finch.
It being used by people of moral calibre of Post Office management.
Rather sadly, I didn't have to look that reference up. It was science fiction then. It's a Silicon Valley IPO now.
Nah, current AI capabilities are nowhere near that of the Machine or Samaritan. The hypers try to make it seem as though it is, but it is not.
In fact, I'd argue the current systems in no way show 'intelligence'.
We have the data feeds.
Combine that with biometric recognition (face, gait) and you will have a somewhat crapulent 24/7 surveillance of everyone. At least in terms of location.
With poor accuracy, even if you tie in ID from mobile handshaking with towers. But that's only a small part of the Machine's capabilities.
Yup - but it's enough for Denton Weeks & Co. to do bad stuff with.
This is not progressive politics. It's sectarian old politics to reject inter-party collaboration for bigger cause of defeating the Tories. Reinstate them!'
"A bomb that killed Ismail Haniyeh was planted two months ago. Haniyeh was known to have stayed in before, was detonated remotely once it was confirmed that the Haniyeh was inside the room."
Frank Skinner: Labour’s rhetoric on inheritance tax ‘made me feel guilty’
“When I hear Labour talking about people who earn this [much] ... I think, but I had nothing, I worked really hard,” he told the BBC’s The Today Podcast.
“I thought you’d like me. I thought I’d be a poster boy … [showing] working class people can actually get on and compete and can do well, but now you’re lumping me with all those people who inherited a load of money.”
Skinner added: “I just think when it’s things like inheritance tax and stuff like that, you should be in a special section if you crawled up from nothing. I shouldn’t be in the same section as the Rees-Mogg children.”
Its always fine if its somebody else paying....Also didn't Rees Mogg make most of his own money before politics, his Dad was editor of the Times, so not that different from Frank current position in the media.
If Labour go for property with wealth value taxes and inheritance taxes they could get absolutely creamed at the next election by Jenrick.
Brits fucking hate it if you touch their houses.
Yes, even in Wandsworth and Kensington, Chelsea, Fulham and Hampstead (all with Labour MPs now) if Labour imposed big wealth taxes and increased inheritance tax you would get many property owners and their kids telling their left liberal friends they were voting Labour or Green at dinner parties but in private they would vote Tory in the privacy of the ballot box (unless the Tory leader was Priti Patel in which case they would likely go LD).
Seats Labour won across the South and East and in wealthy bits of the Midlands and North and Cheshire like Rushcliffe and Macclesfield would also swing back blue
If, and it's a big if, the economy is bangin' and public services are running like clockwork Labour might retain the BlueWall and get a second term.
Although I do admire your optimism.
Most of the wealthy property owners in London and the Home counties do not work in the public sector and their biggest asset by far is their house, which their kids want to inherit too.
Ask Theresa May how coming after voters houses went for her with swing voters in 2017?
Oh, so Thatcher-sold council houses don't count?
They do too as many are over the IHT threshold in central London certainly
"A bomb that killed Ismail Haniyeh was planted two months ago. Haniyeh was known to have stayed in before, was detonated remotely once it was confirmed that the Haniyeh was inside the room."
That sounds a bit propaganda-esque i.e. we have spies, every where, we can hit you anytime, anywhere, in fact we are so good we plant bombs months ahead of time....
It seems a bit of a long shot strategy, they might go to this event in several months time, they might stay in the same room. Lets risk one of our top agents planting a bomb months ahead just in case. Rather than wait until we know, have them direct the guided missile.
Also ,I thought the original claims were they fired a rocket at the place.
"A bomb that killed Ismail Haniyeh was planted two months ago. Haniyeh was known to have stayed in before, was detonated remotely once it was confirmed that the Haniyeh was inside the room."
26 suspects, all of whom were out of the country before they found the body - in an hotel room locked from the inside. Was quite the diplomatic incident at the time.
Thought was interesting how fast Starmer has pushed for expanded use of facial recognition. Labour party have historically been somewhere between very wary and absolutely against use of this technology, suggesting its a bit like stop and search, where issues with racial profiling etc.
Not really: Labour loves authoritarianism.
It's quite clear what we'll get from this administration, and it's similar to the last one: State, State and State.
Seems easier for some people here to throw the fascist card at Elon Musk than actually engage with the (pretty fascist) Labour policy proposal he is calling out.
I'll put my cards on the table: Tommy Robinson is a thug, and so are the motley crew that follow him, but one can't simply put every bit of disorder or protest that follows this as being down to the "far right" and then argue for massive increase in authoritarianism (which clearly Starmer gets off on) as a solution. That's just a cop out.
This happened because people suspected another cover-up was in play - no-one believed the " under 18 so anonymous" bullshit - and people are sick of being taken for fools and for "anti racism" and "community relations" (which only work one-way, bear in mind) being a bigger priority for the powers that be than the very real social and cultural problems brewing in some communities.
They should learn from it. In reality, they'll play the same old tune, only harder and stronger.
If the Rwandan 17 year old had turned out to be a Muslim, would ‘people’ have been justified in burning police vans and attacking mosques?
One of the sadder recent spectacles is conservatism/Conservatism abandoning a belief in personal responsibility for one’s actions. Perhaps it was always inclined that way and I just haven’t noticed.
That’s rather close to whataboutry
The simple fact is that the official statements on the matter inflamed an ugly situation.
The cure is to come up with better official statements to take the wind out of the sails of the EDL and other thugs.
As someone else on this thread has pointed out - the far right is small and splintered. Without useful idiots attaching themselves to such mobs, Yarxley-Lennon and chums will be outnumbered by the police.
I don’t have as much faith that “better official statements” will help. Robinson/Yaxley-Lennon was in the UK recently showing a film that he has been banned from doing so because it’s been found to be libellous. He knows it’s all lies, but he still showed it.
As with Trump and MAGA, they will believe what they want to believe. Robinson’s supporters were already agitating before the stabbing and they would have invented some other reason without it.
Musk’s Twitter doesn’t care about what’s true. It would have spread lies, however good you made the official statements.
We had people on PB who knew that the attack had nothing to do with Islam who still felt this was a great time to claim Muslims are problematic.
Sure, look at how official statements are made and think whether that could be improved, but the main problems here are poorly moderated social media and a far right, Islamophobic/anti-immigration movement. The cure is better moderation of social media, strong police action against perpetrators, and not excusing racism.
Moderation is of no use, when the message you want to project is feeble or non-existent.
Simply giving up the social media field to the scum is giving them a victory by default.
Get out, ahead of them, with the truth. Then push and amplify the truth.
Moderation of online disinformation generally works very well to reduce the spread of disinformation. This is not giving up the social media field to the scum: it is taking back the social media filed from the scum.
I hope you are joking....government moderation of anything about speech leads to censorship...we do it then saudi will demand the right and russia...and iran and the GOP in america. It will cause more issues than it solves.
I'm asking social media companies to moderate themselves.
Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and the GOP in the US do what they want anyway (but I like your grouping! a new axis of evil?).
Unfortunately the social media companies have a very poor record of moderating themselves, preferring to censor content based on ideology rather than correctness.
Apart from anything who do you trust to determine whats true....example
Country A does something x
People find out thing x happened....Country A denies x happened
Social media company has no way of verifying if x happened or not and even if it did was country A responsible for x or not
Now what should social media company do
1) delete all posts saying x happened 2) delete all posts saying x happened and its the fault of country a 3) let posts stand about x happening even though its disputed but delete all posts tying x happening to country A 4) throw up their hands and say we dont actually know the posts might be true or might not but we dont actually know for sure
I would rather stick with 4) as the lesser evil personally
Instead of your hypothetical example, can I suggest we consider a real example? After the Southport stabbing, a Russian disinformation site claimed that the attacker was called "Ali Al-Shakati". This claim got nearly 20 million views and led to rioting in multiple sites. Twitter eventually removed the original tweet.
What do you think should have happened?
1) Twitter should have done nothing, left the tweet up 2) Twitter should have removed the tweet sooner 3) Twitter got it just right
"A bomb that killed Ismail Haniyeh was planted two months ago. Haniyeh was known to have stayed in before, was detonated remotely once it was confirmed that the Haniyeh was inside the room."
Good for him. There’s no reason why swearing on what sounds like a form of low Animism is any more or less silly than swearing on the concept a personal saviour.
Yep. So long as he believes it rather than it being a pisstake. I think that's the idea, isn't it. Your object of swearing must be dear to you so as to add gravitas to your testimony. Eg what about "I swear on my mother's life"? That's a colloquialism but could it actually be used in court? Interesting area. Never thought much about it before.
Thought was interesting how fast Starmer has pushed for expanded use of facial recognition. Labour party have historically been somewhere between very wary and absolutely against use of this technology, suggesting its a bit like stop and search, where issues with racial profiling etc.
Not really: Labour loves authoritarianism.
It's quite clear what we'll get from this administration, and it's similar to the last one: State, State and State.
Seems easier for some people here to throw the fascist card at Elon Musk than actually engage with the (pretty fascist) Labour policy proposal he is calling out.
I'll put my cards on the table: Tommy Robinson is a thug, and so are the motley crew that follow him, but one can't simply put every bit of disorder or protest that follows this as being down to the "far right" and then argue for massive increase in authoritarianism (which clearly Starmer gets off on) as a solution. That's just a cop out.
This happened because people suspected another cover-up was in play - no-one believed the " under 18 so anonymous" bullshit - and people are sick of being taken for fools and for "anti racism" and "community relations" (which only work one-way, bear in mind) being a bigger priority for the powers that be than the very real social and cultural problems brewing in some communities.
They should learn from it. In reality, they'll play the same old tune, only harder and stronger.
If the Rwandan 17 year old had turned out to be a Muslim, would ‘people’ have been justified in burning police vans and attacking mosques?
One of the sadder recent spectacles is conservatism/Conservatism abandoning a belief in personal responsibility for one’s actions. Perhaps it was always inclined that way and I just haven’t noticed.
That’s rather close to whataboutry
The simple fact is that the official statements on the matter inflamed an ugly situation.
The cure is to come up with better official statements to take the wind out of the sails of the EDL and other thugs.
As someone else on this thread has pointed out - the far right is small and splintered. Without useful idiots attaching themselves to such mobs, Yarxley-Lennon and chums will be outnumbered by the police.
I don’t have as much faith that “better official statements” will help. Robinson/Yaxley-Lennon was in the UK recently showing a film that he has been banned from doing so because it’s been found to be libellous. He knows it’s all lies, but he still showed it.
As with Trump and MAGA, they will believe what they want to believe. Robinson’s supporters were already agitating before the stabbing and they would have invented some other reason without it.
Musk’s Twitter doesn’t care about what’s true. It would have spread lies, however good you made the official statements.
We had people on PB who knew that the attack had nothing to do with Islam who still felt this was a great time to claim Muslims are problematic.
Sure, look at how official statements are made and think whether that could be improved, but the main problems here are poorly moderated social media and a far right, Islamophobic/anti-immigration movement. The cure is better moderation of social media, strong police action against perpetrators, and not excusing racism.
Moderation is of no use, when the message you want to project is feeble or non-existent.
Simply giving up the social media field to the scum is giving them a victory by default.
Get out, ahead of them, with the truth. Then push and amplify the truth.
Moderation of online disinformation generally works very well to reduce the spread of disinformation. This is not giving up the social media field to the scum: it is taking back the social media filed from the scum.
I hope you are joking....government moderation of anything about speech leads to censorship...we do it then saudi will demand the right and russia...and iran and the GOP in america. It will cause more issues than it solves.
I'm asking social media companies to moderate themselves.
Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and the GOP in the US do what they want anyway (but I like your grouping! a new axis of evil?).
Unfortunately the social media companies have a very poor record of moderating themselves, preferring to censor content based on ideology rather than correctness.
Apart from anything who do you trust to determine whats true....example
Country A does something x
People find out thing x happened....Country A denies x happened
Social media company has no way of verifying if x happened or not and even if it did was country A responsible for x or not
Now what should social media company do
1) delete all posts saying x happened 2) delete all posts saying x happened and its the fault of country a 3) let posts stand about x happening even though its disputed but delete all posts tying x happening to country A 4) throw up their hands and say we dont actually know the posts might be true or might not but we dont actually know for sure
I would rather stick with 4) as the lesser evil personally
Instead of your hypothetical example, can I suggest we consider a real example? After the Southport stabbing, a Russian disinformation site claimed that the attacker was called "Ali Al-Shakati". This claim got nearly 20 million views and led to rioting in multiple sites. Twitter eventually removed the original tweet.
What do you think should have happened?
1) Twitter should have done nothing, left the tweet up 2) Twitter should have removed the tweet sooner 3) Twitter got it just right
Andrew Rosindell in the audience, a boost for Jenrick as I would have thought he would have gone for Priti.
Esther McVey introduced Jenrick so clearly in his camp now too
MEGA!
No, the Mega candidates are Patel and Badenoch. So far Jenrick very smooth, almost Blair and Cameron like, he speaks better than Starmer that is for sure if nothing else
"A bomb that killed Ismail Haniyeh was planted two months ago. Haniyeh was known to have stayed in before, was detonated remotely once it was confirmed that the Haniyeh was inside the room."
That sounds a bit propaganda-esque i.e. we have spies, every where, we can hit you anytime, anywhere, in fact we are so good we plant bombs months ahead of time....
It seems a bit of a long shot strategy, they might go to this event in several months time, they might stay in the same room. Lets risk one of our top agents planting a month months ahead just in case. Rather than wait until we know, have them direct the guided missile.
Also ,I thought the original claims were they fired a rocket at the place.
That's part of the point. To feed the mythology, widely believed/spread in that part of the world, that the Israeli spies can get to you anywhere. Lock yourself in an empty room and feel a tap on the shoulder....
Thought was interesting how fast Starmer has pushed for expanded use of facial recognition. Labour party have historically been somewhere between very wary and absolutely against use of this technology, suggesting its a bit like stop and search, where issues with racial profiling etc.
Not really: Labour loves authoritarianism.
It's quite clear what we'll get from this administration, and it's similar to the last one: State, State and State.
Seems easier for some people here to throw the fascist card at Elon Musk than actually engage with the (pretty fascist) Labour policy proposal he is calling out.
I'll put my cards on the table: Tommy Robinson is a thug, and so are the motley crew that follow him, but one can't simply put every bit of disorder or protest that follows this as being down to the "far right" and then argue for massive increase in authoritarianism (which clearly Starmer gets off on) as a solution. That's just a cop out.
This happened because people suspected another cover-up was in play - no-one believed the " under 18 so anonymous" bullshit - and people are sick of being taken for fools and for "anti racism" and "community relations" (which only work one-way, bear in mind) being a bigger priority for the powers that be than the very real social and cultural problems brewing in some communities.
They should learn from it. In reality, they'll play the same old tune, only harder and stronger.
If the Rwandan 17 year old had turned out to be a Muslim, would ‘people’ have been justified in burning police vans and attacking mosques?
One of the sadder recent spectacles is conservatism/Conservatism abandoning a belief in personal responsibility for one’s actions. Perhaps it was always inclined that way and I just haven’t noticed.
That’s rather close to whataboutry
The simple fact is that the official statements on the matter inflamed an ugly situation.
The cure is to come up with better official statements to take the wind out of the sails of the EDL and other thugs.
As someone else on this thread has pointed out - the far right is small and splintered. Without useful idiots attaching themselves to such mobs, Yarxley-Lennon and chums will be outnumbered by the police.
I don’t have as much faith that “better official statements” will help. Robinson/Yaxley-Lennon was in the UK recently showing a film that he has been banned from doing so because it’s been found to be libellous. He knows it’s all lies, but he still showed it.
As with Trump and MAGA, they will believe what they want to believe. Robinson’s supporters were already agitating before the stabbing and they would have invented some other reason without it.
Musk’s Twitter doesn’t care about what’s true. It would have spread lies, however good you made the official statements.
We had people on PB who knew that the attack had nothing to do with Islam who still felt this was a great time to claim Muslims are problematic.
Sure, look at how official statements are made and think whether that could be improved, but the main problems here are poorly moderated social media and a far right, Islamophobic/anti-immigration movement. The cure is better moderation of social media, strong police action against perpetrators, and not excusing racism.
Moderation is of no use, when the message you want to project is feeble or non-existent.
Simply giving up the social media field to the scum is giving them a victory by default.
Get out, ahead of them, with the truth. Then push and amplify the truth.
Moderation of online disinformation generally works very well to reduce the spread of disinformation. This is not giving up the social media field to the scum: it is taking back the social media filed from the scum.
I hope you are joking....government moderation of anything about speech leads to censorship...we do it then saudi will demand the right and russia...and iran and the GOP in america. It will cause more issues than it solves.
I'm asking social media companies to moderate themselves.
Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and the GOP in the US do what they want anyway (but I like your grouping! a new axis of evil?).
Ah you mean like facebook did by removing any reference to lab leaks for covid...now I am not convinced either way but it wasn't helpful . Facebook cant tell truth from fiction anymore than anyone else. You want to fight the crap on social media then post truth and fight it all that happens if you try to stop it being posted is more people believe its true but censored
The evidence suggests that if you stop it being posted, people don't see it and no-one believes it. The idea that "more believe its true but censored" is a nice story that anti-censorship people tell themselves, but I don't see the evidence that it's true.
points at QAnon
QAnon grew because of social media. QAnon will claim they are being censored whether they are or aren't.
Bhwani Shankar @BhwaniShankar1 The market is now pricing in a a 69% chance that Jerome Powell and the 🇺🇸 Fed cut rates by 50 BASIS POINTS in September - CME FedWatch Tool
Andrew Bailey will be smiling today.
Maybe Andrew Bailey is a genius and I’ve been wrong about him for the last 20 years.
At Robert Jenrick's Tory leadership launch in Newark, a video is shown beforehand of him visiting "all four nations". In the section for Northern Ireland, a screen behind him says "Welcome to Dublin"
Frank Skinner: Labour’s rhetoric on inheritance tax ‘made me feel guilty’
“When I hear Labour talking about people who earn this [much] ... I think, but I had nothing, I worked really hard,” he told the BBC’s The Today Podcast.
“I thought you’d like me. I thought I’d be a poster boy … [showing] working class people can actually get on and compete and can do well, but now you’re lumping me with all those people who inherited a load of money.”
Skinner added: “I just think when it’s things like inheritance tax and stuff like that, you should be in a special section if you crawled up from nothing. I shouldn’t be in the same section as the Rees-Mogg children.”
Its always fine if its somebody else paying....Also didn't Rees Mogg make most of his own money before politics, his Dad was editor of the Times, so not that different from Frank current position in the media.
Sounds like Skinner thinks there should be two types of money. That's an idea that will end well — not.
It's a bonkers argument he's making - he has made lots of money personally; by definition inheritance tax is.... inherited - so the idea his children/descendants should be treated differently to any other is quite mad no matter your views on the rights or wrongs of inheritance.
He is a comedian. Is he just taking the piss ?
What Frank Skinner does show is why IHT is (and was in 2009/10) a dangerous area for Labour. People simply do not understand it.
Well, he wouldn't be, and isn't. Frank is in the same position as Jacob Rees-Mogg. The Skinner children are in the same position as the Rees-Mogg children.
Rees Mogg's maternal grandfather was at one point a lorry driver and car salesman, his wife is posher than he is.
Rees Mogg acts uber posh but has some working class blood and in the early 19th century the Revd John Rees Mogg was a vicar not a wealthy merchant (albeit with a big Rectory)
Frank Skinner: Labour’s rhetoric on inheritance tax ‘made me feel guilty’
“When I hear Labour talking about people who earn this [much] ... I think, but I had nothing, I worked really hard,” he told the BBC’s The Today Podcast.
“I thought you’d like me. I thought I’d be a poster boy … [showing] working class people can actually get on and compete and can do well, but now you’re lumping me with all those people who inherited a load of money.”
Skinner added: “I just think when it’s things like inheritance tax and stuff like that, you should be in a special section if you crawled up from nothing. I shouldn’t be in the same section as the Rees-Mogg children.”
Its always fine if its somebody else paying....Also didn't Rees Mogg make most of his own money before politics, his Dad was editor of the Times, so not that different from Frank current position in the media.
If Labour go for property with wealth value taxes and inheritance taxes they could get absolutely creamed at the next election by Jenrick.
Brits fucking hate it if you touch their houses.
Yes, even in Wandsworth and Kensington, Chelsea, Fulham and Hampstead (all with Labour MPs now) if Labour imposed big wealth taxes and increased inheritance tax you would get many property owners and their kids telling their left liberal friends they were voting Labour or Green at dinner parties but in private they would vote Tory in the privacy of the ballot box (unless the Tory leader was Priti Patel in which case they would likely go LD).
Seats Labour won across the South and East and in wealthy bits of the Midlands and North and Cheshire like Rushcliffe and Macclesfield would also swing back blue
If, and it's a big if, the economy is bangin' and public services are running like clockwork Labour might retain the BlueWall and get a second term.
Although I do admire your optimism.
Most of the wealthy property owners in London and the Home counties do not work in the public sector and their biggest asset by far is their house, which their kids want to inherit too.
Ask Theresa May how coming after voters houses went for her with swing voters in 2017?
Thought was interesting how fast Starmer has pushed for expanded use of facial recognition. Labour party have historically been somewhere between very wary and absolutely against use of this technology, suggesting its a bit like stop and search, where issues with racial profiling etc.
Not really: Labour loves authoritarianism.
It's quite clear what we'll get from this administration, and it's similar to the last one: State, State and State.
Seems easier for some people here to throw the fascist card at Elon Musk than actually engage with the (pretty fascist) Labour policy proposal he is calling out.
I'll put my cards on the table: Tommy Robinson is a thug, and so are the motley crew that follow him, but one can't simply put every bit of disorder or protest that follows this as being down to the "far right" and then argue for massive increase in authoritarianism (which clearly Starmer gets off on) as a solution. That's just a cop out.
This happened because people suspected another cover-up was in play - no-one believed the " under 18 so anonymous" bullshit - and people are sick of being taken for fools and for "anti racism" and "community relations" (which only work one-way, bear in mind) being a bigger priority for the powers that be than the very real social and cultural problems brewing in some communities.
They should learn from it. In reality, they'll play the same old tune, only harder and stronger.
If the Rwandan 17 year old had turned out to be a Muslim, would ‘people’ have been justified in burning police vans and attacking mosques?
One of the sadder recent spectacles is conservatism/Conservatism abandoning a belief in personal responsibility for one’s actions. Perhaps it was always inclined that way and I just haven’t noticed.
That’s rather close to whataboutry
The simple fact is that the official statements on the matter inflamed an ugly situation.
The cure is to come up with better official statements to take the wind out of the sails of the EDL and other thugs.
As someone else on this thread has pointed out - the far right is small and splintered. Without useful idiots attaching themselves to such mobs, Yarxley-Lennon and chums will be outnumbered by the police.
I don’t have as much faith that “better official statements” will help. Robinson/Yaxley-Lennon was in the UK recently showing a film that he has been banned from doing so because it’s been found to be libellous. He knows it’s all lies, but he still showed it.
As with Trump and MAGA, they will believe what they want to believe. Robinson’s supporters were already agitating before the stabbing and they would have invented some other reason without it.
Musk’s Twitter doesn’t care about what’s true. It would have spread lies, however good you made the official statements.
We had people on PB who knew that the attack had nothing to do with Islam who still felt this was a great time to claim Muslims are problematic.
Sure, look at how official statements are made and think whether that could be improved, but the main problems here are poorly moderated social media and a far right, Islamophobic/anti-immigration movement. The cure is better moderation of social media, strong police action against perpetrators, and not excusing racism.
Moderation is of no use, when the message you want to project is feeble or non-existent.
Simply giving up the social media field to the scum is giving them a victory by default.
Get out, ahead of them, with the truth. Then push and amplify the truth.
Moderation of online disinformation generally works very well to reduce the spread of disinformation. This is not giving up the social media field to the scum: it is taking back the social media filed from the scum.
I hope you are joking....government moderation of anything about speech leads to censorship...we do it then saudi will demand the right and russia...and iran and the GOP in america. It will cause more issues than it solves.
I'm asking social media companies to moderate themselves.
Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and the GOP in the US do what they want anyway (but I like your grouping! a new axis of evil?).
Unfortunately the social media companies have a very poor record of moderating themselves, preferring to censor content based on ideology rather than correctness.
Apart from anything who do you trust to determine whats true....example
Country A does something x
People find out thing x happened....Country A denies x happened
Social media company has no way of verifying if x happened or not and even if it did was country A responsible for x or not
Now what should social media company do
1) delete all posts saying x happened 2) delete all posts saying x happened and its the fault of country a 3) let posts stand about x happening even though its disputed but delete all posts tying x happening to country A 4) throw up their hands and say we dont actually know the posts might be true or might not but we dont actually know for sure
I would rather stick with 4) as the lesser evil personally
Instead of your hypothetical example, can I suggest we consider a real example? After the Southport stabbing, a Russian disinformation site claimed that the attacker was called "Ali Al-Shakati". This claim got nearly 20 million views and led to rioting in multiple sites. Twitter eventually removed the original tweet.
What do you think should have happened?
1) Twitter should have done nothing, left the tweet up 2) Twitter should have removed the tweet sooner 3) Twitter got it just right
At Robert Jenrick's Tory leadership launch in Newark, a video is shown beforehand of him visiting "all four nations". In the section for Northern Ireland, a screen behind him says "Welcome to Dublin"
Well a Northern Ireland swimmer won gold for Ireland (you can represent both Ireland or GB and there is an open land border between the NI UK and Republic now)
Thought was interesting how fast Starmer has pushed for expanded use of facial recognition. Labour party have historically been somewhere between very wary and absolutely against use of this technology, suggesting its a bit like stop and search, where issues with racial profiling etc.
Not really: Labour loves authoritarianism.
It's quite clear what we'll get from this administration, and it's similar to the last one: State, State and State.
Seems easier for some people here to throw the fascist card at Elon Musk than actually engage with the (pretty fascist) Labour policy proposal he is calling out.
I'll put my cards on the table: Tommy Robinson is a thug, and so are the motley crew that follow him, but one can't simply put every bit of disorder or protest that follows this as being down to the "far right" and then argue for massive increase in authoritarianism (which clearly Starmer gets off on) as a solution. That's just a cop out.
This happened because people suspected another cover-up was in play - no-one believed the " under 18 so anonymous" bullshit - and people are sick of being taken for fools and for "anti racism" and "community relations" (which only work one-way, bear in mind) being a bigger priority for the powers that be than the very real social and cultural problems brewing in some communities.
They should learn from it. In reality, they'll play the same old tune, only harder and stronger.
If the Rwandan 17 year old had turned out to be a Muslim, would ‘people’ have been justified in burning police vans and attacking mosques?
One of the sadder recent spectacles is conservatism/Conservatism abandoning a belief in personal responsibility for one’s actions. Perhaps it was always inclined that way and I just haven’t noticed.
That’s rather close to whataboutry
The simple fact is that the official statements on the matter inflamed an ugly situation.
The cure is to come up with better official statements to take the wind out of the sails of the EDL and other thugs.
As someone else on this thread has pointed out - the far right is small and splintered. Without useful idiots attaching themselves to such mobs, Yarxley-Lennon and chums will be outnumbered by the police.
I don’t have as much faith that “better official statements” will help. Robinson/Yaxley-Lennon was in the UK recently showing a film that he has been banned from doing so because it’s been found to be libellous. He knows it’s all lies, but he still showed it.
As with Trump and MAGA, they will believe what they want to believe. Robinson’s supporters were already agitating before the stabbing and they would have invented some other reason without it.
Musk’s Twitter doesn’t care about what’s true. It would have spread lies, however good you made the official statements.
We had people on PB who knew that the attack had nothing to do with Islam who still felt this was a great time to claim Muslims are problematic.
Sure, look at how official statements are made and think whether that could be improved, but the main problems here are poorly moderated social media and a far right, Islamophobic/anti-immigration movement. The cure is better moderation of social media, strong police action against perpetrators, and not excusing racism.
Moderation is of no use, when the message you want to project is feeble or non-existent.
Simply giving up the social media field to the scum is giving them a victory by default.
Get out, ahead of them, with the truth. Then push and amplify the truth.
Moderation of online disinformation generally works very well to reduce the spread of disinformation. This is not giving up the social media field to the scum: it is taking back the social media filed from the scum.
I hope you are joking....government moderation of anything about speech leads to censorship...we do it then saudi will demand the right and russia...and iran and the GOP in america. It will cause more issues than it solves.
I'm asking social media companies to moderate themselves.
Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and the GOP in the US do what they want anyway (but I like your grouping! a new axis of evil?).
Unfortunately the social media companies have a very poor record of moderating themselves, preferring to censor content based on ideology rather than correctness.
Recently I was called by a headhunter offering me a job at Meta in London.
They like hiring people from Sheffield.
Given their offices are right next to St Pancras your daily commute would be shorter than some people who live in London & the Home Counties.....
Thought was interesting how fast Starmer has pushed for expanded use of facial recognition. Labour party have historically been somewhere between very wary and absolutely against use of this technology, suggesting its a bit like stop and search, where issues with racial profiling etc.
Not really: Labour loves authoritarianism.
It's quite clear what we'll get from this administration, and it's similar to the last one: State, State and State.
Seems easier for some people here to throw the fascist card at Elon Musk than actually engage with the (pretty fascist) Labour policy proposal he is calling out.
I'll put my cards on the table: Tommy Robinson is a thug, and so are the motley crew that follow him, but one can't simply put every bit of disorder or protest that follows this as being down to the "far right" and then argue for massive increase in authoritarianism (which clearly Starmer gets off on) as a solution. That's just a cop out.
This happened because people suspected another cover-up was in play - no-one believed the " under 18 so anonymous" bullshit - and people are sick of being taken for fools and for "anti racism" and "community relations" (which only work one-way, bear in mind) being a bigger priority for the powers that be than the very real social and cultural problems brewing in some communities.
They should learn from it. In reality, they'll play the same old tune, only harder and stronger.
If the Rwandan 17 year old had turned out to be a Muslim, would ‘people’ have been justified in burning police vans and attacking mosques?
One of the sadder recent spectacles is conservatism/Conservatism abandoning a belief in personal responsibility for one’s actions. Perhaps it was always inclined that way and I just haven’t noticed.
That’s rather close to whataboutry
The simple fact is that the official statements on the matter inflamed an ugly situation.
The cure is to come up with better official statements to take the wind out of the sails of the EDL and other thugs.
As someone else on this thread has pointed out - the far right is small and splintered. Without useful idiots attaching themselves to such mobs, Yarxley-Lennon and chums will be outnumbered by the police.
I don’t have as much faith that “better official statements” will help. Robinson/Yaxley-Lennon was in the UK recently showing a film that he has been banned from doing so because it’s been found to be libellous. He knows it’s all lies, but he still showed it.
As with Trump and MAGA, they will believe what they want to believe. Robinson’s supporters were already agitating before the stabbing and they would have invented some other reason without it.
Musk’s Twitter doesn’t care about what’s true. It would have spread lies, however good you made the official statements.
We had people on PB who knew that the attack had nothing to do with Islam who still felt this was a great time to claim Muslims are problematic.
Sure, look at how official statements are made and think whether that could be improved, but the main problems here are poorly moderated social media and a far right, Islamophobic/anti-immigration movement. The cure is better moderation of social media, strong police action against perpetrators, and not excusing racism.
Moderation is of no use, when the message you want to project is feeble or non-existent.
Simply giving up the social media field to the scum is giving them a victory by default.
Get out, ahead of them, with the truth. Then push and amplify the truth.
Moderation of online disinformation generally works very well to reduce the spread of disinformation. This is not giving up the social media field to the scum: it is taking back the social media filed from the scum.
I hope you are joking....government moderation of anything about speech leads to censorship...we do it then saudi will demand the right and russia...and iran and the GOP in america. It will cause more issues than it solves.
I'm asking social media companies to moderate themselves.
Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and the GOP in the US do what they want anyway (but I like your grouping! a new axis of evil?).
Unfortunately the social media companies have a very poor record of moderating themselves, preferring to censor content based on ideology rather than correctness.
Apart from anything who do you trust to determine whats true....example
Country A does something x
People find out thing x happened....Country A denies x happened
Social media company has no way of verifying if x happened or not and even if it did was country A responsible for x or not
Now what should social media company do
1) delete all posts saying x happened 2) delete all posts saying x happened and its the fault of country a 3) let posts stand about x happening even though its disputed but delete all posts tying x happening to country A 4) throw up their hands and say we dont actually know the posts might be true or might not but we dont actually know for sure
I would rather stick with 4) as the lesser evil personally
Instead of your hypothetical example, can I suggest we consider a real example? After the Southport stabbing, a Russian disinformation site claimed that the attacker was called "Ali Al-Shakati". This claim got nearly 20 million views and led to rioting in multiple sites. Twitter eventually removed the original tweet.
What do you think should have happened?
1) Twitter should have done nothing, left the tweet up 2) Twitter should have removed the tweet sooner 3) Twitter got it just right
The courts should engage with individuals posting illegal material. It should be nothing to do with the “platform”.
See Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the US, for why this is really important.
Good luck getting at people in Russia posting disinfo...
Of course, it is both. These riots are being fed by disinformation and misinformation, some of it seemingly coming from Russia. How would you have the authorities in the UK deal with this disinformation?
Thought was interesting how fast Starmer has pushed for expanded use of facial recognition. Labour party have historically been somewhere between very wary and absolutely against use of this technology, suggesting its a bit like stop and search, where issues with racial profiling etc.
Not really: Labour loves authoritarianism.
It's quite clear what we'll get from this administration, and it's similar to the last one: State, State and State.
Seems easier for some people here to throw the fascist card at Elon Musk than actually engage with the (pretty fascist) Labour policy proposal he is calling out.
I'll put my cards on the table: Tommy Robinson is a thug, and so are the motley crew that follow him, but one can't simply put every bit of disorder or protest that follows this as being down to the "far right" and then argue for massive increase in authoritarianism (which clearly Starmer gets off on) as a solution. That's just a cop out.
This happened because people suspected another cover-up was in play - no-one believed the " under 18 so anonymous" bullshit - and people are sick of being taken for fools and for "anti racism" and "community relations" (which only work one-way, bear in mind) being a bigger priority for the powers that be than the very real social and cultural problems brewing in some communities.
They should learn from it. In reality, they'll play the same old tune, only harder and stronger.
If the Rwandan 17 year old had turned out to be a Muslim, would ‘people’ have been justified in burning police vans and attacking mosques?
One of the sadder recent spectacles is conservatism/Conservatism abandoning a belief in personal responsibility for one’s actions. Perhaps it was always inclined that way and I just haven’t noticed.
That’s rather close to whataboutry
The simple fact is that the official statements on the matter inflamed an ugly situation.
The cure is to come up with better official statements to take the wind out of the sails of the EDL and other thugs.
As someone else on this thread has pointed out - the far right is small and splintered. Without useful idiots attaching themselves to such mobs, Yarxley-Lennon and chums will be outnumbered by the police.
I don’t have as much faith that “better official statements” will help. Robinson/Yaxley-Lennon was in the UK recently showing a film that he has been banned from doing so because it’s been found to be libellous. He knows it’s all lies, but he still showed it.
As with Trump and MAGA, they will believe what they want to believe. Robinson’s supporters were already agitating before the stabbing and they would have invented some other reason without it.
Musk’s Twitter doesn’t care about what’s true. It would have spread lies, however good you made the official statements.
We had people on PB who knew that the attack had nothing to do with Islam who still felt this was a great time to claim Muslims are problematic.
Sure, look at how official statements are made and think whether that could be improved, but the main problems here are poorly moderated social media and a far right, Islamophobic/anti-immigration movement. The cure is better moderation of social media, strong police action against perpetrators, and not excusing racism.
Moderation is of no use, when the message you want to project is feeble or non-existent.
Simply giving up the social media field to the scum is giving them a victory by default.
Get out, ahead of them, with the truth. Then push and amplify the truth.
Moderation of online disinformation generally works very well to reduce the spread of disinformation. This is not giving up the social media field to the scum: it is taking back the social media filed from the scum.
I hope you are joking....government moderation of anything about speech leads to censorship...we do it then saudi will demand the right and russia...and iran and the GOP in america. It will cause more issues than it solves.
I'm asking social media companies to moderate themselves.
Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and the GOP in the US do what they want anyway (but I like your grouping! a new axis of evil?).
Ah you mean like facebook did by removing any reference to lab leaks for covid...now I am not convinced either way but it wasn't helpful . Facebook cant tell truth from fiction anymore than anyone else. You want to fight the crap on social media then post truth and fight it all that happens if you try to stop it being posted is more people believe its true but censored
The evidence suggests that if you stop it being posted, people don't see it and no-one believes it. The idea that "more believe its true but censored" is a nice story that anti-censorship people tell themselves, but I don't see the evidence that it's true.
points at QAnon
I always thought QAnon was just a Leon type character winding everyone up for the fun of it.
Frank Skinner: Labour’s rhetoric on inheritance tax ‘made me feel guilty’
“When I hear Labour talking about people who earn this [much] ... I think, but I had nothing, I worked really hard,” he told the BBC’s The Today Podcast.
“I thought you’d like me. I thought I’d be a poster boy … [showing] working class people can actually get on and compete and can do well, but now you’re lumping me with all those people who inherited a load of money.”
Skinner added: “I just think when it’s things like inheritance tax and stuff like that, you should be in a special section if you crawled up from nothing. I shouldn’t be in the same section as the Rees-Mogg children.”
Its always fine if its somebody else paying....Also didn't Rees Mogg make most of his own money before politics, his Dad was editor of the Times, so not that different from Frank current position in the media.
If Labour go for property with wealth value taxes and inheritance taxes they could get absolutely creamed at the next election by Jenrick.
Brits fucking hate it if you touch their houses.
The problem is a large percentage of people don't own a house.
But if you annoy all those who do, you’re totally screwed electorally.
Would the owner of the house pay the charge rather than the tenant? I accept that the rent would include the cost to the landlord but would help stop landlords keeping properties empty.
Why do you think that empty houses do not attract Council Tax?
The only time the LL does not pay it is when there is a tenant in. There may be a short grace period - here it is one month, then the LL gets progressively mullered to the extent that it is a deterrent to deep renovation.
And it's once per house, so if it has been empty for some time the seller will have had it all, and it will be full charges from day 1.
Thought was interesting how fast Starmer has pushed for expanded use of facial recognition. Labour party have historically been somewhere between very wary and absolutely against use of this technology, suggesting its a bit like stop and search, where issues with racial profiling etc.
Not really: Labour loves authoritarianism.
It's quite clear what we'll get from this administration, and it's similar to the last one: State, State and State.
Seems easier for some people here to throw the fascist card at Elon Musk than actually engage with the (pretty fascist) Labour policy proposal he is calling out.
I'll put my cards on the table: Tommy Robinson is a thug, and so are the motley crew that follow him, but one can't simply put every bit of disorder or protest that follows this as being down to the "far right" and then argue for massive increase in authoritarianism (which clearly Starmer gets off on) as a solution. That's just a cop out.
This happened because people suspected another cover-up was in play - no-one believed the " under 18 so anonymous" bullshit - and people are sick of being taken for fools and for "anti racism" and "community relations" (which only work one-way, bear in mind) being a bigger priority for the powers that be than the very real social and cultural problems brewing in some communities.
They should learn from it. In reality, they'll play the same old tune, only harder and stronger.
If the Rwandan 17 year old had turned out to be a Muslim, would ‘people’ have been justified in burning police vans and attacking mosques?
One of the sadder recent spectacles is conservatism/Conservatism abandoning a belief in personal responsibility for one’s actions. Perhaps it was always inclined that way and I just haven’t noticed.
That’s rather close to whataboutry
The simple fact is that the official statements on the matter inflamed an ugly situation.
The cure is to come up with better official statements to take the wind out of the sails of the EDL and other thugs.
As someone else on this thread has pointed out - the far right is small and splintered. Without useful idiots attaching themselves to such mobs, Yarxley-Lennon and chums will be outnumbered by the police.
I don’t have as much faith that “better official statements” will help. Robinson/Yaxley-Lennon was in the UK recently showing a film that he has been banned from doing so because it’s been found to be libellous. He knows it’s all lies, but he still showed it.
As with Trump and MAGA, they will believe what they want to believe. Robinson’s supporters were already agitating before the stabbing and they would have invented some other reason without it.
Musk’s Twitter doesn’t care about what’s true. It would have spread lies, however good you made the official statements.
We had people on PB who knew that the attack had nothing to do with Islam who still felt this was a great time to claim Muslims are problematic.
Sure, look at how official statements are made and think whether that could be improved, but the main problems here are poorly moderated social media and a far right, Islamophobic/anti-immigration movement. The cure is better moderation of social media, strong police action against perpetrators, and not excusing racism.
Moderation is of no use, when the message you want to project is feeble or non-existent.
Simply giving up the social media field to the scum is giving them a victory by default.
Get out, ahead of them, with the truth. Then push and amplify the truth.
Moderation of online disinformation generally works very well to reduce the spread of disinformation. This is not giving up the social media field to the scum: it is taking back the social media filed from the scum.
I hope you are joking....government moderation of anything about speech leads to censorship...we do it then saudi will demand the right and russia...and iran and the GOP in america. It will cause more issues than it solves.
I'm asking social media companies to moderate themselves.
Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and the GOP in the US do what they want anyway (but I like your grouping! a new axis of evil?).
Unfortunately the social media companies have a very poor record of moderating themselves, preferring to censor content based on ideology rather than correctness.
Apart from anything who do you trust to determine whats true....example
Country A does something x
People find out thing x happened....Country A denies x happened
Social media company has no way of verifying if x happened or not and even if it did was country A responsible for x or not
Now what should social media company do
1) delete all posts saying x happened 2) delete all posts saying x happened and its the fault of country a 3) let posts stand about x happening even though its disputed but delete all posts tying x happening to country A 4) throw up their hands and say we dont actually know the posts might be true or might not but we dont actually know for sure
I would rather stick with 4) as the lesser evil personally
Instead of your hypothetical example, can I suggest we consider a real example? After the Southport stabbing, a Russian disinformation site claimed that the attacker was called "Ali Al-Shakati". This claim got nearly 20 million views and led to rioting in multiple sites. Twitter eventually removed the original tweet.
What do you think should have happened?
1) Twitter should have done nothing, left the tweet up 2) Twitter should have removed the tweet sooner 3) Twitter got it just right
Thought was interesting how fast Starmer has pushed for expanded use of facial recognition. Labour party have historically been somewhere between very wary and absolutely against use of this technology, suggesting its a bit like stop and search, where issues with racial profiling etc.
Not really: Labour loves authoritarianism.
It's quite clear what we'll get from this administration, and it's similar to the last one: State, State and State.
Seems easier for some people here to throw the fascist card at Elon Musk than actually engage with the (pretty fascist) Labour policy proposal he is calling out.
I'll put my cards on the table: Tommy Robinson is a thug, and so are the motley crew that follow him, but one can't simply put every bit of disorder or protest that follows this as being down to the "far right" and then argue for massive increase in authoritarianism (which clearly Starmer gets off on) as a solution. That's just a cop out.
This happened because people suspected another cover-up was in play - no-one believed the " under 18 so anonymous" bullshit - and people are sick of being taken for fools and for "anti racism" and "community relations" (which only work one-way, bear in mind) being a bigger priority for the powers that be than the very real social and cultural problems brewing in some communities.
They should learn from it. In reality, they'll play the same old tune, only harder and stronger.
If the Rwandan 17 year old had turned out to be a Muslim, would ‘people’ have been justified in burning police vans and attacking mosques?
One of the sadder recent spectacles is conservatism/Conservatism abandoning a belief in personal responsibility for one’s actions. Perhaps it was always inclined that way and I just haven’t noticed.
That’s rather close to whataboutry
The simple fact is that the official statements on the matter inflamed an ugly situation.
The cure is to come up with better official statements to take the wind out of the sails of the EDL and other thugs.
As someone else on this thread has pointed out - the far right is small and splintered. Without useful idiots attaching themselves to such mobs, Yarxley-Lennon and chums will be outnumbered by the police.
I don’t have as much faith that “better official statements” will help. Robinson/Yaxley-Lennon was in the UK recently showing a film that he has been banned from doing so because it’s been found to be libellous. He knows it’s all lies, but he still showed it.
As with Trump and MAGA, they will believe what they want to believe. Robinson’s supporters were already agitating before the stabbing and they would have invented some other reason without it.
Musk’s Twitter doesn’t care about what’s true. It would have spread lies, however good you made the official statements.
We had people on PB who knew that the attack had nothing to do with Islam who still felt this was a great time to claim Muslims are problematic.
Sure, look at how official statements are made and think whether that could be improved, but the main problems here are poorly moderated social media and a far right, Islamophobic/anti-immigration movement. The cure is better moderation of social media, strong police action against perpetrators, and not excusing racism.
Moderation is of no use, when the message you want to project is feeble or non-existent.
Simply giving up the social media field to the scum is giving them a victory by default.
Get out, ahead of them, with the truth. Then push and amplify the truth.
Moderation of online disinformation generally works very well to reduce the spread of disinformation. This is not giving up the social media field to the scum: it is taking back the social media filed from the scum.
I hope you are joking....government moderation of anything about speech leads to censorship...we do it then saudi will demand the right and russia...and iran and the GOP in america. It will cause more issues than it solves.
I'm asking social media companies to moderate themselves.
Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and the GOP in the US do what they want anyway (but I like your grouping! a new axis of evil?).
Unfortunately the social media companies have a very poor record of moderating themselves, preferring to censor content based on ideology rather than correctness.
Apart from anything who do you trust to determine whats true....example
Country A does something x
People find out thing x happened....Country A denies x happened
Social media company has no way of verifying if x happened or not and even if it did was country A responsible for x or not
Now what should social media company do
1) delete all posts saying x happened 2) delete all posts saying x happened and its the fault of country a 3) let posts stand about x happening even though its disputed but delete all posts tying x happening to country A 4) throw up their hands and say we dont actually know the posts might be true or might not but we dont actually know for sure
I would rather stick with 4) as the lesser evil personally
Instead of your hypothetical example, can I suggest we consider a real example? After the Southport stabbing, a Russian disinformation site claimed that the attacker was called "Ali Al-Shakati". This claim got nearly 20 million views and led to rioting in multiple sites. Twitter eventually removed the original tweet.
What do you think should have happened?
1) Twitter should have done nothing, left the tweet up 2) Twitter should have removed the tweet sooner 3) Twitter got it just right
The courts should engage with individuals posting illegal material. It should be nothing to do with the “platform”.
See Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the US, for why this is really important.
So (1)?
Yes. It has nothing to do with Twitter as a company.
The people drawing the lines need to be actual judges, rather than random employees of social media companies, which we understood in recent years to collectively have a very specific world view.
If someone said X that was wrong, and that statement is causing problems, then a judge should ask person X to withdraw his comments and possibly make a statement to that effect, able to hold them in contempt of court for not doing so.
Andrew Rosindell in the audience, a boost for Jenrick as I would have thought he would have gone for Priti.
Esther McVey introduced Jenrick so clearly in his camp now too
MEGA!
No, the Mega candidates are Patel and Badenoch. So far Jenrick very smooth, almost Blair and Cameron like, he speaks better than Starmer that is for sure if nothing else
"Blair and Cameron like"? More like the ghost of Peter Griffiths.
Good for him. There’s no reason why swearing on what sounds like a form of low Animism is any more or less silly than swearing on the concept a personal saviour.
Yep. So long as he believes it rather than it being a pisstake. I think that's the idea, isn't it. Your object of swearing must be dear to you so as to add gravitas to your testimony. Eg what about "I swear on my mother's life"? That's a colloquialism but could it actually be used in court? Interesting area. Never thought much about it before.
Or for that matter the formerly pointless attempt to get Quakers to swear on the Bible when everyone knew and knows they take the matter far more seriously than that. Long ago abandoned.
If we lost anonymity on social media, would it really be so bad? Worth a try. At the very least account owners should be known to the host.
I’ve pondered this for some time. I think my cautious view is yes it would help, but only with much clearer protections and guidelines for freedom of speech and expression and also thought would have to be had for situations where it genuinely is useful for someone to be anonymous - e.g seeking confidential advice or support due to domestic violence for instance.
Thought was interesting how fast Starmer has pushed for expanded use of facial recognition. Labour party have historically been somewhere between very wary and absolutely against use of this technology, suggesting its a bit like stop and search, where issues with racial profiling etc.
Not really: Labour loves authoritarianism.
It's quite clear what we'll get from this administration, and it's similar to the last one: State, State and State.
Seems easier for some people here to throw the fascist card at Elon Musk than actually engage with the (pretty fascist) Labour policy proposal he is calling out.
I'll put my cards on the table: Tommy Robinson is a thug, and so are the motley crew that follow him, but one can't simply put every bit of disorder or protest that follows this as being down to the "far right" and then argue for massive increase in authoritarianism (which clearly Starmer gets off on) as a solution. That's just a cop out.
This happened because people suspected another cover-up was in play - no-one believed the " under 18 so anonymous" bullshit - and people are sick of being taken for fools and for "anti racism" and "community relations" (which only work one-way, bear in mind) being a bigger priority for the powers that be than the very real social and cultural problems brewing in some communities.
They should learn from it. In reality, they'll play the same old tune, only harder and stronger.
If the Rwandan 17 year old had turned out to be a Muslim, would ‘people’ have been justified in burning police vans and attacking mosques?
One of the sadder recent spectacles is conservatism/Conservatism abandoning a belief in personal responsibility for one’s actions. Perhaps it was always inclined that way and I just haven’t noticed.
That’s rather close to whataboutry
The simple fact is that the official statements on the matter inflamed an ugly situation.
The cure is to come up with better official statements to take the wind out of the sails of the EDL and other thugs.
As someone else on this thread has pointed out - the far right is small and splintered. Without useful idiots attaching themselves to such mobs, Yarxley-Lennon and chums will be outnumbered by the police.
I don’t have as much faith that “better official statements” will help. Robinson/Yaxley-Lennon was in the UK recently showing a film that he has been banned from doing so because it’s been found to be libellous. He knows it’s all lies, but he still showed it.
As with Trump and MAGA, they will believe what they want to believe. Robinson’s supporters were already agitating before the stabbing and they would have invented some other reason without it.
Musk’s Twitter doesn’t care about what’s true. It would have spread lies, however good you made the official statements.
We had people on PB who knew that the attack had nothing to do with Islam who still felt this was a great time to claim Muslims are problematic.
Sure, look at how official statements are made and think whether that could be improved, but the main problems here are poorly moderated social media and a far right, Islamophobic/anti-immigration movement. The cure is better moderation of social media, strong police action against perpetrators, and not excusing racism.
Moderation is of no use, when the message you want to project is feeble or non-existent.
Simply giving up the social media field to the scum is giving them a victory by default.
Get out, ahead of them, with the truth. Then push and amplify the truth.
Moderation of online disinformation generally works very well to reduce the spread of disinformation. This is not giving up the social media field to the scum: it is taking back the social media filed from the scum.
I hope you are joking....government moderation of anything about speech leads to censorship...we do it then saudi will demand the right and russia...and iran and the GOP in america. It will cause more issues than it solves.
I'm asking social media companies to moderate themselves.
Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and the GOP in the US do what they want anyway (but I like your grouping! a new axis of evil?).
Unfortunately the social media companies have a very poor record of moderating themselves, preferring to censor content based on ideology rather than correctness.
Apart from anything who do you trust to determine whats true....example
Country A does something x
People find out thing x happened....Country A denies x happened
Social media company has no way of verifying if x happened or not and even if it did was country A responsible for x or not
Now what should social media company do
1) delete all posts saying x happened 2) delete all posts saying x happened and its the fault of country a 3) let posts stand about x happening even though its disputed but delete all posts tying x happening to country A 4) throw up their hands and say we dont actually know the posts might be true or might not but we dont actually know for sure
I would rather stick with 4) as the lesser evil personally
Instead of your hypothetical example, can I suggest we consider a real example? After the Southport stabbing, a Russian disinformation site claimed that the attacker was called "Ali Al-Shakati". This claim got nearly 20 million views and led to rioting in multiple sites. Twitter eventually removed the original tweet.
What do you think should have happened?
1) Twitter should have done nothing, left the tweet up 2) Twitter should have removed the tweet sooner 3) Twitter got it just right
The courts should engage with individuals posting illegal material. It should be nothing to do with the “platform”.
See Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the US, for why this is really important.
So (1)?
Yes. It has nothing to do with Twitter as a company.
The people drawing the lines need to be actual judges, rather than random employees of social media companies, which we understood in recent years to collectively have a very specific world view.
If someone said X that was wrong, and that statement is causing problems, then a judge should ask person X to withdraw his comments and possibly make a statement to that effect.
Given the speed with which the courts move and issue over jurisdiction, that would mean the tweet would be up for months, or forever.
Your approach would have led to the tweet being more widely seen. This would likely have added to the riots. Does that concern you at all?
Thought was interesting how fast Starmer has pushed for expanded use of facial recognition. Labour party have historically been somewhere between very wary and absolutely against use of this technology, suggesting its a bit like stop and search, where issues with racial profiling etc.
Not really: Labour loves authoritarianism.
It's quite clear what we'll get from this administration, and it's similar to the last one: State, State and State.
Seems easier for some people here to throw the fascist card at Elon Musk than actually engage with the (pretty fascist) Labour policy proposal he is calling out.
I'll put my cards on the table: Tommy Robinson is a thug, and so are the motley crew that follow him, but one can't simply put every bit of disorder or protest that follows this as being down to the "far right" and then argue for massive increase in authoritarianism (which clearly Starmer gets off on) as a solution. That's just a cop out.
This happened because people suspected another cover-up was in play - no-one believed the " under 18 so anonymous" bullshit - and people are sick of being taken for fools and for "anti racism" and "community relations" (which only work one-way, bear in mind) being a bigger priority for the powers that be than the very real social and cultural problems brewing in some communities.
They should learn from it. In reality, they'll play the same old tune, only harder and stronger.
If the Rwandan 17 year old had turned out to be a Muslim, would ‘people’ have been justified in burning police vans and attacking mosques?
One of the sadder recent spectacles is conservatism/Conservatism abandoning a belief in personal responsibility for one’s actions. Perhaps it was always inclined that way and I just haven’t noticed.
That’s rather close to whataboutry
The simple fact is that the official statements on the matter inflamed an ugly situation.
The cure is to come up with better official statements to take the wind out of the sails of the EDL and other thugs.
As someone else on this thread has pointed out - the far right is small and splintered. Without useful idiots attaching themselves to such mobs, Yarxley-Lennon and chums will be outnumbered by the police.
I don’t have as much faith that “better official statements” will help. Robinson/Yaxley-Lennon was in the UK recently showing a film that he has been banned from doing so because it’s been found to be libellous. He knows it’s all lies, but he still showed it.
As with Trump and MAGA, they will believe what they want to believe. Robinson’s supporters were already agitating before the stabbing and they would have invented some other reason without it.
Musk’s Twitter doesn’t care about what’s true. It would have spread lies, however good you made the official statements.
We had people on PB who knew that the attack had nothing to do with Islam who still felt this was a great time to claim Muslims are problematic.
Sure, look at how official statements are made and think whether that could be improved, but the main problems here are poorly moderated social media and a far right, Islamophobic/anti-immigration movement. The cure is better moderation of social media, strong police action against perpetrators, and not excusing racism.
Moderation is of no use, when the message you want to project is feeble or non-existent.
Simply giving up the social media field to the scum is giving them a victory by default.
Get out, ahead of them, with the truth. Then push and amplify the truth.
Moderation of online disinformation generally works very well to reduce the spread of disinformation. This is not giving up the social media field to the scum: it is taking back the social media filed from the scum.
I hope you are joking....government moderation of anything about speech leads to censorship...we do it then saudi will demand the right and russia...and iran and the GOP in america. It will cause more issues than it solves.
I'm asking social media companies to moderate themselves.
Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and the GOP in the US do what they want anyway (but I like your grouping! a new axis of evil?).
Unfortunately the social media companies have a very poor record of moderating themselves, preferring to censor content based on ideology rather than correctness.
Apart from anything who do you trust to determine whats true....example
Country A does something x
People find out thing x happened....Country A denies x happened
Social media company has no way of verifying if x happened or not and even if it did was country A responsible for x or not
Now what should social media company do
1) delete all posts saying x happened 2) delete all posts saying x happened and its the fault of country a 3) let posts stand about x happening even though its disputed but delete all posts tying x happening to country A 4) throw up their hands and say we dont actually know the posts might be true or might not but we dont actually know for sure
I would rather stick with 4) as the lesser evil personally
Instead of your hypothetical example, can I suggest we consider a real example? After the Southport stabbing, a Russian disinformation site claimed that the attacker was called "Ali Al-Shakati". This claim got nearly 20 million views and led to rioting in multiple sites. Twitter eventually removed the original tweet.
What do you think should have happened?
1) Twitter should have done nothing, left the tweet up 2) Twitter should have removed the tweet sooner 3) Twitter got it just right
The courts should engage with individuals posting illegal material. It should be nothing to do with the “platform”.
See Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the US, for why this is really important.
So (1)?
Yes. It has nothing to do with Twitter as a company.
The people drawing the lines need to be actual judges, rather than random employees of social media companies, which we understood in recent years to collectively have a very specific world view.
If someone said X that was wrong, and that statement is causing problems, then a judge should ask person X to withdraw his comments and possibly make a statement to that effect, able to hold them in contempt of court for not doing so.
You're not really suggesting social media should be moderated only by judges, not by the people operating the website?
That's surely the craziest thing I've heard since Donald Trump last opened his mouth.
If we lost anonymity on social media, would it really be so bad? Worth a try. At the very least account owners should be known to the host.
Yes a lot of posters would not post at all regardless of their views because when you apply for a job most hr departements will look you up. Your view now be main stream...in 20 years will it still be who knows so why take the risk.
Voting is anonymous for the same reason....would you be happy if everyone could look at how you voted and use it to base whether to give you a job offer or not....for example a tory voting hiring manager not hiring you because you voted green?
The truth about Rotherham/Madrid/Cologne were all actively denied by the governments of the day. South Africa went through almost 10 years of HIV/AIDS denialism. Dissent from the government line can have value.
Hedge funds are wise, they are nearly as brilliant as lawyers, heed their words. AI is the new AOL Time Warner.
Elliott says Nvidia is in a ‘bubble’ and AI is ‘overhyped’
Hedge fund tells clients many supposed applications of the technology are ‘never going to actually work’
Hedge fund Elliott Management has told investors that Nvidia is in a “bubble”, and the artificial intelligence technology driving the chipmaking giant’s share price is “overhyped”.
The Florida-based firm, which manages about $70bn in assets, said in a recent letter to clients that the megacap technology stocks, particularly Nvidia, were in “bubble land” and it was “sceptical” that Big Tech companies would keep buying the chipmaker’s graphics processing units in such high volumes.
AI is “overhyped with many applications not ready for prime time”, Elliott wrote in the letter sent this week and seen by the Financial Times.
Many of AI’s supposed uses are “never going to be cost efficient, are never going to actually work right, will take up too much energy, or will prove to be untrustworthy”, it added.
Elliott declined to comment.
Its warning comes as chip stocks, which have enjoyed a huge rally driven by investor fervour over the potential for generative AI, take a tumble on concerns about whether big companies will continue to spend heavily on AI. Intel shares fell 20 per cent following the US market close on Thursday after the chipmaker revealed plans to cut about 15,000 jobs.
AI is the new Dotcom. It's a bubble that will probably burst quite soon; but it will also very likely transform the word economy over time.
China is probably now grateful that US sanctions prevented them from forking out many billions of dollars on bleeding edge chips, which will probably drop in price by an order of magnitude within the next couple of years.
Intel's woes are something of a separate issue. And they are probably a buy at somewhere around current levels; replicating their fab assets would probably cost at least a couple of times what the stockmarket says they're currently worth.
Our government should put in a bid.
Intel's woes are not due to AI or even missing the whole GPU boom but because their latest chips are reported to be slow and crash-prone. The problem with AI is it's very clever but how do the big tech firms monetise it? I can now ask ChatGPT questions via Bing and maybe even replace my human clickbait writers but Microsoft is not getting rich off that.
Yes a ChatGBT bot that I can troll into telling me the dates when the Union Jack is flown on Dublin Castle as I did the other day (the answer was Royal Birthdays etc) is very amusing but I don't think the most valuable thing since Tulips went out of fashion....
Andrew Rosindell in the audience, a boost for Jenrick as I would have thought he would have gone for Priti.
Esther McVey introduced Jenrick so clearly in his camp now too
MEGA!
No, the Mega candidates are Patel and Badenoch. So far Jenrick very smooth, almost Blair and Cameron like, he speaks better than Starmer that is for sure if nothing else
"Blair and Cameron like"? More like the ghost of Peter Griffiths.
Griffiths of course won the Smethwick by election on a sensationally huge swing from Labour in 1964 and defeated the Shadow FS, even if he was not to everyone's tastes
Frank Skinner: Labour’s rhetoric on inheritance tax ‘made me feel guilty’
“When I hear Labour talking about people who earn this [much] ... I think, but I had nothing, I worked really hard,” he told the BBC’s The Today Podcast.
“I thought you’d like me. I thought I’d be a poster boy … [showing] working class people can actually get on and compete and can do well, but now you’re lumping me with all those people who inherited a load of money.”
Skinner added: “I just think when it’s things like inheritance tax and stuff like that, you should be in a special section if you crawled up from nothing. I shouldn’t be in the same section as the Rees-Mogg children.”
Its always fine if its somebody else paying....Also didn't Rees Mogg make most of his own money before politics, his Dad was editor of the Times, so not that different from Frank current position in the media.
If Labour go for property with wealth value taxes and inheritance taxes they could get absolutely creamed at the next election by Jenrick.
Brits fucking hate it if you touch their houses.
Yes, even in Wandsworth and Kensington, Chelsea, Fulham and Hampstead (all with Labour MPs now) if Labour imposed big wealth taxes and increased inheritance tax you would get many property owners and their kids telling their left liberal friends they were voting Labour or Green at dinner parties but in private they would vote Tory in the privacy of the ballot box (unless the Tory leader was Priti Patel in which case they would likely go LD).
Seats Labour won across the South and East and in wealthy bits of the Midlands and North and Cheshire like Rushcliffe and Macclesfield would also swing back blue
If, and it's a big if, the economy is bangin' and public services are running like clockwork Labour might retain the BlueWall and get a second term.
Although I do admire your optimism.
Most of the wealthy property owners in London and the Home counties do not work in the public sector and their biggest asset by far is their house, which their kids want to inherit too.
Ask Theresa May how coming after voters houses went for her with swing voters in 2017?
Oh, so Thatcher-sold council houses don't count?
They do too as many are over the IHT threshold in central London certainly
Yet many of them will have worked in the public sector. Especially if they are of that vintage. See?
Anyone with a house in London is wealthy full stop in a total sense.
Thought was interesting how fast Starmer has pushed for expanded use of facial recognition. Labour party have historically been somewhere between very wary and absolutely against use of this technology, suggesting its a bit like stop and search, where issues with racial profiling etc.
Not really: Labour loves authoritarianism.
It's quite clear what we'll get from this administration, and it's similar to the last one: State, State and State.
Seems easier for some people here to throw the fascist card at Elon Musk than actually engage with the (pretty fascist) Labour policy proposal he is calling out.
I'll put my cards on the table: Tommy Robinson is a thug, and so are the motley crew that follow him, but one can't simply put every bit of disorder or protest that follows this as being down to the "far right" and then argue for massive increase in authoritarianism (which clearly Starmer gets off on) as a solution. That's just a cop out.
This happened because people suspected another cover-up was in play - no-one believed the " under 18 so anonymous" bullshit - and people are sick of being taken for fools and for "anti racism" and "community relations" (which only work one-way, bear in mind) being a bigger priority for the powers that be than the very real social and cultural problems brewing in some communities.
They should learn from it. In reality, they'll play the same old tune, only harder and stronger.
If the Rwandan 17 year old had turned out to be a Muslim, would ‘people’ have been justified in burning police vans and attacking mosques?
One of the sadder recent spectacles is conservatism/Conservatism abandoning a belief in personal responsibility for one’s actions. Perhaps it was always inclined that way and I just haven’t noticed.
That’s rather close to whataboutry
The simple fact is that the official statements on the matter inflamed an ugly situation.
The cure is to come up with better official statements to take the wind out of the sails of the EDL and other thugs.
As someone else on this thread has pointed out - the far right is small and splintered. Without useful idiots attaching themselves to such mobs, Yarxley-Lennon and chums will be outnumbered by the police.
I don’t have as much faith that “better official statements” will help. Robinson/Yaxley-Lennon was in the UK recently showing a film that he has been banned from doing so because it’s been found to be libellous. He knows it’s all lies, but he still showed it.
As with Trump and MAGA, they will believe what they want to believe. Robinson’s supporters were already agitating before the stabbing and they would have invented some other reason without it.
Musk’s Twitter doesn’t care about what’s true. It would have spread lies, however good you made the official statements.
We had people on PB who knew that the attack had nothing to do with Islam who still felt this was a great time to claim Muslims are problematic.
Sure, look at how official statements are made and think whether that could be improved, but the main problems here are poorly moderated social media and a far right, Islamophobic/anti-immigration movement. The cure is better moderation of social media, strong police action against perpetrators, and not excusing racism.
Moderation is of no use, when the message you want to project is feeble or non-existent.
Simply giving up the social media field to the scum is giving them a victory by default.
Get out, ahead of them, with the truth. Then push and amplify the truth.
Moderation of online disinformation generally works very well to reduce the spread of disinformation. This is not giving up the social media field to the scum: it is taking back the social media filed from the scum.
I hope you are joking....government moderation of anything about speech leads to censorship...we do it then saudi will demand the right and russia...and iran and the GOP in america. It will cause more issues than it solves.
I'm asking social media companies to moderate themselves.
Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and the GOP in the US do what they want anyway (but I like your grouping! a new axis of evil?).
Unfortunately the social media companies have a very poor record of moderating themselves, preferring to censor content based on ideology rather than correctness.
Apart from anything who do you trust to determine whats true....example
Country A does something x
People find out thing x happened....Country A denies x happened
Social media company has no way of verifying if x happened or not and even if it did was country A responsible for x or not
Now what should social media company do
1) delete all posts saying x happened 2) delete all posts saying x happened and its the fault of country a 3) let posts stand about x happening even though its disputed but delete all posts tying x happening to country A 4) throw up their hands and say we dont actually know the posts might be true or might not but we dont actually know for sure
I would rather stick with 4) as the lesser evil personally
Instead of your hypothetical example, can I suggest we consider a real example? After the Southport stabbing, a Russian disinformation site claimed that the attacker was called "Ali Al-Shakati". This claim got nearly 20 million views and led to rioting in multiple sites. Twitter eventually removed the original tweet.
What do you think should have happened?
1) Twitter should have done nothing, left the tweet up 2) Twitter should have removed the tweet sooner 3) Twitter got it just right
The courts should engage with individuals posting illegal material. It should be nothing to do with the “platform”.
See Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the US, for why this is really important.
So (1)?
Yes. It has nothing to do with Twitter as a company.
The people drawing the lines need to be actual judges, rather than random employees of social media companies, which we understood in recent years to collectively have a very specific world view.
If someone said X that was wrong, and that statement is causing problems, then a judge should ask person X to withdraw his comments and possibly make a statement to that effect, able to hold them in contempt of court for not doing so.
You're not really suggesting social media should be moderated only by judges, not by the people operating the website?
That's surely the craziest thing I've heard since Donald Trump last opened his mouth.
Social media’s own moderation should be limited to removing clearly illegal material posted, not making judgements on the rights or wrongs of the opinions of individuals posting to them.
The truth about Rotherham/Madrid/Cologne were all actively denied by the governments of the day. South Africa went through almost 10 years of HIV/AIDS denialism. Dissent from the government line can have value.
It can.
But disinformation and misinformation clearly also has costs, as with the Southport riot and subsequent riots, as with Russian disinformation about the Ukraine war.
Frank Skinner: Labour’s rhetoric on inheritance tax ‘made me feel guilty’
“When I hear Labour talking about people who earn this [much] ... I think, but I had nothing, I worked really hard,” he told the BBC’s The Today Podcast.
“I thought you’d like me. I thought I’d be a poster boy … [showing] working class people can actually get on and compete and can do well, but now you’re lumping me with all those people who inherited a load of money.”
Skinner added: “I just think when it’s things like inheritance tax and stuff like that, you should be in a special section if you crawled up from nothing. I shouldn’t be in the same section as the Rees-Mogg children.”
Its always fine if its somebody else paying....Also didn't Rees Mogg make most of his own money before politics, his Dad was editor of the Times, so not that different from Frank current position in the media.
If Labour go for property with wealth value taxes and inheritance taxes they could get absolutely creamed at the next election by Jenrick.
Brits fucking hate it if you touch their houses.
Yes, even in Wandsworth and Kensington, Chelsea, Fulham and Hampstead (all with Labour MPs now) if Labour imposed big wealth taxes and increased inheritance tax you would get many property owners and their kids telling their left liberal friends they were voting Labour or Green at dinner parties but in private they would vote Tory in the privacy of the ballot box (unless the Tory leader was Priti Patel in which case they would likely go LD).
Seats Labour won across the South and East and in wealthy bits of the Midlands and North and Cheshire like Rushcliffe and Macclesfield would also swing back blue
If, and it's a big if, the economy is bangin' and public services are running like clockwork Labour might retain the BlueWall and get a second term.
Although I do admire your optimism.
Most of the wealthy property owners in London and the Home counties do not work in the public sector and their biggest asset by far is their house, which their kids want to inherit too.
Ask Theresa May how coming after voters houses went for her with swing voters in 2017?
Oh, so Thatcher-sold council houses don't count?
They do too as many are over the IHT threshold in central London certainly
Yet many of them will have worked in the public sector. Especially if they are of that vintage.
Even in ex council homes most will work in the private sector or have small businesses
If we lost anonymity on social media, would it really be so bad? Worth a try. At the very least account owners should be known to the host.
Yes a lot of posters would not post at all regardless of their views because when you apply for a job most hr departements will look you up. Your view now be main stream...in 20 years will it still be who knows so why take the risk.
Voting is anonymous for the same reason....would you be happy if everyone could look at how you voted and use it to base whether to give you a job offer or not....for example a tory voting hiring manager not hiring you because you voted green?
There’s anti discrimination laws to stop that happening.
Hedge funds are wise, they are nearly as brilliant as lawyers, heed their words. AI is the new AOL Time Warner.
Elliott says Nvidia is in a ‘bubble’ and AI is ‘overhyped’
Hedge fund tells clients many supposed applications of the technology are ‘never going to actually work’
Hedge fund Elliott Management has told investors that Nvidia is in a “bubble”, and the artificial intelligence technology driving the chipmaking giant’s share price is “overhyped”.
The Florida-based firm, which manages about $70bn in assets, said in a recent letter to clients that the megacap technology stocks, particularly Nvidia, were in “bubble land” and it was “sceptical” that Big Tech companies would keep buying the chipmaker’s graphics processing units in such high volumes.
AI is “overhyped with many applications not ready for prime time”, Elliott wrote in the letter sent this week and seen by the Financial Times.
Many of AI’s supposed uses are “never going to be cost efficient, are never going to actually work right, will take up too much energy, or will prove to be untrustworthy”, it added.
Elliott declined to comment.
Its warning comes as chip stocks, which have enjoyed a huge rally driven by investor fervour over the potential for generative AI, take a tumble on concerns about whether big companies will continue to spend heavily on AI. Intel shares fell 20 per cent following the US market close on Thursday after the chipmaker revealed plans to cut about 15,000 jobs.
AI is the new Dotcom. It's a bubble that will probably burst quite soon; but it will also very likely transform the word economy over time.
China is probably now grateful that US sanctions prevented them from forking out many billions of dollars on bleeding edge chips, which will probably drop in price by an order of magnitude within the next couple of years.
Intel's woes are something of a separate issue. And they are probably a buy at somewhere around current levels; replicating their fab assets would probably cost at least a couple of times what the stockmarket says they're currently worth.
Our government should put in a bid.
Intel's woes are not due to AI or even missing the whole GPU boom but because their latest chips are reported to be slow and crash-prone. The problem with AI is it's very clever but how do the big tech firms monetise it? I can now ask ChatGPT questions via Bing and maybe even replace my human clickbait writers but Microsoft is not getting rich off that.
The same way as Google got super rich data and adverts. Also the same way Microsoft doesn't make any real money out of selling windows to the plebs these days, they basically give it away to the public or don't care about it being pirated. Its all about B2B, basically every company pays Microsoft for their tools, same as Adobe for creative things.
Also these LLM can be specialised and that is where the real value is. Already, in you are in software development and if you aren't paying for Claude, Github Copilot, Supermaven, you are costing yourself time and money. The free accounts don't give you anywhere near enough tokens to be smashing those services day in day out.
I write maybe 20% of my code now and I don't even do mainstream stuff, and I pay out $100+ a month on these services per person.
I take your point and you are correct. But my current job involves statistics, the supervision of other statisticians and advising non-statistical professionals ("please don't do that"). This requires me to be able to switch from theory to SAS to Stata to SPSS to R to Python and back again within minutes (not joking). Dedicated code production isn't my thing, so a standalone answer machine is what I need, not an integrated IDE extension. Microsoft Edge's CoPilot works best, with occasional digressions into perplexity.ai and deepai.org. So far it seems to be working out.
If we lost anonymity on social media, would it really be so bad? Worth a try. At the very least account owners should be known to the host.
Yes a lot of posters would not post at all regardless of their views because when you apply for a job most hr departements will look you up. Your view now be main stream...in 20 years will it still be who knows so why take the risk.
Voting is anonymous for the same reason....would you be happy if everyone could look at how you voted and use it to base whether to give you a job offer or not....for example a tory voting hiring manager not hiring you because you voted green?
If we lost anonymity on social media, would it really be so bad? Worth a try. At the very least account owners should be known to the host.
Yes a lot of posters would not post at all regardless of their views because when you apply for a job most hr departements will look you up. Your view now be main stream...in 20 years will it still be who knows so why take the risk.
Voting is anonymous for the same reason....would you be happy if everyone could look at how you voted and use it to base whether to give you a job offer or not....for example a tory voting hiring manager not hiring you because you voted green?
There’s anti discrimination laws to stop that happening.
If already in a job, difficult to prove at a job interview though
If we lost anonymity on social media, would it really be so bad? Worth a try. At the very least account owners should be known to the host.
I’ve pondered this for some time. I think my cautious view is yes it would help, but only with much clearer protections and guidelines for freedom of speech and expression and also thought would have to be had for situations where it genuinely is useful for someone to be anonymous - e.g seeking confidential advice or support due to domestic violence for instance.
Thankfully no one will ever get through my cunning disguise!
Thought was interesting how fast Starmer has pushed for expanded use of facial recognition. Labour party have historically been somewhere between very wary and absolutely against use of this technology, suggesting its a bit like stop and search, where issues with racial profiling etc.
Not really: Labour loves authoritarianism.
It's quite clear what we'll get from this administration, and it's similar to the last one: State, State and State.
Seems easier for some people here to throw the fascist card at Elon Musk than actually engage with the (pretty fascist) Labour policy proposal he is calling out.
I'll put my cards on the table: Tommy Robinson is a thug, and so are the motley crew that follow him, but one can't simply put every bit of disorder or protest that follows this as being down to the "far right" and then argue for massive increase in authoritarianism (which clearly Starmer gets off on) as a solution. That's just a cop out.
This happened because people suspected another cover-up was in play - no-one believed the " under 18 so anonymous" bullshit - and people are sick of being taken for fools and for "anti racism" and "community relations" (which only work one-way, bear in mind) being a bigger priority for the powers that be than the very real social and cultural problems brewing in some communities.
They should learn from it. In reality, they'll play the same old tune, only harder and stronger.
If the Rwandan 17 year old had turned out to be a Muslim, would ‘people’ have been justified in burning police vans and attacking mosques?
One of the sadder recent spectacles is conservatism/Conservatism abandoning a belief in personal responsibility for one’s actions. Perhaps it was always inclined that way and I just haven’t noticed.
That’s rather close to whataboutry
The simple fact is that the official statements on the matter inflamed an ugly situation.
The cure is to come up with better official statements to take the wind out of the sails of the EDL and other thugs.
As someone else on this thread has pointed out - the far right is small and splintered. Without useful idiots attaching themselves to such mobs, Yarxley-Lennon and chums will be outnumbered by the police.
I don’t have as much faith that “better official statements” will help. Robinson/Yaxley-Lennon was in the UK recently showing a film that he has been banned from doing so because it’s been found to be libellous. He knows it’s all lies, but he still showed it.
As with Trump and MAGA, they will believe what they want to believe. Robinson’s supporters were already agitating before the stabbing and they would have invented some other reason without it.
Musk’s Twitter doesn’t care about what’s true. It would have spread lies, however good you made the official statements.
We had people on PB who knew that the attack had nothing to do with Islam who still felt this was a great time to claim Muslims are problematic.
Sure, look at how official statements are made and think whether that could be improved, but the main problems here are poorly moderated social media and a far right, Islamophobic/anti-immigration movement. The cure is better moderation of social media, strong police action against perpetrators, and not excusing racism.
Moderation is of no use, when the message you want to project is feeble or non-existent.
Simply giving up the social media field to the scum is giving them a victory by default.
Get out, ahead of them, with the truth. Then push and amplify the truth.
Moderation of online disinformation generally works very well to reduce the spread of disinformation. This is not giving up the social media field to the scum: it is taking back the social media filed from the scum.
I hope you are joking....government moderation of anything about speech leads to censorship...we do it then saudi will demand the right and russia...and iran and the GOP in america. It will cause more issues than it solves.
I'm asking social media companies to moderate themselves.
Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and the GOP in the US do what they want anyway (but I like your grouping! a new axis of evil?).
Unfortunately the social media companies have a very poor record of moderating themselves, preferring to censor content based on ideology rather than correctness.
Apart from anything who do you trust to determine whats true....example
Country A does something x
People find out thing x happened....Country A denies x happened
Social media company has no way of verifying if x happened or not and even if it did was country A responsible for x or not
Now what should social media company do
1) delete all posts saying x happened 2) delete all posts saying x happened and its the fault of country a 3) let posts stand about x happening even though its disputed but delete all posts tying x happening to country A 4) throw up their hands and say we dont actually know the posts might be true or might not but we dont actually know for sure
I would rather stick with 4) as the lesser evil personally
Instead of your hypothetical example, can I suggest we consider a real example? After the Southport stabbing, a Russian disinformation site claimed that the attacker was called "Ali Al-Shakati". This claim got nearly 20 million views and led to rioting in multiple sites. Twitter eventually removed the original tweet.
What do you think should have happened?
1) Twitter should have done nothing, left the tweet up 2) Twitter should have removed the tweet sooner 3) Twitter got it just right
The courts should engage with individuals posting illegal material. It should be nothing to do with the “platform”.
See Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the US, for why this is really important.
So (1)?
Yes. It has nothing to do with Twitter as a company.
The people drawing the lines need to be actual judges, rather than random employees of social media companies, which we understood in recent years to collectively have a very specific world view.
If someone said X that was wrong, and that statement is causing problems, then a judge should ask person X to withdraw his comments and possibly make a statement to that effect.
Given the speed with which the courts move and issue over jurisdiction, that would mean the tweet would be up for months, or forever.
Your approach would have led to the tweet being more widely seen. This would likely have added to the riots. Does that concern you at all?
You’d be amazed at how quickly a judge can be made available on a Saturday afternoon, to spike a story about to appear in the Sunday press.
For how long did the likes of Huw Edwards, Jimmy Savile, Gary Glitter etc get away with it?
"A bomb that killed Ismail Haniyeh was planted two months ago. Haniyeh was known to have stayed in before, was detonated remotely once it was confirmed that the Haniyeh was inside the room."
If we lost anonymity on social media, would it really be so bad? Worth a try. At the very least account owners should be known to the host.
Yes a lot of posters would not post at all regardless of their views because when you apply for a job most hr departements will look you up. Your view now be main stream...in 20 years will it still be who knows so why take the risk.
Voting is anonymous for the same reason....would you be happy if everyone could look at how you voted and use it to base whether to give you a job offer or not....for example a tory voting hiring manager not hiring you because you voted green?
The comparison with voting is bogus IMO for all sorts of reasons, not least because you cannot spread lies or misinformation or manipulate people through the ballot box.
If you wouldn’t say it to someone’s face, maybe don’t say it. Free speech always has consequences.
People demanding moderation of social media really mean social media should only be allowed to post what I believe....they should be honest
What I believe is that sort of absolutist ad hominem attack is not a very helpful contribution to the debate, but I wouldn't want you to be blocked from making it.
Andrew Rosindell in the audience, a boost for Jenrick as I would have thought he would have gone for Priti.
Esther McVey introduced Jenrick so clearly in his camp now too
MEGA!
No, the Mega candidates are Patel and Badenoch. So far Jenrick very smooth, almost Blair and Cameron like, he speaks better than Starmer that is for sure if nothing else
"Blair and Cameron like"? More like the ghost of Peter Griffiths.
Griffiths of course won the Smethwick by election on a sensationally huge swing from Labour in 1964 and defeated the Shadow FS, even if he was not to everyone's tastes
He won on a particularly offensive ticket. Let's hope Jenrick isn't quite so cynical, although I have my doubts.
Thought was interesting how fast Starmer has pushed for expanded use of facial recognition. Labour party have historically been somewhere between very wary and absolutely against use of this technology, suggesting its a bit like stop and search, where issues with racial profiling etc.
Not really: Labour loves authoritarianism.
It's quite clear what we'll get from this administration, and it's similar to the last one: State, State and State.
Seems easier for some people here to throw the fascist card at Elon Musk than actually engage with the (pretty fascist) Labour policy proposal he is calling out.
I'll put my cards on the table: Tommy Robinson is a thug, and so are the motley crew that follow him, but one can't simply put every bit of disorder or protest that follows this as being down to the "far right" and then argue for massive increase in authoritarianism (which clearly Starmer gets off on) as a solution. That's just a cop out.
This happened because people suspected another cover-up was in play - no-one believed the " under 18 so anonymous" bullshit - and people are sick of being taken for fools and for "anti racism" and "community relations" (which only work one-way, bear in mind) being a bigger priority for the powers that be than the very real social and cultural problems brewing in some communities.
They should learn from it. In reality, they'll play the same old tune, only harder and stronger.
If the Rwandan 17 year old had turned out to be a Muslim, would ‘people’ have been justified in burning police vans and attacking mosques?
One of the sadder recent spectacles is conservatism/Conservatism abandoning a belief in personal responsibility for one’s actions. Perhaps it was always inclined that way and I just haven’t noticed.
That’s rather close to whataboutry
The simple fact is that the official statements on the matter inflamed an ugly situation.
The cure is to come up with better official statements to take the wind out of the sails of the EDL and other thugs.
As someone else on this thread has pointed out - the far right is small and splintered. Without useful idiots attaching themselves to such mobs, Yarxley-Lennon and chums will be outnumbered by the police.
I don’t have as much faith that “better official statements” will help. Robinson/Yaxley-Lennon was in the UK recently showing a film that he has been banned from doing so because it’s been found to be libellous. He knows it’s all lies, but he still showed it.
As with Trump and MAGA, they will believe what they want to believe. Robinson’s supporters were already agitating before the stabbing and they would have invented some other reason without it.
Musk’s Twitter doesn’t care about what’s true. It would have spread lies, however good you made the official statements.
We had people on PB who knew that the attack had nothing to do with Islam who still felt this was a great time to claim Muslims are problematic.
Sure, look at how official statements are made and think whether that could be improved, but the main problems here are poorly moderated social media and a far right, Islamophobic/anti-immigration movement. The cure is better moderation of social media, strong police action against perpetrators, and not excusing racism.
Moderation is of no use, when the message you want to project is feeble or non-existent.
Simply giving up the social media field to the scum is giving them a victory by default.
Get out, ahead of them, with the truth. Then push and amplify the truth.
Moderation of online disinformation generally works very well to reduce the spread of disinformation. This is not giving up the social media field to the scum: it is taking back the social media filed from the scum.
I hope you are joking....government moderation of anything about speech leads to censorship...we do it then saudi will demand the right and russia...and iran and the GOP in america. It will cause more issues than it solves.
I'm asking social media companies to moderate themselves.
Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and the GOP in the US do what they want anyway (but I like your grouping! a new axis of evil?).
Unfortunately the social media companies have a very poor record of moderating themselves, preferring to censor content based on ideology rather than correctness.
Apart from anything who do you trust to determine whats true....example
Country A does something x
People find out thing x happened....Country A denies x happened
Social media company has no way of verifying if x happened or not and even if it did was country A responsible for x or not
Now what should social media company do
1) delete all posts saying x happened 2) delete all posts saying x happened and its the fault of country a 3) let posts stand about x happening even though its disputed but delete all posts tying x happening to country A 4) throw up their hands and say we dont actually know the posts might be true or might not but we dont actually know for sure
I would rather stick with 4) as the lesser evil personally
Instead of your hypothetical example, can I suggest we consider a real example? After the Southport stabbing, a Russian disinformation site claimed that the attacker was called "Ali Al-Shakati". This claim got nearly 20 million views and led to rioting in multiple sites. Twitter eventually removed the original tweet.
What do you think should have happened?
1) Twitter should have done nothing, left the tweet up 2) Twitter should have removed the tweet sooner 3) Twitter got it just right
The courts should engage with individuals posting illegal material. It should be nothing to do with the “platform”.
See Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the US, for why this is really important.
So (1)?
Yes. It has nothing to do with Twitter as a company.
The people drawing the lines need to be actual judges, rather than random employees of social media companies, which we understood in recent years to collectively have a very specific world view.
If someone said X that was wrong, and that statement is causing problems, then a judge should ask person X to withdraw his comments and possibly make a statement to that effect, able to hold them in contempt of court for not doing so.
You're not really suggesting social media should be moderated only by judges, not by the people operating the website?
That's surely the craziest thing I've heard since Donald Trump last opened his mouth.
Social media’s own moderation should be limited to removing clearly illegal material posted, not making judgements on the rights or wrongs of the opinions of individuals posting to them.
You just said posts should be removed only on the instruction of a judge, "rather than random employees of social media companies".
Perhaps you need to stop posting for a while and think things out.
The Egyptian government withdrew 10 million dollars in cash from a branch bank in January 2017. Some investigators wonder whether that money went to the Loser, perhaps to reimburse him for the 10 milion he had given to his campaign in 2016.
Thought was interesting how fast Starmer has pushed for expanded use of facial recognition. Labour party have historically been somewhere between very wary and absolutely against use of this technology, suggesting its a bit like stop and search, where issues with racial profiling etc.
Not really: Labour loves authoritarianism.
It's quite clear what we'll get from this administration, and it's similar to the last one: State, State and State.
Seems easier for some people here to throw the fascist card at Elon Musk than actually engage with the (pretty fascist) Labour policy proposal he is calling out.
I'll put my cards on the table: Tommy Robinson is a thug, and so are the motley crew that follow him, but one can't simply put every bit of disorder or protest that follows this as being down to the "far right" and then argue for massive increase in authoritarianism (which clearly Starmer gets off on) as a solution. That's just a cop out.
This happened because people suspected another cover-up was in play - no-one believed the " under 18 so anonymous" bullshit - and people are sick of being taken for fools and for "anti racism" and "community relations" (which only work one-way, bear in mind) being a bigger priority for the powers that be than the very real social and cultural problems brewing in some communities.
They should learn from it. In reality, they'll play the same old tune, only harder and stronger.
If the Rwandan 17 year old had turned out to be a Muslim, would ‘people’ have been justified in burning police vans and attacking mosques?
One of the sadder recent spectacles is conservatism/Conservatism abandoning a belief in personal responsibility for one’s actions. Perhaps it was always inclined that way and I just haven’t noticed.
That’s rather close to whataboutry
The simple fact is that the official statements on the matter inflamed an ugly situation.
The cure is to come up with better official statements to take the wind out of the sails of the EDL and other thugs.
As someone else on this thread has pointed out - the far right is small and splintered. Without useful idiots attaching themselves to such mobs, Yarxley-Lennon and chums will be outnumbered by the police.
I don’t have as much faith that “better official statements” will help. Robinson/Yaxley-Lennon was in the UK recently showing a film that he has been banned from doing so because it’s been found to be libellous. He knows it’s all lies, but he still showed it.
As with Trump and MAGA, they will believe what they want to believe. Robinson’s supporters were already agitating before the stabbing and they would have invented some other reason without it.
Musk’s Twitter doesn’t care about what’s true. It would have spread lies, however good you made the official statements.
We had people on PB who knew that the attack had nothing to do with Islam who still felt this was a great time to claim Muslims are problematic.
Sure, look at how official statements are made and think whether that could be improved, but the main problems here are poorly moderated social media and a far right, Islamophobic/anti-immigration movement. The cure is better moderation of social media, strong police action against perpetrators, and not excusing racism.
Moderation is of no use, when the message you want to project is feeble or non-existent.
Simply giving up the social media field to the scum is giving them a victory by default.
Get out, ahead of them, with the truth. Then push and amplify the truth.
Moderation of online disinformation generally works very well to reduce the spread of disinformation. This is not giving up the social media field to the scum: it is taking back the social media filed from the scum.
I hope you are joking....government moderation of anything about speech leads to censorship...we do it then saudi will demand the right and russia...and iran and the GOP in america. It will cause more issues than it solves.
I'm asking social media companies to moderate themselves.
Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and the GOP in the US do what they want anyway (but I like your grouping! a new axis of evil?).
Unfortunately the social media companies have a very poor record of moderating themselves, preferring to censor content based on ideology rather than correctness.
Apart from anything who do you trust to determine whats true....example
Country A does something x
People find out thing x happened....Country A denies x happened
Social media company has no way of verifying if x happened or not and even if it did was country A responsible for x or not
Now what should social media company do
1) delete all posts saying x happened 2) delete all posts saying x happened and its the fault of country a 3) let posts stand about x happening even though its disputed but delete all posts tying x happening to country A 4) throw up their hands and say we dont actually know the posts might be true or might not but we dont actually know for sure
I would rather stick with 4) as the lesser evil personally
Instead of your hypothetical example, can I suggest we consider a real example? After the Southport stabbing, a Russian disinformation site claimed that the attacker was called "Ali Al-Shakati". This claim got nearly 20 million views and led to rioting in multiple sites. Twitter eventually removed the original tweet.
What do you think should have happened?
1) Twitter should have done nothing, left the tweet up 2) Twitter should have removed the tweet sooner 3) Twitter got it just right
The courts should engage with individuals posting illegal material. It should be nothing to do with the “platform”.
See Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the US, for why this is really important.
So (1)?
Yes. It has nothing to do with Twitter as a company.
The people drawing the lines need to be actual judges, rather than random employees of social media companies, which we understood in recent years to collectively have a very specific world view.
If someone said X that was wrong, and that statement is causing problems, then a judge should ask person X to withdraw his comments and possibly make a statement to that effect.
Given the speed with which the courts move and issue over jurisdiction, that would mean the tweet would be up for months, or forever.
Your approach would have led to the tweet being more widely seen. This would likely have added to the riots. Does that concern you at all?
You’d be amazed at how quickly a judge can be made available on a Saturday afternoon, to spike a story about to appear in the Sunday press.
An example working on timelines of a day isn't much help. If only the Southport rioting had been so slow to develop! Events moved in hours. Nor have you solved the problem of jurisdiction.
If we lost anonymity on social media, would it really be so bad? Worth a try. At the very least account owners should be known to the host.
Yes a lot of posters would not post at all regardless of their views because when you apply for a job most hr departements will look you up. Your view now be main stream...in 20 years will it still be who knows so why take the risk.
Voting is anonymous for the same reason....would you be happy if everyone could look at how you voted and use it to base whether to give you a job offer or not....for example a tory voting hiring manager not hiring you because you voted green?
There’s anti discrimination laws to stop that happening.
Yeah right and how do you prove you didn't get the job because you vote tory/labour/lib dem/green etc ? I doubt very much people googling you record it
Hedge funds are wise, they are nearly as brilliant as lawyers, heed their words. AI is the new AOL Time Warner.
Elliott says Nvidia is in a ‘bubble’ and AI is ‘overhyped’
Hedge fund tells clients many supposed applications of the technology are ‘never going to actually work’
Hedge fund Elliott Management has told investors that Nvidia is in a “bubble”, and the artificial intelligence technology driving the chipmaking giant’s share price is “overhyped”.
The Florida-based firm, which manages about $70bn in assets, said in a recent letter to clients that the megacap technology stocks, particularly Nvidia, were in “bubble land” and it was “sceptical” that Big Tech companies would keep buying the chipmaker’s graphics processing units in such high volumes.
AI is “overhyped with many applications not ready for prime time”, Elliott wrote in the letter sent this week and seen by the Financial Times.
Many of AI’s supposed uses are “never going to be cost efficient, are never going to actually work right, will take up too much energy, or will prove to be untrustworthy”, it added.
Elliott declined to comment.
Its warning comes as chip stocks, which have enjoyed a huge rally driven by investor fervour over the potential for generative AI, take a tumble on concerns about whether big companies will continue to spend heavily on AI. Intel shares fell 20 per cent following the US market close on Thursday after the chipmaker revealed plans to cut about 15,000 jobs.
AI is the new Dotcom. It's a bubble that will probably burst quite soon; but it will also very likely transform the word economy over time.
China is probably now grateful that US sanctions prevented them from forking out many billions of dollars on bleeding edge chips, which will probably drop in price by an order of magnitude within the next couple of years.
Intel's woes are something of a separate issue. And they are probably a buy at somewhere around current levels; replicating their fab assets would probably cost at least a couple of times what the stockmarket says they're currently worth.
Our government should put in a bid.
Intel's woes are not due to AI or even missing the whole GPU boom but because their latest chips are reported to be slow and crash-prone. The problem with AI is it's very clever but how do the big tech firms monetise it? I can now ask ChatGPT questions via Bing and maybe even replace my human clickbait writers but Microsoft is not getting rich off that.
The same way as Google got super rich data and adverts. Also the same way Microsoft doesn't make any real money out of selling windows to the plebs these days, they basically give it away to the public or don't care about it being pirated. Its all about B2B, basically every company pays Microsoft for their tools, same as Adobe for creative things.
Also these LLM can be specialised and that is where the real value is. Already, in you are in software development and if you aren't paying for Claude, Github Copilot, Supermaven, you are costing yourself time and money. The free accounts don't give you anywhere near enough tokens to be smashing those services day in day out.
I write maybe 20% of my code now and I don't even do mainstream stuff, and I pay out $100+ a month on these services per person.
I take your point and you are correct. But my current job involves statistics, the supervision of other statisticians and advising non-statistical professionals ("please don't do that"). This requires me to be able to switch from theory to SAS to Stata to SPSS to R to Python and back again within minutes (not joking). Dedicated code production isn't my thing, so a standalone answer machine is what I need, not an integrated IDE extension. Microsoft Edge's CoPilot works best, with occasional digressions into perplexity.ai and deepai.org. So far it seems to be working out.
Claude is excellent at producing code from theory and transforming one coding language to another etc, that is why I mentioned it. I use a lot of that, then all the predict / autocomplete from the likes of Supermaven in IDE.
Thought was interesting how fast Starmer has pushed for expanded use of facial recognition. Labour party have historically been somewhere between very wary and absolutely against use of this technology, suggesting its a bit like stop and search, where issues with racial profiling etc.
Not really: Labour loves authoritarianism.
It's quite clear what we'll get from this administration, and it's similar to the last one: State, State and State.
Seems easier for some people here to throw the fascist card at Elon Musk than actually engage with the (pretty fascist) Labour policy proposal he is calling out.
I'll put my cards on the table: Tommy Robinson is a thug, and so are the motley crew that follow him, but one can't simply put every bit of disorder or protest that follows this as being down to the "far right" and then argue for massive increase in authoritarianism (which clearly Starmer gets off on) as a solution. That's just a cop out.
This happened because people suspected another cover-up was in play - no-one believed the " under 18 so anonymous" bullshit - and people are sick of being taken for fools and for "anti racism" and "community relations" (which only work one-way, bear in mind) being a bigger priority for the powers that be than the very real social and cultural problems brewing in some communities.
They should learn from it. In reality, they'll play the same old tune, only harder and stronger.
If the Rwandan 17 year old had turned out to be a Muslim, would ‘people’ have been justified in burning police vans and attacking mosques?
One of the sadder recent spectacles is conservatism/Conservatism abandoning a belief in personal responsibility for one’s actions. Perhaps it was always inclined that way and I just haven’t noticed.
That’s rather close to whataboutry
The simple fact is that the official statements on the matter inflamed an ugly situation.
The cure is to come up with better official statements to take the wind out of the sails of the EDL and other thugs.
As someone else on this thread has pointed out - the far right is small and splintered. Without useful idiots attaching themselves to such mobs, Yarxley-Lennon and chums will be outnumbered by the police.
I don’t have as much faith that “better official statements” will help. Robinson/Yaxley-Lennon was in the UK recently showing a film that he has been banned from doing so because it’s been found to be libellous. He knows it’s all lies, but he still showed it.
As with Trump and MAGA, they will believe what they want to believe. Robinson’s supporters were already agitating before the stabbing and they would have invented some other reason without it.
Musk’s Twitter doesn’t care about what’s true. It would have spread lies, however good you made the official statements.
We had people on PB who knew that the attack had nothing to do with Islam who still felt this was a great time to claim Muslims are problematic.
Sure, look at how official statements are made and think whether that could be improved, but the main problems here are poorly moderated social media and a far right, Islamophobic/anti-immigration movement. The cure is better moderation of social media, strong police action against perpetrators, and not excusing racism.
Moderation is of no use, when the message you want to project is feeble or non-existent.
Simply giving up the social media field to the scum is giving them a victory by default.
Get out, ahead of them, with the truth. Then push and amplify the truth.
Moderation of online disinformation generally works very well to reduce the spread of disinformation. This is not giving up the social media field to the scum: it is taking back the social media filed from the scum.
I hope you are joking....government moderation of anything about speech leads to censorship...we do it then saudi will demand the right and russia...and iran and the GOP in america. It will cause more issues than it solves.
I'm asking social media companies to moderate themselves.
Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and the GOP in the US do what they want anyway (but I like your grouping! a new axis of evil?).
Unfortunately the social media companies have a very poor record of moderating themselves, preferring to censor content based on ideology rather than correctness.
Apart from anything who do you trust to determine whats true....example
Country A does something x
People find out thing x happened....Country A denies x happened
Social media company has no way of verifying if x happened or not and even if it did was country A responsible for x or not
Now what should social media company do
1) delete all posts saying x happened 2) delete all posts saying x happened and its the fault of country a 3) let posts stand about x happening even though its disputed but delete all posts tying x happening to country A 4) throw up their hands and say we dont actually know the posts might be true or might not but we dont actually know for sure
I would rather stick with 4) as the lesser evil personally
Instead of your hypothetical example, can I suggest we consider a real example? After the Southport stabbing, a Russian disinformation site claimed that the attacker was called "Ali Al-Shakati". This claim got nearly 20 million views and led to rioting in multiple sites. Twitter eventually removed the original tweet.
What do you think should have happened?
1) Twitter should have done nothing, left the tweet up 2) Twitter should have removed the tweet sooner 3) Twitter got it just right
The courts should engage with individuals posting illegal material. It should be nothing to do with the “platform”.
See Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the US, for why this is really important.
So (1)?
Yes. It has nothing to do with Twitter as a company.
The people drawing the lines need to be actual judges, rather than random employees of social media companies, which we understood in recent years to collectively have a very specific world view.
If someone said X that was wrong, and that statement is causing problems, then a judge should ask person X to withdraw his comments and possibly make a statement to that effect, able to hold them in contempt of court for not doing so.
You're not really suggesting social media should be moderated only by judges, not by the people operating the website?
That's surely the craziest thing I've heard since Donald Trump last opened his mouth.
Social media’s own moderation should be limited to removing clearly illegal material posted, not making judgements on the rights or wrongs of the opinions of individuals posting to them.
You just said posts should be removed only on the instruction of a judge, "rather than random employees of social media companies".
Perhaps you need to stop posting for a while and think things out.
Err, nope.
Posts should be removed by individuals on the order of a judge, the platforms should have nothing to do with it except to enable posts to be deleted in connection with a court order.
The previous problem was the likes of Twitter hiring a bunch of twentysomethings in California as moderators, with what should have been an obvious bias in their moderation.
Thought was interesting how fast Starmer has pushed for expanded use of facial recognition. Labour party have historically been somewhere between very wary and absolutely against use of this technology, suggesting its a bit like stop and search, where issues with racial profiling etc.
Not really: Labour loves authoritarianism.
It's quite clear what we'll get from this administration, and it's similar to the last one: State, State and State.
Seems easier for some people here to throw the fascist card at Elon Musk than actually engage with the (pretty fascist) Labour policy proposal he is calling out.
I'll put my cards on the table: Tommy Robinson is a thug, and so are the motley crew that follow him, but one can't simply put every bit of disorder or protest that follows this as being down to the "far right" and then argue for massive increase in authoritarianism (which clearly Starmer gets off on) as a solution. That's just a cop out.
This happened because people suspected another cover-up was in play - no-one believed the " under 18 so anonymous" bullshit - and people are sick of being taken for fools and for "anti racism" and "community relations" (which only work one-way, bear in mind) being a bigger priority for the powers that be than the very real social and cultural problems brewing in some communities.
They should learn from it. In reality, they'll play the same old tune, only harder and stronger.
If the Rwandan 17 year old had turned out to be a Muslim, would ‘people’ have been justified in burning police vans and attacking mosques?
One of the sadder recent spectacles is conservatism/Conservatism abandoning a belief in personal responsibility for one’s actions. Perhaps it was always inclined that way and I just haven’t noticed.
That’s rather close to whataboutry
The simple fact is that the official statements on the matter inflamed an ugly situation.
The cure is to come up with better official statements to take the wind out of the sails of the EDL and other thugs.
As someone else on this thread has pointed out - the far right is small and splintered. Without useful idiots attaching themselves to such mobs, Yarxley-Lennon and chums will be outnumbered by the police.
I don’t have as much faith that “better official statements” will help. Robinson/Yaxley-Lennon was in the UK recently showing a film that he has been banned from doing so because it’s been found to be libellous. He knows it’s all lies, but he still showed it.
As with Trump and MAGA, they will believe what they want to believe. Robinson’s supporters were already agitating before the stabbing and they would have invented some other reason without it.
Musk’s Twitter doesn’t care about what’s true. It would have spread lies, however good you made the official statements.
We had people on PB who knew that the attack had nothing to do with Islam who still felt this was a great time to claim Muslims are problematic.
Sure, look at how official statements are made and think whether that could be improved, but the main problems here are poorly moderated social media and a far right, Islamophobic/anti-immigration movement. The cure is better moderation of social media, strong police action against perpetrators, and not excusing racism.
Moderation is of no use, when the message you want to project is feeble or non-existent.
Simply giving up the social media field to the scum is giving them a victory by default.
Get out, ahead of them, with the truth. Then push and amplify the truth.
Moderation of online disinformation generally works very well to reduce the spread of disinformation. This is not giving up the social media field to the scum: it is taking back the social media filed from the scum.
I hope you are joking....government moderation of anything about speech leads to censorship...we do it then saudi will demand the right and russia...and iran and the GOP in america. It will cause more issues than it solves.
I'm asking social media companies to moderate themselves.
Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and the GOP in the US do what they want anyway (but I like your grouping! a new axis of evil?).
Unfortunately the social media companies have a very poor record of moderating themselves, preferring to censor content based on ideology rather than correctness.
Apart from anything who do you trust to determine whats true....example
Country A does something x
People find out thing x happened....Country A denies x happened
Social media company has no way of verifying if x happened or not and even if it did was country A responsible for x or not
Now what should social media company do
1) delete all posts saying x happened 2) delete all posts saying x happened and its the fault of country a 3) let posts stand about x happening even though its disputed but delete all posts tying x happening to country A 4) throw up their hands and say we dont actually know the posts might be true or might not but we dont actually know for sure
I would rather stick with 4) as the lesser evil personally
Instead of your hypothetical example, can I suggest we consider a real example? After the Southport stabbing, a Russian disinformation site claimed that the attacker was called "Ali Al-Shakati". This claim got nearly 20 million views and led to rioting in multiple sites. Twitter eventually removed the original tweet.
What do you think should have happened?
1) Twitter should have done nothing, left the tweet up 2) Twitter should have removed the tweet sooner 3) Twitter got it just right
The courts should engage with individuals posting illegal material. It should be nothing to do with the “platform”.
See Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the US, for why this is really important.
So (1)?
Yes. It has nothing to do with Twitter as a company.
The people drawing the lines need to be actual judges, rather than random employees of social media companies, which we understood in recent years to collectively have a very specific world view.
If someone said X that was wrong, and that statement is causing problems, then a judge should ask person X to withdraw his comments and possibly make a statement to that effect.
Given the speed with which the courts move and issue over jurisdiction, that would mean the tweet would be up for months, or forever.
Your approach would have led to the tweet being more widely seen. This would likely have added to the riots. Does that concern you at all?
You’d be amazed at how quickly a judge can be made available on a Saturday afternoon, to spike a story about to appear in the Sunday press.
For how long did the likes of Huw Edwards, Jimmy Savile, Gary Glitter etc get away with it?
I don't see what Huw Edwards has to do with it.
Also, most Russian disinformation isn't illegal. You want a world with much more Russian disinformation in it.
People demanding moderation of social media really mean social media should only be allowed to post what I believe....they should be honest
What I believe is that sort of absolutist ad hominem attack is not a very helpful contribution to the debate, but I wouldn't want you to be blocked from making it.
How is it ad hominem when I didn't mention any one in particular....you for example want people to post only what you deem true, under the same system I would want them to believe is true....the two truths will often have failures to overlap....thats not ad hominem it is a simple fact of life.
Difference is I am not asking social media to delete stuff that I believe untrue
In the US, our social media has the legal privileges of publishers, without the legal responsibilities. If there is a clear solution to that, it has escaped me.
Thought was interesting how fast Starmer has pushed for expanded use of facial recognition. Labour party have historically been somewhere between very wary and absolutely against use of this technology, suggesting its a bit like stop and search, where issues with racial profiling etc.
Not really: Labour loves authoritarianism.
It's quite clear what we'll get from this administration, and it's similar to the last one: State, State and State.
Seems easier for some people here to throw the fascist card at Elon Musk than actually engage with the (pretty fascist) Labour policy proposal he is calling out.
I'll put my cards on the table: Tommy Robinson is a thug, and so are the motley crew that follow him, but one can't simply put every bit of disorder or protest that follows this as being down to the "far right" and then argue for massive increase in authoritarianism (which clearly Starmer gets off on) as a solution. That's just a cop out.
This happened because people suspected another cover-up was in play - no-one believed the " under 18 so anonymous" bullshit - and people are sick of being taken for fools and for "anti racism" and "community relations" (which only work one-way, bear in mind) being a bigger priority for the powers that be than the very real social and cultural problems brewing in some communities.
They should learn from it. In reality, they'll play the same old tune, only harder and stronger.
If the Rwandan 17 year old had turned out to be a Muslim, would ‘people’ have been justified in burning police vans and attacking mosques?
One of the sadder recent spectacles is conservatism/Conservatism abandoning a belief in personal responsibility for one’s actions. Perhaps it was always inclined that way and I just haven’t noticed.
That’s rather close to whataboutry
The simple fact is that the official statements on the matter inflamed an ugly situation.
The cure is to come up with better official statements to take the wind out of the sails of the EDL and other thugs.
As someone else on this thread has pointed out - the far right is small and splintered. Without useful idiots attaching themselves to such mobs, Yarxley-Lennon and chums will be outnumbered by the police.
I don’t have as much faith that “better official statements” will help. Robinson/Yaxley-Lennon was in the UK recently showing a film that he has been banned from doing so because it’s been found to be libellous. He knows it’s all lies, but he still showed it.
As with Trump and MAGA, they will believe what they want to believe. Robinson’s supporters were already agitating before the stabbing and they would have invented some other reason without it.
Musk’s Twitter doesn’t care about what’s true. It would have spread lies, however good you made the official statements.
We had people on PB who knew that the attack had nothing to do with Islam who still felt this was a great time to claim Muslims are problematic.
Sure, look at how official statements are made and think whether that could be improved, but the main problems here are poorly moderated social media and a far right, Islamophobic/anti-immigration movement. The cure is better moderation of social media, strong police action against perpetrators, and not excusing racism.
Moderation is of no use, when the message you want to project is feeble or non-existent.
Simply giving up the social media field to the scum is giving them a victory by default.
Get out, ahead of them, with the truth. Then push and amplify the truth.
Moderation of online disinformation generally works very well to reduce the spread of disinformation. This is not giving up the social media field to the scum: it is taking back the social media filed from the scum.
I hope you are joking....government moderation of anything about speech leads to censorship...we do it then saudi will demand the right and russia...and iran and the GOP in america. It will cause more issues than it solves.
I'm asking social media companies to moderate themselves.
Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and the GOP in the US do what they want anyway (but I like your grouping! a new axis of evil?).
Unfortunately the social media companies have a very poor record of moderating themselves, preferring to censor content based on ideology rather than correctness.
Apart from anything who do you trust to determine whats true....example
Country A does something x
People find out thing x happened....Country A denies x happened
Social media company has no way of verifying if x happened or not and even if it did was country A responsible for x or not
Now what should social media company do
1) delete all posts saying x happened 2) delete all posts saying x happened and its the fault of country a 3) let posts stand about x happening even though its disputed but delete all posts tying x happening to country A 4) throw up their hands and say we dont actually know the posts might be true or might not but we dont actually know for sure
I would rather stick with 4) as the lesser evil personally
Instead of your hypothetical example, can I suggest we consider a real example? After the Southport stabbing, a Russian disinformation site claimed that the attacker was called "Ali Al-Shakati". This claim got nearly 20 million views and led to rioting in multiple sites. Twitter eventually removed the original tweet.
What do you think should have happened?
1) Twitter should have done nothing, left the tweet up 2) Twitter should have removed the tweet sooner 3) Twitter got it just right
The courts should engage with individuals posting illegal material. It should be nothing to do with the “platform”.
See Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the US, for why this is really important.
So (1)?
Yes. It has nothing to do with Twitter as a company.
The people drawing the lines need to be actual judges, rather than random employees of social media companies, which we understood in recent years to collectively have a very specific world view.
If someone said X that was wrong, and that statement is causing problems, then a judge should ask person X to withdraw his comments and possibly make a statement to that effect.
Given the speed with which the courts move and issue over jurisdiction, that would mean the tweet would be up for months, or forever.
Your approach would have led to the tweet being more widely seen. This would likely have added to the riots. Does that concern you at all?
You’d be amazed at how quickly a judge can be made available on a Saturday afternoon, to spike a story about to appear in the Sunday press.
For how long did the likes of Huw Edwards, Jimmy Savile, Gary Glitter etc get away with it?
I don't see what Huw Edwards has to do with it.
Also, most Russian disinformation isn't illegal. You want a world with much more Russian disinformation in it.
Well allow a Community Note, that this appears to be a Russian source making Russian talking points, and not the Brit or American they purport themselves to be.
Thought was interesting how fast Starmer has pushed for expanded use of facial recognition. Labour party have historically been somewhere between very wary and absolutely against use of this technology, suggesting its a bit like stop and search, where issues with racial profiling etc.
Not really: Labour loves authoritarianism.
It's quite clear what we'll get from this administration, and it's similar to the last one: State, State and State.
Seems easier for some people here to throw the fascist card at Elon Musk than actually engage with the (pretty fascist) Labour policy proposal he is calling out.
I'll put my cards on the table: Tommy Robinson is a thug, and so are the motley crew that follow him, but one can't simply put every bit of disorder or protest that follows this as being down to the "far right" and then argue for massive increase in authoritarianism (which clearly Starmer gets off on) as a solution. That's just a cop out.
This happened because people suspected another cover-up was in play - no-one believed the " under 18 so anonymous" bullshit - and people are sick of being taken for fools and for "anti racism" and "community relations" (which only work one-way, bear in mind) being a bigger priority for the powers that be than the very real social and cultural problems brewing in some communities.
They should learn from it. In reality, they'll play the same old tune, only harder and stronger.
If the Rwandan 17 year old had turned out to be a Muslim, would ‘people’ have been justified in burning police vans and attacking mosques?
One of the sadder recent spectacles is conservatism/Conservatism abandoning a belief in personal responsibility for one’s actions. Perhaps it was always inclined that way and I just haven’t noticed.
That’s rather close to whataboutry
The simple fact is that the official statements on the matter inflamed an ugly situation.
The cure is to come up with better official statements to take the wind out of the sails of the EDL and other thugs.
As someone else on this thread has pointed out - the far right is small and splintered. Without useful idiots attaching themselves to such mobs, Yarxley-Lennon and chums will be outnumbered by the police.
I don’t have as much faith that “better official statements” will help. Robinson/Yaxley-Lennon was in the UK recently showing a film that he has been banned from doing so because it’s been found to be libellous. He knows it’s all lies, but he still showed it.
As with Trump and MAGA, they will believe what they want to believe. Robinson’s supporters were already agitating before the stabbing and they would have invented some other reason without it.
Musk’s Twitter doesn’t care about what’s true. It would have spread lies, however good you made the official statements.
We had people on PB who knew that the attack had nothing to do with Islam who still felt this was a great time to claim Muslims are problematic.
Sure, look at how official statements are made and think whether that could be improved, but the main problems here are poorly moderated social media and a far right, Islamophobic/anti-immigration movement. The cure is better moderation of social media, strong police action against perpetrators, and not excusing racism.
Moderation is of no use, when the message you want to project is feeble or non-existent.
Simply giving up the social media field to the scum is giving them a victory by default.
Get out, ahead of them, with the truth. Then push and amplify the truth.
Moderation of online disinformation generally works very well to reduce the spread of disinformation. This is not giving up the social media field to the scum: it is taking back the social media filed from the scum.
I hope you are joking....government moderation of anything about speech leads to censorship...we do it then saudi will demand the right and russia...and iran and the GOP in america. It will cause more issues than it solves.
I'm asking social media companies to moderate themselves.
Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and the GOP in the US do what they want anyway (but I like your grouping! a new axis of evil?).
Unfortunately the social media companies have a very poor record of moderating themselves, preferring to censor content based on ideology rather than correctness.
Apart from anything who do you trust to determine whats true....example
Country A does something x
People find out thing x happened....Country A denies x happened
Social media company has no way of verifying if x happened or not and even if it did was country A responsible for x or not
Now what should social media company do
1) delete all posts saying x happened 2) delete all posts saying x happened and its the fault of country a 3) let posts stand about x happening even though its disputed but delete all posts tying x happening to country A 4) throw up their hands and say we dont actually know the posts might be true or might not but we dont actually know for sure
I would rather stick with 4) as the lesser evil personally
Instead of your hypothetical example, can I suggest we consider a real example? After the Southport stabbing, a Russian disinformation site claimed that the attacker was called "Ali Al-Shakati". This claim got nearly 20 million views and led to rioting in multiple sites. Twitter eventually removed the original tweet.
What do you think should have happened?
1) Twitter should have done nothing, left the tweet up 2) Twitter should have removed the tweet sooner 3) Twitter got it just right
The courts should engage with individuals posting illegal material. It should be nothing to do with the “platform”.
See Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the US, for why this is really important.
So (1)?
Yes. It has nothing to do with Twitter as a company.
The people drawing the lines need to be actual judges, rather than random employees of social media companies, which we understood in recent years to collectively have a very specific world view.
If someone said X that was wrong, and that statement is causing problems, then a judge should ask person X to withdraw his comments and possibly make a statement to that effect, able to hold them in contempt of court for not doing so.
So when the man calling himself Tommy Robinson posts from Ireland what does a British judge do?
Thought was interesting how fast Starmer has pushed for expanded use of facial recognition. Labour party have historically been somewhere between very wary and absolutely against use of this technology, suggesting its a bit like stop and search, where issues with racial profiling etc.
Not really: Labour loves authoritarianism.
It's quite clear what we'll get from this administration, and it's similar to the last one: State, State and State.
Seems easier for some people here to throw the fascist card at Elon Musk than actually engage with the (pretty fascist) Labour policy proposal he is calling out.
I'll put my cards on the table: Tommy Robinson is a thug, and so are the motley crew that follow him, but one can't simply put every bit of disorder or protest that follows this as being down to the "far right" and then argue for massive increase in authoritarianism (which clearly Starmer gets off on) as a solution. That's just a cop out.
This happened because people suspected another cover-up was in play - no-one believed the " under 18 so anonymous" bullshit - and people are sick of being taken for fools and for "anti racism" and "community relations" (which only work one-way, bear in mind) being a bigger priority for the powers that be than the very real social and cultural problems brewing in some communities.
They should learn from it. In reality, they'll play the same old tune, only harder and stronger.
If the Rwandan 17 year old had turned out to be a Muslim, would ‘people’ have been justified in burning police vans and attacking mosques?
One of the sadder recent spectacles is conservatism/Conservatism abandoning a belief in personal responsibility for one’s actions. Perhaps it was always inclined that way and I just haven’t noticed.
That’s rather close to whataboutry
The simple fact is that the official statements on the matter inflamed an ugly situation.
The cure is to come up with better official statements to take the wind out of the sails of the EDL and other thugs.
As someone else on this thread has pointed out - the far right is small and splintered. Without useful idiots attaching themselves to such mobs, Yarxley-Lennon and chums will be outnumbered by the police.
I don’t have as much faith that “better official statements” will help. Robinson/Yaxley-Lennon was in the UK recently showing a film that he has been banned from doing so because it’s been found to be libellous. He knows it’s all lies, but he still showed it.
As with Trump and MAGA, they will believe what they want to believe. Robinson’s supporters were already agitating before the stabbing and they would have invented some other reason without it.
Musk’s Twitter doesn’t care about what’s true. It would have spread lies, however good you made the official statements.
We had people on PB who knew that the attack had nothing to do with Islam who still felt this was a great time to claim Muslims are problematic.
Sure, look at how official statements are made and think whether that could be improved, but the main problems here are poorly moderated social media and a far right, Islamophobic/anti-immigration movement. The cure is better moderation of social media, strong police action against perpetrators, and not excusing racism.
Moderation is of no use, when the message you want to project is feeble or non-existent.
Simply giving up the social media field to the scum is giving them a victory by default.
Get out, ahead of them, with the truth. Then push and amplify the truth.
Moderation of online disinformation generally works very well to reduce the spread of disinformation. This is not giving up the social media field to the scum: it is taking back the social media filed from the scum.
I hope you are joking....government moderation of anything about speech leads to censorship...we do it then saudi will demand the right and russia...and iran and the GOP in america. It will cause more issues than it solves.
I'm asking social media companies to moderate themselves.
Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and the GOP in the US do what they want anyway (but I like your grouping! a new axis of evil?).
Unfortunately the social media companies have a very poor record of moderating themselves, preferring to censor content based on ideology rather than correctness.
Apart from anything who do you trust to determine whats true....example
Country A does something x
People find out thing x happened....Country A denies x happened
Social media company has no way of verifying if x happened or not and even if it did was country A responsible for x or not
Now what should social media company do
1) delete all posts saying x happened 2) delete all posts saying x happened and its the fault of country a 3) let posts stand about x happening even though its disputed but delete all posts tying x happening to country A 4) throw up their hands and say we dont actually know the posts might be true or might not but we dont actually know for sure
I would rather stick with 4) as the lesser evil personally
Instead of your hypothetical example, can I suggest we consider a real example? After the Southport stabbing, a Russian disinformation site claimed that the attacker was called "Ali Al-Shakati". This claim got nearly 20 million views and led to rioting in multiple sites. Twitter eventually removed the original tweet.
What do you think should have happened?
1) Twitter should have done nothing, left the tweet up 2) Twitter should have removed the tweet sooner 3) Twitter got it just right
The courts should engage with individuals posting illegal material. It should be nothing to do with the “platform”.
See Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the US, for why this is really important.
So (1)?
Yes. It has nothing to do with Twitter as a company.
The people drawing the lines need to be actual judges, rather than random employees of social media companies, which we understood in recent years to collectively have a very specific world view.
If someone said X that was wrong, and that statement is causing problems, then a judge should ask person X to withdraw his comments and possibly make a statement to that effect.
Given the speed with which the courts move and issue over jurisdiction, that would mean the tweet would be up for months, or forever.
Your approach would have led to the tweet being more widely seen. This would likely have added to the riots. Does that concern you at all?
You’d be amazed at how quickly a judge can be made available on a Saturday afternoon, to spike a story about to appear in the Sunday press.
For how long did the likes of Huw Edwards, Jimmy Savile, Gary Glitter etc get away with it?
I find your position incredible. Posts spread incredibly fast, and the bots manyfold. It is far from uncommon to see the exact same posts - to the word - being spread by multiple accounts, sometimes within seconds of each other.
Would you have the judge spike out stories by every one individually? You do realise that bots can multiply faster than a judge can sign a document?
In which case, it can only be handled by the distributing organisation - i.e. the social media orgs.
People demanding moderation of social media really mean social media should only be allowed to post what I believe....they should be honest
What I believe is that sort of absolutist ad hominem attack is not a very helpful contribution to the debate, but I wouldn't want you to be blocked from making it.
How is it ad hominem when I didn't mention any one in particular....you for example want people to post only what you deem true, under the same system I would want them to believe is true....the two truths will often have failures to overlap....thats not ad hominem it is a simple fact of life.
Difference is I am not asking social media to delete stuff that I believe untrue
I don't "want people to post only what [I] deem true", nor do I want "social media to delete stuff that I believe untrue". I do want social media to suppress material like that we saw before the Southport riot.
I asked you about what happened in the Southport case. Sandpit kindly answered, but I don't think you have. Do you think Twitter should have left up the Russian disinformation blaming a Muslim? Or done more to take those posts down?
Thought was interesting how fast Starmer has pushed for expanded use of facial recognition. Labour party have historically been somewhere between very wary and absolutely against use of this technology, suggesting its a bit like stop and search, where issues with racial profiling etc.
Not really: Labour loves authoritarianism.
It's quite clear what we'll get from this administration, and it's similar to the last one: State, State and State.
Seems easier for some people here to throw the fascist card at Elon Musk than actually engage with the (pretty fascist) Labour policy proposal he is calling out.
I'll put my cards on the table: Tommy Robinson is a thug, and so are the motley crew that follow him, but one can't simply put every bit of disorder or protest that follows this as being down to the "far right" and then argue for massive increase in authoritarianism (which clearly Starmer gets off on) as a solution. That's just a cop out.
This happened because people suspected another cover-up was in play - no-one believed the " under 18 so anonymous" bullshit - and people are sick of being taken for fools and for "anti racism" and "community relations" (which only work one-way, bear in mind) being a bigger priority for the powers that be than the very real social and cultural problems brewing in some communities.
They should learn from it. In reality, they'll play the same old tune, only harder and stronger.
If the Rwandan 17 year old had turned out to be a Muslim, would ‘people’ have been justified in burning police vans and attacking mosques?
One of the sadder recent spectacles is conservatism/Conservatism abandoning a belief in personal responsibility for one’s actions. Perhaps it was always inclined that way and I just haven’t noticed.
That’s rather close to whataboutry
The simple fact is that the official statements on the matter inflamed an ugly situation.
The cure is to come up with better official statements to take the wind out of the sails of the EDL and other thugs.
As someone else on this thread has pointed out - the far right is small and splintered. Without useful idiots attaching themselves to such mobs, Yarxley-Lennon and chums will be outnumbered by the police.
I don’t have as much faith that “better official statements” will help. Robinson/Yaxley-Lennon was in the UK recently showing a film that he has been banned from doing so because it’s been found to be libellous. He knows it’s all lies, but he still showed it.
As with Trump and MAGA, they will believe what they want to believe. Robinson’s supporters were already agitating before the stabbing and they would have invented some other reason without it.
Musk’s Twitter doesn’t care about what’s true. It would have spread lies, however good you made the official statements.
We had people on PB who knew that the attack had nothing to do with Islam who still felt this was a great time to claim Muslims are problematic.
Sure, look at how official statements are made and think whether that could be improved, but the main problems here are poorly moderated social media and a far right, Islamophobic/anti-immigration movement. The cure is better moderation of social media, strong police action against perpetrators, and not excusing racism.
Moderation is of no use, when the message you want to project is feeble or non-existent.
Simply giving up the social media field to the scum is giving them a victory by default.
Get out, ahead of them, with the truth. Then push and amplify the truth.
Moderation of online disinformation generally works very well to reduce the spread of disinformation. This is not giving up the social media field to the scum: it is taking back the social media filed from the scum.
I hope you are joking....government moderation of anything about speech leads to censorship...we do it then saudi will demand the right and russia...and iran and the GOP in america. It will cause more issues than it solves.
I'm asking social media companies to moderate themselves.
Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and the GOP in the US do what they want anyway (but I like your grouping! a new axis of evil?).
Unfortunately the social media companies have a very poor record of moderating themselves, preferring to censor content based on ideology rather than correctness.
Apart from anything who do you trust to determine whats true....example
Country A does something x
People find out thing x happened....Country A denies x happened
Social media company has no way of verifying if x happened or not and even if it did was country A responsible for x or not
Now what should social media company do
1) delete all posts saying x happened 2) delete all posts saying x happened and its the fault of country a 3) let posts stand about x happening even though its disputed but delete all posts tying x happening to country A 4) throw up their hands and say we dont actually know the posts might be true or might not but we dont actually know for sure
I would rather stick with 4) as the lesser evil personally
Instead of your hypothetical example, can I suggest we consider a real example? After the Southport stabbing, a Russian disinformation site claimed that the attacker was called "Ali Al-Shakati". This claim got nearly 20 million views and led to rioting in multiple sites. Twitter eventually removed the original tweet.
What do you think should have happened?
1) Twitter should have done nothing, left the tweet up 2) Twitter should have removed the tweet sooner 3) Twitter got it just right
The courts should engage with individuals posting illegal material. It should be nothing to do with the “platform”.
See Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the US, for why this is really important.
So (1)?
Yes. It has nothing to do with Twitter as a company.
The people drawing the lines need to be actual judges, rather than random employees of social media companies, which we understood in recent years to collectively have a very specific world view.
If someone said X that was wrong, and that statement is causing problems, then a judge should ask person X to withdraw his comments and possibly make a statement to that effect, able to hold them in contempt of court for not doing so.
So when the man calling himself Tommy Robinson posts from Ireland what does a British judge do?
Special Military operation in southern Ireland to sort the matter for once and all. That will show the Russians we mean business.
People demanding moderation of social media really mean social media should only be allowed to post what I believe....they should be honest
What I believe is that sort of absolutist ad hominem attack is not a very helpful contribution to the debate, but I wouldn't want you to be blocked from making it.
How is it ad hominem when I didn't mention any one in particular....you for example want people to post only what you deem true, under the same system I would want them to believe is true....the two truths will often have failures to overlap....thats not ad hominem it is a simple fact of life.
Difference is I am not asking social media to delete stuff that I believe untrue
I don't "want people to post only what [I] deem true", nor do I want "social media to delete stuff that I believe untrue". I do want social media to suppress material like that we saw before the Southport riot.
I asked you about what happened in the Southport case. Sandpit kindly answered, but I don't think you have. Do you think Twitter should have left up the Russian disinformation blaming a Muslim? Or done more to take those posts down?
I didn't answer because I know next to nothing about what happened at southport apart from what was posted here. I don't follow twitter nor watch tv news so wasn't informed enough to have an opinion so like most wise people did not opine on a matter about which I knew nothing
Thought was interesting how fast Starmer has pushed for expanded use of facial recognition. Labour party have historically been somewhere between very wary and absolutely against use of this technology, suggesting its a bit like stop and search, where issues with racial profiling etc.
Not really: Labour loves authoritarianism.
It's quite clear what we'll get from this administration, and it's similar to the last one: State, State and State.
Seems easier for some people here to throw the fascist card at Elon Musk than actually engage with the (pretty fascist) Labour policy proposal he is calling out.
I'll put my cards on the table: Tommy Robinson is a thug, and so are the motley crew that follow him, but one can't simply put every bit of disorder or protest that follows this as being down to the "far right" and then argue for massive increase in authoritarianism (which clearly Starmer gets off on) as a solution. That's just a cop out.
This happened because people suspected another cover-up was in play - no-one believed the " under 18 so anonymous" bullshit - and people are sick of being taken for fools and for "anti racism" and "community relations" (which only work one-way, bear in mind) being a bigger priority for the powers that be than the very real social and cultural problems brewing in some communities.
They should learn from it. In reality, they'll play the same old tune, only harder and stronger.
If the Rwandan 17 year old had turned out to be a Muslim, would ‘people’ have been justified in burning police vans and attacking mosques?
One of the sadder recent spectacles is conservatism/Conservatism abandoning a belief in personal responsibility for one’s actions. Perhaps it was always inclined that way and I just haven’t noticed.
That’s rather close to whataboutry
The simple fact is that the official statements on the matter inflamed an ugly situation.
The cure is to come up with better official statements to take the wind out of the sails of the EDL and other thugs.
As someone else on this thread has pointed out - the far right is small and splintered. Without useful idiots attaching themselves to such mobs, Yarxley-Lennon and chums will be outnumbered by the police.
I don’t have as much faith that “better official statements” will help. Robinson/Yaxley-Lennon was in the UK recently showing a film that he has been banned from doing so because it’s been found to be libellous. He knows it’s all lies, but he still showed it.
As with Trump and MAGA, they will believe what they want to believe. Robinson’s supporters were already agitating before the stabbing and they would have invented some other reason without it.
Musk’s Twitter doesn’t care about what’s true. It would have spread lies, however good you made the official statements.
We had people on PB who knew that the attack had nothing to do with Islam who still felt this was a great time to claim Muslims are problematic.
Sure, look at how official statements are made and think whether that could be improved, but the main problems here are poorly moderated social media and a far right, Islamophobic/anti-immigration movement. The cure is better moderation of social media, strong police action against perpetrators, and not excusing racism.
Moderation is of no use, when the message you want to project is feeble or non-existent.
Simply giving up the social media field to the scum is giving them a victory by default.
Get out, ahead of them, with the truth. Then push and amplify the truth.
Moderation of online disinformation generally works very well to reduce the spread of disinformation. This is not giving up the social media field to the scum: it is taking back the social media filed from the scum.
I hope you are joking....government moderation of anything about speech leads to censorship...we do it then saudi will demand the right and russia...and iran and the GOP in america. It will cause more issues than it solves.
I'm asking social media companies to moderate themselves.
Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and the GOP in the US do what they want anyway (but I like your grouping! a new axis of evil?).
Unfortunately the social media companies have a very poor record of moderating themselves, preferring to censor content based on ideology rather than correctness.
Apart from anything who do you trust to determine whats true....example
Country A does something x
People find out thing x happened....Country A denies x happened
Social media company has no way of verifying if x happened or not and even if it did was country A responsible for x or not
Now what should social media company do
1) delete all posts saying x happened 2) delete all posts saying x happened and its the fault of country a 3) let posts stand about x happening even though its disputed but delete all posts tying x happening to country A 4) throw up their hands and say we dont actually know the posts might be true or might not but we dont actually know for sure
I would rather stick with 4) as the lesser evil personally
Instead of your hypothetical example, can I suggest we consider a real example? After the Southport stabbing, a Russian disinformation site claimed that the attacker was called "Ali Al-Shakati". This claim got nearly 20 million views and led to rioting in multiple sites. Twitter eventually removed the original tweet.
What do you think should have happened?
1) Twitter should have done nothing, left the tweet up 2) Twitter should have removed the tweet sooner 3) Twitter got it just right
The courts should engage with individuals posting illegal material. It should be nothing to do with the “platform”.
See Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the US, for why this is really important.
So (1)?
Yes. It has nothing to do with Twitter as a company.
The people drawing the lines need to be actual judges, rather than random employees of social media companies, which we understood in recent years to collectively have a very specific world view.
If someone said X that was wrong, and that statement is causing problems, then a judge should ask person X to withdraw his comments and possibly make a statement to that effect.
Given the speed with which the courts move and issue over jurisdiction, that would mean the tweet would be up for months, or forever.
Your approach would have led to the tweet being more widely seen. This would likely have added to the riots. Does that concern you at all?
You’d be amazed at how quickly a judge can be made available on a Saturday afternoon, to spike a story about to appear in the Sunday press.
For how long did the likes of Huw Edwards, Jimmy Savile, Gary Glitter etc get away with it?
I don't see what Huw Edwards has to do with it.
Also, most Russian disinformation isn't illegal. You want a world with much more Russian disinformation in it.
Well allow a Community Note, that this appears to be a Russian source making Russian talking points, and not the Brit or American they purport themselves to be.
I think Community Notes are the one could idea from Musk-era Twitter, but I don't see them as a panacea. Your approach would mean much, much, much more Russian disinformation on social media and be hugely harmful to the Ukrainian war effort.
Thought was interesting how fast Starmer has pushed for expanded use of facial recognition. Labour party have historically been somewhere between very wary and absolutely against use of this technology, suggesting its a bit like stop and search, where issues with racial profiling etc.
Not really: Labour loves authoritarianism.
It's quite clear what we'll get from this administration, and it's similar to the last one: State, State and State.
Seems easier for some people here to throw the fascist card at Elon Musk than actually engage with the (pretty fascist) Labour policy proposal he is calling out.
I'll put my cards on the table: Tommy Robinson is a thug, and so are the motley crew that follow him, but one can't simply put every bit of disorder or protest that follows this as being down to the "far right" and then argue for massive increase in authoritarianism (which clearly Starmer gets off on) as a solution. That's just a cop out.
This happened because people suspected another cover-up was in play - no-one believed the " under 18 so anonymous" bullshit - and people are sick of being taken for fools and for "anti racism" and "community relations" (which only work one-way, bear in mind) being a bigger priority for the powers that be than the very real social and cultural problems brewing in some communities.
They should learn from it. In reality, they'll play the same old tune, only harder and stronger.
If the Rwandan 17 year old had turned out to be a Muslim, would ‘people’ have been justified in burning police vans and attacking mosques?
One of the sadder recent spectacles is conservatism/Conservatism abandoning a belief in personal responsibility for one’s actions. Perhaps it was always inclined that way and I just haven’t noticed.
That’s rather close to whataboutry
The simple fact is that the official statements on the matter inflamed an ugly situation.
The cure is to come up with better official statements to take the wind out of the sails of the EDL and other thugs.
As someone else on this thread has pointed out - the far right is small and splintered. Without useful idiots attaching themselves to such mobs, Yarxley-Lennon and chums will be outnumbered by the police.
I don’t have as much faith that “better official statements” will help. Robinson/Yaxley-Lennon was in the UK recently showing a film that he has been banned from doing so because it’s been found to be libellous. He knows it’s all lies, but he still showed it.
As with Trump and MAGA, they will believe what they want to believe. Robinson’s supporters were already agitating before the stabbing and they would have invented some other reason without it.
Musk’s Twitter doesn’t care about what’s true. It would have spread lies, however good you made the official statements.
We had people on PB who knew that the attack had nothing to do with Islam who still felt this was a great time to claim Muslims are problematic.
Sure, look at how official statements are made and think whether that could be improved, but the main problems here are poorly moderated social media and a far right, Islamophobic/anti-immigration movement. The cure is better moderation of social media, strong police action against perpetrators, and not excusing racism.
Moderation is of no use, when the message you want to project is feeble or non-existent.
Simply giving up the social media field to the scum is giving them a victory by default.
Get out, ahead of them, with the truth. Then push and amplify the truth.
Moderation of online disinformation generally works very well to reduce the spread of disinformation. This is not giving up the social media field to the scum: it is taking back the social media filed from the scum.
I hope you are joking....government moderation of anything about speech leads to censorship...we do it then saudi will demand the right and russia...and iran and the GOP in america. It will cause more issues than it solves.
I'm asking social media companies to moderate themselves.
Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and the GOP in the US do what they want anyway (but I like your grouping! a new axis of evil?).
Unfortunately the social media companies have a very poor record of moderating themselves, preferring to censor content based on ideology rather than correctness.
Apart from anything who do you trust to determine whats true....example
Country A does something x
People find out thing x happened....Country A denies x happened
Social media company has no way of verifying if x happened or not and even if it did was country A responsible for x or not
Now what should social media company do
1) delete all posts saying x happened 2) delete all posts saying x happened and its the fault of country a 3) let posts stand about x happening even though its disputed but delete all posts tying x happening to country A 4) throw up their hands and say we dont actually know the posts might be true or might not but we dont actually know for sure
I would rather stick with 4) as the lesser evil personally
Instead of your hypothetical example, can I suggest we consider a real example? After the Southport stabbing, a Russian disinformation site claimed that the attacker was called "Ali Al-Shakati". This claim got nearly 20 million views and led to rioting in multiple sites. Twitter eventually removed the original tweet.
What do you think should have happened?
1) Twitter should have done nothing, left the tweet up 2) Twitter should have removed the tweet sooner 3) Twitter got it just right
The courts should engage with individuals posting illegal material. It should be nothing to do with the “platform”.
See Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the US, for why this is really important.
So (1)?
Yes. It has nothing to do with Twitter as a company.
The people drawing the lines need to be actual judges, rather than random employees of social media companies, which we understood in recent years to collectively have a very specific world view.
If someone said X that was wrong, and that statement is causing problems, then a judge should ask person X to withdraw his comments and possibly make a statement to that effect.
Given the speed with which the courts move and issue over jurisdiction, that would mean the tweet would be up for months, or forever.
Your approach would have led to the tweet being more widely seen. This would likely have added to the riots. Does that concern you at all?
You’d be amazed at how quickly a judge can be made available on a Saturday afternoon, to spike a story about to appear in the Sunday press.
For how long did the likes of Huw Edwards, Jimmy Savile, Gary Glitter etc get away with it?
I find your position incredible. Posts spread incredibly fast, and the bots manyfold. It is far from uncommon to see the exact same posts - to the word - being spread by multiple accounts, sometimes within seconds of each other.
Would you have the judge spike out stories by every one individually? You do realise that bots can multiply faster than a judge can sign a document?
In which case, it can only be handled by the distributing organisation - i.e. the social media orgs.
Give up, accept the world has changed and that you have as much chance of stopping it as the Church did of stopping the circulation of English Lanuguage bibles after the printing press had been invented?
I see we are now third in the medal table, with more gold for sitting (on a horse) and bouncing.
#HowToPissOffFrance
As a Francophile Brit I think the current table is ideal. GB ahead, but France having its best Olympics for a long time, and seeming to enjoy (finally) its own hosting.
Also Italy and Netherlands both miles ahead of Germany is funny.
There are some pretty large countries that hardly make a dent on the medal table, some predictably but others a bit of a surprise. Look at the nations currently on zero golds: Poland, Brazil, Mexico, Turkey, India, Egypt. And those with no medals at all: Denmark, Czechia, Chile, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nigeria, Philippines...
The proportion of the global population with no gold medals is huge. Some of the largest countries on earth.
Thought was interesting how fast Starmer has pushed for expanded use of facial recognition. Labour party have historically been somewhere between very wary and absolutely against use of this technology, suggesting its a bit like stop and search, where issues with racial profiling etc.
Not really: Labour loves authoritarianism.
It's quite clear what we'll get from this administration, and it's similar to the last one: State, State and State.
Seems easier for some people here to throw the fascist card at Elon Musk than actually engage with the (pretty fascist) Labour policy proposal he is calling out.
I'll put my cards on the table: Tommy Robinson is a thug, and so are the motley crew that follow him, but one can't simply put every bit of disorder or protest that follows this as being down to the "far right" and then argue for massive increase in authoritarianism (which clearly Starmer gets off on) as a solution. That's just a cop out.
This happened because people suspected another cover-up was in play - no-one believed the " under 18 so anonymous" bullshit - and people are sick of being taken for fools and for "anti racism" and "community relations" (which only work one-way, bear in mind) being a bigger priority for the powers that be than the very real social and cultural problems brewing in some communities.
They should learn from it. In reality, they'll play the same old tune, only harder and stronger.
If the Rwandan 17 year old had turned out to be a Muslim, would ‘people’ have been justified in burning police vans and attacking mosques?
One of the sadder recent spectacles is conservatism/Conservatism abandoning a belief in personal responsibility for one’s actions. Perhaps it was always inclined that way and I just haven’t noticed.
That’s rather close to whataboutry
The simple fact is that the official statements on the matter inflamed an ugly situation.
The cure is to come up with better official statements to take the wind out of the sails of the EDL and other thugs.
As someone else on this thread has pointed out - the far right is small and splintered. Without useful idiots attaching themselves to such mobs, Yarxley-Lennon and chums will be outnumbered by the police.
I don’t have as much faith that “better official statements” will help. Robinson/Yaxley-Lennon was in the UK recently showing a film that he has been banned from doing so because it’s been found to be libellous. He knows it’s all lies, but he still showed it.
As with Trump and MAGA, they will believe what they want to believe. Robinson’s supporters were already agitating before the stabbing and they would have invented some other reason without it.
Musk’s Twitter doesn’t care about what’s true. It would have spread lies, however good you made the official statements.
We had people on PB who knew that the attack had nothing to do with Islam who still felt this was a great time to claim Muslims are problematic.
Sure, look at how official statements are made and think whether that could be improved, but the main problems here are poorly moderated social media and a far right, Islamophobic/anti-immigration movement. The cure is better moderation of social media, strong police action against perpetrators, and not excusing racism.
Moderation is of no use, when the message you want to project is feeble or non-existent.
Simply giving up the social media field to the scum is giving them a victory by default.
Get out, ahead of them, with the truth. Then push and amplify the truth.
Moderation of online disinformation generally works very well to reduce the spread of disinformation. This is not giving up the social media field to the scum: it is taking back the social media filed from the scum.
I hope you are joking....government moderation of anything about speech leads to censorship...we do it then saudi will demand the right and russia...and iran and the GOP in america. It will cause more issues than it solves.
I'm asking social media companies to moderate themselves.
Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and the GOP in the US do what they want anyway (but I like your grouping! a new axis of evil?).
Unfortunately the social media companies have a very poor record of moderating themselves, preferring to censor content based on ideology rather than correctness.
Apart from anything who do you trust to determine whats true....example
Country A does something x
People find out thing x happened....Country A denies x happened
Social media company has no way of verifying if x happened or not and even if it did was country A responsible for x or not
Now what should social media company do
1) delete all posts saying x happened 2) delete all posts saying x happened and its the fault of country a 3) let posts stand about x happening even though its disputed but delete all posts tying x happening to country A 4) throw up their hands and say we dont actually know the posts might be true or might not but we dont actually know for sure
I would rather stick with 4) as the lesser evil personally
Instead of your hypothetical example, can I suggest we consider a real example? After the Southport stabbing, a Russian disinformation site claimed that the attacker was called "Ali Al-Shakati". This claim got nearly 20 million views and led to rioting in multiple sites. Twitter eventually removed the original tweet.
What do you think should have happened?
1) Twitter should have done nothing, left the tweet up 2) Twitter should have removed the tweet sooner 3) Twitter got it just right
The courts should engage with individuals posting illegal material. It should be nothing to do with the “platform”.
See Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the US, for why this is really important.
So (1)?
Yes. It has nothing to do with Twitter as a company.
The people drawing the lines need to be actual judges, rather than random employees of social media companies, which we understood in recent years to collectively have a very specific world view.
If someone said X that was wrong, and that statement is causing problems, then a judge should ask person X to withdraw his comments and possibly make a statement to that effect.
Given the speed with which the courts move and issue over jurisdiction, that would mean the tweet would be up for months, or forever.
Your approach would have led to the tweet being more widely seen. This would likely have added to the riots. Does that concern you at all?
You’d be amazed at how quickly a judge can be made available on a Saturday afternoon, to spike a story about to appear in the Sunday press.
For how long did the likes of Huw Edwards, Jimmy Savile, Gary Glitter etc get away with it?
I find your position incredible. Posts spread incredibly fast, and the bots manyfold. It is far from uncommon to see the exact same posts - to the word - being spread by multiple accounts, sometimes within seconds of each other.
Would you have the judge spike out stories by every one individually? You do realise that bots can multiply faster than a judge can sign a document?
In which case, it can only be handled by the distributing organisation - i.e. the social media orgs.
The problem is the long history of these companies making judgements for themselves, which have proven to be totally wrong. They’ve forfeited the right to moderate opinion (rather than fact) on their platforms.
People demanding moderation of social media really mean social media should only be allowed to post what I believe....they should be honest
What I believe is that sort of absolutist ad hominem attack is not a very helpful contribution to the debate, but I wouldn't want you to be blocked from making it.
How is it ad hominem when I didn't mention any one in particular....you for example want people to post only what you deem true, under the same system I would want them to believe is true....the two truths will often have failures to overlap....thats not ad hominem it is a simple fact of life.
Difference is I am not asking social media to delete stuff that I believe untrue
If you’re broadcasting your opinions in a public forum I really don’t see why you cannot accept accountability for your impact. If a poster is anonymous or untraceable then the platform becomes accountable.
If you have spicy views that you want to share, why not share them in private?
Andrew Rosindell in the audience, a boost for Jenrick as I would have thought he would have gone for Priti.
Esther McVey introduced Jenrick so clearly in his camp now too
MEGA!
No, the Mega candidates are Patel and Badenoch. So far Jenrick very smooth, almost Blair and Cameron like, he speaks better than Starmer that is for sure if nothing else
"Blair and Cameron like"? More like the ghost of Peter Griffiths.
Griffiths of course won the Smethwick by election on a sensationally huge swing from Labour in 1964 and defeated the Shadow FS, even if he was not to everyone's tastes
He won on a particularly offensive ticket. Let's hope Jenrick isn't quite so cynical, although I have my doubts.
If you want a Refugee for a Neighbour, Vote Labour?
People demanding moderation of social media really mean social media should only be allowed to post what I believe....they should be honest
What I believe is that sort of absolutist ad hominem attack is not a very helpful contribution to the debate, but I wouldn't want you to be blocked from making it.
How is it ad hominem when I didn't mention any one in particular....you for example want people to post only what you deem true, under the same system I would want them to believe is true....the two truths will often have failures to overlap....thats not ad hominem it is a simple fact of life.
Difference is I am not asking social media to delete stuff that I believe untrue
I don't "want people to post only what [I] deem true", nor do I want "social media to delete stuff that I believe untrue". I do want social media to suppress material like that we saw before the Southport riot.
I asked you about what happened in the Southport case. Sandpit kindly answered, but I don't think you have. Do you think Twitter should have left up the Russian disinformation blaming a Muslim? Or done more to take those posts down?
I didn't answer because I know next to nothing about what happened at southport apart from what was posted here. I don't follow twitter nor watch tv news so wasn't informed enough to have an opinion so like most wise people did not opine on a matter about which I knew nothing
Fair enough. I think what happened is very pertinent to this discussion, so if you would care to look into it, I offer this summary from Wikipedia:
Following the knife attack, there was incorrect speculation about the identity and religion of the suspected attacker online.[5] Misinformation, including false claims about the suspect's nationality and immigration status, were circulated on social media by high profile far-right accounts.[6] The false claim that the perpetrator was named "Ali Al-Shakati" originated from the website Channel 3 Now, and was further popularised on X.[7][8][9] X removed the original post falsely claiming the suspect's identity after receiving 1.7 million views, however the claim subsequently went viral and gained a further 17 million views.[10] According to research by BBC Verify, a newly created "Southport-themed" Telegram group became inundated with misinformation, including from the far-right National Front, prior to dissemination on social media platforms.[11] The spread of misinformation on social media has widely been attributed to the cause of the riots by various media outlets.[12][7][13][14]
Professor of political communication, Andrew Chadwick, described the tweet as being "deliberately fabricated to generate hostility toward ethnic minorities and immigrants, and it's a potentially Islamophobic piece of propaganda".[10] Former security minister, Stephen McPartland, accused Russia and Vladimir Putin's regime of involvement in the campaign of misinformation, describing it as "part of the Russian playbook".[15] Guardian columnist Owen Jones blamed X (formerly Twitter) as a "cesspit of disinformation and far-right talking points" for the spread of unverified claims.[16]
Merseyside Police attempted to quell speculation by confirming that the name being circulated was not connected to the case and was not the suspect.[17] The actual suspect was born in Cardiff and moved to the Southport area in 2013.[18]
In the US, our social media has the legal privileges of publishers, without the legal responsibilities. If there is a clear solution to that, it has escaped me.
Change the law so that they do have the responsibilities.
I see we are now third in the medal table, with more gold for sitting (on a horse) and bouncing.
#HowToPissOffFrance
As a Francophile Brit I think the current table is ideal. GB ahead, but France having its best Olympics for a long time, and seeming to enjoy (finally) its own hosting.
Also Italy and Netherlands both miles ahead of Germany is funny.
There are some pretty large countries that hardly make a dent on the medal table, some predictably but others a bit of a surprise. Look at the nations currently on zero golds: Poland, Brazil, Mexico, Turkey, India, Egypt. And those with no medals at all: Denmark, Czechia, Chile, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nigeria, Philippines...
The proportion of the global population with no gold medals is huge. Some of the largest countries on earth.
The country with the largest population never to have won a medal at any Olympics is... IIRC... Bangladesh.
Thought was interesting how fast Starmer has pushed for expanded use of facial recognition. Labour party have historically been somewhere between very wary and absolutely against use of this technology, suggesting its a bit like stop and search, where issues with racial profiling etc.
Not really: Labour loves authoritarianism.
It's quite clear what we'll get from this administration, and it's similar to the last one: State, State and State.
Seems easier for some people here to throw the fascist card at Elon Musk than actually engage with the (pretty fascist) Labour policy proposal he is calling out.
I'll put my cards on the table: Tommy Robinson is a thug, and so are the motley crew that follow him, but one can't simply put every bit of disorder or protest that follows this as being down to the "far right" and then argue for massive increase in authoritarianism (which clearly Starmer gets off on) as a solution. That's just a cop out.
This happened because people suspected another cover-up was in play - no-one believed the " under 18 so anonymous" bullshit - and people are sick of being taken for fools and for "anti racism" and "community relations" (which only work one-way, bear in mind) being a bigger priority for the powers that be than the very real social and cultural problems brewing in some communities.
They should learn from it. In reality, they'll play the same old tune, only harder and stronger.
If the Rwandan 17 year old had turned out to be a Muslim, would ‘people’ have been justified in burning police vans and attacking mosques?
One of the sadder recent spectacles is conservatism/Conservatism abandoning a belief in personal responsibility for one’s actions. Perhaps it was always inclined that way and I just haven’t noticed.
That’s rather close to whataboutry
The simple fact is that the official statements on the matter inflamed an ugly situation.
The cure is to come up with better official statements to take the wind out of the sails of the EDL and other thugs.
As someone else on this thread has pointed out - the far right is small and splintered. Without useful idiots attaching themselves to such mobs, Yarxley-Lennon and chums will be outnumbered by the police.
I don’t have as much faith that “better official statements” will help. Robinson/Yaxley-Lennon was in the UK recently showing a film that he has been banned from doing so because it’s been found to be libellous. He knows it’s all lies, but he still showed it.
As with Trump and MAGA, they will believe what they want to believe. Robinson’s supporters were already agitating before the stabbing and they would have invented some other reason without it.
Musk’s Twitter doesn’t care about what’s true. It would have spread lies, however good you made the official statements.
We had people on PB who knew that the attack had nothing to do with Islam who still felt this was a great time to claim Muslims are problematic.
Sure, look at how official statements are made and think whether that could be improved, but the main problems here are poorly moderated social media and a far right, Islamophobic/anti-immigration movement. The cure is better moderation of social media, strong police action against perpetrators, and not excusing racism.
Moderation is of no use, when the message you want to project is feeble or non-existent.
Simply giving up the social media field to the scum is giving them a victory by default.
Get out, ahead of them, with the truth. Then push and amplify the truth.
Moderation of online disinformation generally works very well to reduce the spread of disinformation. This is not giving up the social media field to the scum: it is taking back the social media filed from the scum.
I hope you are joking....government moderation of anything about speech leads to censorship...we do it then saudi will demand the right and russia...and iran and the GOP in america. It will cause more issues than it solves.
I'm asking social media companies to moderate themselves.
Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and the GOP in the US do what they want anyway (but I like your grouping! a new axis of evil?).
Unfortunately the social media companies have a very poor record of moderating themselves, preferring to censor content based on ideology rather than correctness.
Apart from anything who do you trust to determine whats true....example
Country A does something x
People find out thing x happened....Country A denies x happened
Social media company has no way of verifying if x happened or not and even if it did was country A responsible for x or not
Now what should social media company do
1) delete all posts saying x happened 2) delete all posts saying x happened and its the fault of country a 3) let posts stand about x happening even though its disputed but delete all posts tying x happening to country A 4) throw up their hands and say we dont actually know the posts might be true or might not but we dont actually know for sure
I would rather stick with 4) as the lesser evil personally
Instead of your hypothetical example, can I suggest we consider a real example? After the Southport stabbing, a Russian disinformation site claimed that the attacker was called "Ali Al-Shakati". This claim got nearly 20 million views and led to rioting in multiple sites. Twitter eventually removed the original tweet.
What do you think should have happened?
1) Twitter should have done nothing, left the tweet up 2) Twitter should have removed the tweet sooner 3) Twitter got it just right
The courts should engage with individuals posting illegal material. It should be nothing to do with the “platform”.
See Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the US, for why this is really important.
So (1)?
Yes. It has nothing to do with Twitter as a company.
The people drawing the lines need to be actual judges, rather than random employees of social media companies, which we understood in recent years to collectively have a very specific world view.
If someone said X that was wrong, and that statement is causing problems, then a judge should ask person X to withdraw his comments and possibly make a statement to that effect.
Given the speed with which the courts move and issue over jurisdiction, that would mean the tweet would be up for months, or forever.
Your approach would have led to the tweet being more widely seen. This would likely have added to the riots. Does that concern you at all?
You’d be amazed at how quickly a judge can be made available on a Saturday afternoon, to spike a story about to appear in the Sunday press.
For how long did the likes of Huw Edwards, Jimmy Savile, Gary Glitter etc get away with it?
I find your position incredible. Posts spread incredibly fast, and the bots manyfold. It is far from uncommon to see the exact same posts - to the word - being spread by multiple accounts, sometimes within seconds of each other.
Would you have the judge spike out stories by every one individually? You do realise that bots can multiply faster than a judge can sign a document?
In which case, it can only be handled by the distributing organisation - i.e. the social media orgs.
Which would be great, if the social media orgs didn’t have a long history of making themselves unsuitable in that role, by taking explicitly partisan stances on a number of contentious social issues in the past few years.
Thought was interesting how fast Starmer has pushed for expanded use of facial recognition. Labour party have historically been somewhere between very wary and absolutely against use of this technology, suggesting its a bit like stop and search, where issues with racial profiling etc.
Not really: Labour loves authoritarianism.
It's quite clear what we'll get from this administration, and it's similar to the last one: State, State and State.
Seems easier for some people here to throw the fascist card at Elon Musk than actually engage with the (pretty fascist) Labour policy proposal he is calling out.
I'll put my cards on the table: Tommy Robinson is a thug, and so are the motley crew that follow him, but one can't simply put every bit of disorder or protest that follows this as being down to the "far right" and then argue for massive increase in authoritarianism (which clearly Starmer gets off on) as a solution. That's just a cop out.
This happened because people suspected another cover-up was in play - no-one believed the " under 18 so anonymous" bullshit - and people are sick of being taken for fools and for "anti racism" and "community relations" (which only work one-way, bear in mind) being a bigger priority for the powers that be than the very real social and cultural problems brewing in some communities.
They should learn from it. In reality, they'll play the same old tune, only harder and stronger.
If the Rwandan 17 year old had turned out to be a Muslim, would ‘people’ have been justified in burning police vans and attacking mosques?
One of the sadder recent spectacles is conservatism/Conservatism abandoning a belief in personal responsibility for one’s actions. Perhaps it was always inclined that way and I just haven’t noticed.
That’s rather close to whataboutry
The simple fact is that the official statements on the matter inflamed an ugly situation.
The cure is to come up with better official statements to take the wind out of the sails of the EDL and other thugs.
As someone else on this thread has pointed out - the far right is small and splintered. Without useful idiots attaching themselves to such mobs, Yarxley-Lennon and chums will be outnumbered by the police.
I don’t have as much faith that “better official statements” will help. Robinson/Yaxley-Lennon was in the UK recently showing a film that he has been banned from doing so because it’s been found to be libellous. He knows it’s all lies, but he still showed it.
As with Trump and MAGA, they will believe what they want to believe. Robinson’s supporters were already agitating before the stabbing and they would have invented some other reason without it.
Musk’s Twitter doesn’t care about what’s true. It would have spread lies, however good you made the official statements.
We had people on PB who knew that the attack had nothing to do with Islam who still felt this was a great time to claim Muslims are problematic.
Sure, look at how official statements are made and think whether that could be improved, but the main problems here are poorly moderated social media and a far right, Islamophobic/anti-immigration movement. The cure is better moderation of social media, strong police action against perpetrators, and not excusing racism.
Moderation is of no use, when the message you want to project is feeble or non-existent.
Simply giving up the social media field to the scum is giving them a victory by default.
Get out, ahead of them, with the truth. Then push and amplify the truth.
Moderation of online disinformation generally works very well to reduce the spread of disinformation. This is not giving up the social media field to the scum: it is taking back the social media filed from the scum.
I hope you are joking....government moderation of anything about speech leads to censorship...we do it then saudi will demand the right and russia...and iran and the GOP in america. It will cause more issues than it solves.
I'm asking social media companies to moderate themselves.
Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and the GOP in the US do what they want anyway (but I like your grouping! a new axis of evil?).
Unfortunately the social media companies have a very poor record of moderating themselves, preferring to censor content based on ideology rather than correctness.
Apart from anything who do you trust to determine whats true....example
Country A does something x
People find out thing x happened....Country A denies x happened
Social media company has no way of verifying if x happened or not and even if it did was country A responsible for x or not
Now what should social media company do
1) delete all posts saying x happened 2) delete all posts saying x happened and its the fault of country a 3) let posts stand about x happening even though its disputed but delete all posts tying x happening to country A 4) throw up their hands and say we dont actually know the posts might be true or might not but we dont actually know for sure
I would rather stick with 4) as the lesser evil personally
Instead of your hypothetical example, can I suggest we consider a real example? After the Southport stabbing, a Russian disinformation site claimed that the attacker was called "Ali Al-Shakati". This claim got nearly 20 million views and led to rioting in multiple sites. Twitter eventually removed the original tweet.
What do you think should have happened?
1) Twitter should have done nothing, left the tweet up 2) Twitter should have removed the tweet sooner 3) Twitter got it just right
The courts should engage with individuals posting illegal material. It should be nothing to do with the “platform”.
See Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the US, for why this is really important.
So (1)?
Yes. It has nothing to do with Twitter as a company.
The people drawing the lines need to be actual judges, rather than random employees of social media companies, which we understood in recent years to collectively have a very specific world view.
If someone said X that was wrong, and that statement is causing problems, then a judge should ask person X to withdraw his comments and possibly make a statement to that effect.
Given the speed with which the courts move and issue over jurisdiction, that would mean the tweet would be up for months, or forever.
Your approach would have led to the tweet being more widely seen. This would likely have added to the riots. Does that concern you at all?
You’d be amazed at how quickly a judge can be made available on a Saturday afternoon, to spike a story about to appear in the Sunday press.
For how long did the likes of Huw Edwards, Jimmy Savile, Gary Glitter etc get away with it?
I find your position incredible. Posts spread incredibly fast, and the bots manyfold. It is far from uncommon to see the exact same posts - to the word - being spread by multiple accounts, sometimes within seconds of each other.
Would you have the judge spike out stories by every one individually? You do realise that bots can multiply faster than a judge can sign a document?
In which case, it can only be handled by the distributing organisation - i.e. the social media orgs.
Which would be great, if the social media orgs didn’t have a long history of making themselves unsuitable in that role, by taking explicitly partisan stances on a number of contentious social issues in the past few years.
Maybe there's an alternative approach to giving up on the idea entirely?
People demanding moderation of social media really mean social media should only be allowed to post what I believe....they should be honest
What I believe is that sort of absolutist ad hominem attack is not a very helpful contribution to the debate, but I wouldn't want you to be blocked from making it.
How is it ad hominem when I didn't mention any one in particular....you for example want people to post only what you deem true, under the same system I would want them to believe is true....the two truths will often have failures to overlap....thats not ad hominem it is a simple fact of life.
Difference is I am not asking social media to delete stuff that I believe untrue
If you’re broadcasting your opinions in a public forum I really don’t see why you cannot accept accountability for your impact. If a poster is anonymous or untraceable then the platform becomes accountable.
If you have spicy views that you want to share, why not share them in private?
Because sometimes people want to share information that while not as you say spicy would get them sacked. For example @Ydoethur worked as a teacher....he has views on both the DFE and ofsted....if he was not anonymous and still a teacher would he still be as willing to share those views? Perhaps you think he shouldn't be able to share them?
Thought was interesting how fast Starmer has pushed for expanded use of facial recognition. Labour party have historically been somewhere between very wary and absolutely against use of this technology, suggesting its a bit like stop and search, where issues with racial profiling etc.
Not really: Labour loves authoritarianism.
It's quite clear what we'll get from this administration, and it's similar to the last one: State, State and State.
Seems easier for some people here to throw the fascist card at Elon Musk than actually engage with the (pretty fascist) Labour policy proposal he is calling out.
I'll put my cards on the table: Tommy Robinson is a thug, and so are the motley crew that follow him, but one can't simply put every bit of disorder or protest that follows this as being down to the "far right" and then argue for massive increase in authoritarianism (which clearly Starmer gets off on) as a solution. That's just a cop out.
This happened because people suspected another cover-up was in play - no-one believed the " under 18 so anonymous" bullshit - and people are sick of being taken for fools and for "anti racism" and "community relations" (which only work one-way, bear in mind) being a bigger priority for the powers that be than the very real social and cultural problems brewing in some communities.
They should learn from it. In reality, they'll play the same old tune, only harder and stronger.
If the Rwandan 17 year old had turned out to be a Muslim, would ‘people’ have been justified in burning police vans and attacking mosques?
One of the sadder recent spectacles is conservatism/Conservatism abandoning a belief in personal responsibility for one’s actions. Perhaps it was always inclined that way and I just haven’t noticed.
That’s rather close to whataboutry
The simple fact is that the official statements on the matter inflamed an ugly situation.
The cure is to come up with better official statements to take the wind out of the sails of the EDL and other thugs.
As someone else on this thread has pointed out - the far right is small and splintered. Without useful idiots attaching themselves to such mobs, Yarxley-Lennon and chums will be outnumbered by the police.
I don’t have as much faith that “better official statements” will help. Robinson/Yaxley-Lennon was in the UK recently showing a film that he has been banned from doing so because it’s been found to be libellous. He knows it’s all lies, but he still showed it.
As with Trump and MAGA, they will believe what they want to believe. Robinson’s supporters were already agitating before the stabbing and they would have invented some other reason without it.
Musk’s Twitter doesn’t care about what’s true. It would have spread lies, however good you made the official statements.
We had people on PB who knew that the attack had nothing to do with Islam who still felt this was a great time to claim Muslims are problematic.
Sure, look at how official statements are made and think whether that could be improved, but the main problems here are poorly moderated social media and a far right, Islamophobic/anti-immigration movement. The cure is better moderation of social media, strong police action against perpetrators, and not excusing racism.
Moderation is of no use, when the message you want to project is feeble or non-existent.
Simply giving up the social media field to the scum is giving them a victory by default.
Get out, ahead of them, with the truth. Then push and amplify the truth.
Moderation of online disinformation generally works very well to reduce the spread of disinformation. This is not giving up the social media field to the scum: it is taking back the social media filed from the scum.
I hope you are joking....government moderation of anything about speech leads to censorship...we do it then saudi will demand the right and russia...and iran and the GOP in america. It will cause more issues than it solves.
I'm asking social media companies to moderate themselves.
Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and the GOP in the US do what they want anyway (but I like your grouping! a new axis of evil?).
Unfortunately the social media companies have a very poor record of moderating themselves, preferring to censor content based on ideology rather than correctness.
Apart from anything who do you trust to determine whats true....example
Country A does something x
People find out thing x happened....Country A denies x happened
Social media company has no way of verifying if x happened or not and even if it did was country A responsible for x or not
Now what should social media company do
1) delete all posts saying x happened 2) delete all posts saying x happened and its the fault of country a 3) let posts stand about x happening even though its disputed but delete all posts tying x happening to country A 4) throw up their hands and say we dont actually know the posts might be true or might not but we dont actually know for sure
I would rather stick with 4) as the lesser evil personally
Instead of your hypothetical example, can I suggest we consider a real example? After the Southport stabbing, a Russian disinformation site claimed that the attacker was called "Ali Al-Shakati". This claim got nearly 20 million views and led to rioting in multiple sites. Twitter eventually removed the original tweet.
What do you think should have happened?
1) Twitter should have done nothing, left the tweet up 2) Twitter should have removed the tweet sooner 3) Twitter got it just right
The courts should engage with individuals posting illegal material. It should be nothing to do with the “platform”.
See Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the US, for why this is really important.
So (1)?
Yes. It has nothing to do with Twitter as a company.
The people drawing the lines need to be actual judges, rather than random employees of social media companies, which we understood in recent years to collectively have a very specific world view.
If someone said X that was wrong, and that statement is causing problems, then a judge should ask person X to withdraw his comments and possibly make a statement to that effect.
Given the speed with which the courts move and issue over jurisdiction, that would mean the tweet would be up for months, or forever.
Your approach would have led to the tweet being more widely seen. This would likely have added to the riots. Does that concern you at all?
You’d be amazed at how quickly a judge can be made available on a Saturday afternoon, to spike a story about to appear in the Sunday press.
For how long did the likes of Huw Edwards, Jimmy Savile, Gary Glitter etc get away with it?
I find your position incredible. Posts spread incredibly fast, and the bots manyfold. It is far from uncommon to see the exact same posts - to the word - being spread by multiple accounts, sometimes within seconds of each other.
Would you have the judge spike out stories by every one individually? You do realise that bots can multiply faster than a judge can sign a document?
In which case, it can only be handled by the distributing organisation - i.e. the social media orgs.
Which would be great, if the social media orgs didn’t have a long history of making themselves unsuitable in that role, by taking explicitly partisan stances on a number of contentious social issues in the past few years.
Maybe there's an alternative approach to giving up on the idea entirely?
Perhaps. I’m as open to suggestions as anyone else on the matter.
In the US, our social media has the legal privileges of publishers, without the legal responsibilities. If there is a clear solution to that, it has escaped me.
Change the law so that they do have the responsibilities.
Andrew Rosindell in the audience, a boost for Jenrick as I would have thought he would have gone for Priti.
Esther McVey introduced Jenrick so clearly in his camp now too
MEGA!
No, the Mega candidates are Patel and Badenoch. So far Jenrick very smooth, almost Blair and Cameron like, he speaks better than Starmer that is for sure if nothing else
"Blair and Cameron like"? More like the ghost of Peter Griffiths.
Griffiths of course won the Smethwick by election on a sensationally huge swing from Labour in 1964 and defeated the Shadow FS, even if he was not to everyone's tastes
He won on a particularly offensive ticket. Let's hope Jenrick isn't quite so cynical, although I have my doubts.
If you want a Refugee for a Neighbour, Vote Labour?
Indeed.
If only we knew of a former Conservative Immigration Minister to ask why the Labour Government's immigration policy has been so disastrous for so many years.
Thought was interesting how fast Starmer has pushed for expanded use of facial recognition. Labour party have historically been somewhere between very wary and absolutely against use of this technology, suggesting its a bit like stop and search, where issues with racial profiling etc.
Not really: Labour loves authoritarianism.
It's quite clear what we'll get from this administration, and it's similar to the last one: State, State and State.
Seems easier for some people here to throw the fascist card at Elon Musk than actually engage with the (pretty fascist) Labour policy proposal he is calling out.
I'll put my cards on the table: Tommy Robinson is a thug, and so are the motley crew that follow him, but one can't simply put every bit of disorder or protest that follows this as being down to the "far right" and then argue for massive increase in authoritarianism (which clearly Starmer gets off on) as a solution. That's just a cop out.
This happened because people suspected another cover-up was in play - no-one believed the " under 18 so anonymous" bullshit - and people are sick of being taken for fools and for "anti racism" and "community relations" (which only work one-way, bear in mind) being a bigger priority for the powers that be than the very real social and cultural problems brewing in some communities.
They should learn from it. In reality, they'll play the same old tune, only harder and stronger.
If the Rwandan 17 year old had turned out to be a Muslim, would ‘people’ have been justified in burning police vans and attacking mosques?
One of the sadder recent spectacles is conservatism/Conservatism abandoning a belief in personal responsibility for one’s actions. Perhaps it was always inclined that way and I just haven’t noticed.
That’s rather close to whataboutry
The simple fact is that the official statements on the matter inflamed an ugly situation.
The cure is to come up with better official statements to take the wind out of the sails of the EDL and other thugs.
As someone else on this thread has pointed out - the far right is small and splintered. Without useful idiots attaching themselves to such mobs, Yarxley-Lennon and chums will be outnumbered by the police.
I don’t have as much faith that “better official statements” will help. Robinson/Yaxley-Lennon was in the UK recently showing a film that he has been banned from doing so because it’s been found to be libellous. He knows it’s all lies, but he still showed it.
As with Trump and MAGA, they will believe what they want to believe. Robinson’s supporters were already agitating before the stabbing and they would have invented some other reason without it.
Musk’s Twitter doesn’t care about what’s true. It would have spread lies, however good you made the official statements.
We had people on PB who knew that the attack had nothing to do with Islam who still felt this was a great time to claim Muslims are problematic.
Sure, look at how official statements are made and think whether that could be improved, but the main problems here are poorly moderated social media and a far right, Islamophobic/anti-immigration movement. The cure is better moderation of social media, strong police action against perpetrators, and not excusing racism.
Moderation is of no use, when the message you want to project is feeble or non-existent.
Simply giving up the social media field to the scum is giving them a victory by default.
Get out, ahead of them, with the truth. Then push and amplify the truth.
Moderation of online disinformation generally works very well to reduce the spread of disinformation. This is not giving up the social media field to the scum: it is taking back the social media filed from the scum.
I hope you are joking....government moderation of anything about speech leads to censorship...we do it then saudi will demand the right and russia...and iran and the GOP in america. It will cause more issues than it solves.
I'm asking social media companies to moderate themselves.
Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and the GOP in the US do what they want anyway (but I like your grouping! a new axis of evil?).
Unfortunately the social media companies have a very poor record of moderating themselves, preferring to censor content based on ideology rather than correctness.
Apart from anything who do you trust to determine whats true....example
Country A does something x
People find out thing x happened....Country A denies x happened
Social media company has no way of verifying if x happened or not and even if it did was country A responsible for x or not
Now what should social media company do
1) delete all posts saying x happened 2) delete all posts saying x happened and its the fault of country a 3) let posts stand about x happening even though its disputed but delete all posts tying x happening to country A 4) throw up their hands and say we dont actually know the posts might be true or might not but we dont actually know for sure
I would rather stick with 4) as the lesser evil personally
Instead of your hypothetical example, can I suggest we consider a real example? After the Southport stabbing, a Russian disinformation site claimed that the attacker was called "Ali Al-Shakati". This claim got nearly 20 million views and led to rioting in multiple sites. Twitter eventually removed the original tweet.
What do you think should have happened?
1) Twitter should have done nothing, left the tweet up 2) Twitter should have removed the tweet sooner 3) Twitter got it just right
The courts should engage with individuals posting illegal material. It should be nothing to do with the “platform”.
See Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the US, for why this is really important.
So (1)?
Yes. It has nothing to do with Twitter as a company.
The people drawing the lines need to be actual judges, rather than random employees of social media companies, which we understood in recent years to collectively have a very specific world view.
If someone said X that was wrong, and that statement is causing problems, then a judge should ask person X to withdraw his comments and possibly make a statement to that effect, able to hold them in contempt of court for not doing so.
You're not really suggesting social media should be moderated only by judges, not by the people operating the website?
That's surely the craziest thing I've heard since Donald Trump last opened his mouth.
Social media’s own moderation should be limited to removing clearly illegal material posted, not making judgements on the rights or wrongs of the opinions of individuals posting to them.
You just said posts should be removed only on the instruction of a judge, "rather than random employees of social media companies".
Perhaps you need to stop posting for a while and think things out.
Err, nope.
Posts should be removed by individuals on the order of a judge, the platforms should have nothing to do with it except to enable posts to be deleted in connection with a court order.
The previous problem was the likes of Twitter hiring a bunch of twentysomethings in California as moderators, with what should have been an obvious bias in their moderation.
You're saying something different in every post.
And frankly it's all nonsense. You're now saying anyone running any kind of social media website should be forced to publish anything anyone wants them to, on demand? And they have to get a court order to remove anything? (Though no doubt it will be different again in five minutes.)
Publishing of any kind has never worked like that, and only a fool could imagine it ever will.
Thought was interesting how fast Starmer has pushed for expanded use of facial recognition. Labour party have historically been somewhere between very wary and absolutely against use of this technology, suggesting its a bit like stop and search, where issues with racial profiling etc.
Not really: Labour loves authoritarianism.
It's quite clear what we'll get from this administration, and it's similar to the last one: State, State and State.
Seems easier for some people here to throw the fascist card at Elon Musk than actually engage with the (pretty fascist) Labour policy proposal he is calling out.
I'll put my cards on the table: Tommy Robinson is a thug, and so are the motley crew that follow him, but one can't simply put every bit of disorder or protest that follows this as being down to the "far right" and then argue for massive increase in authoritarianism (which clearly Starmer gets off on) as a solution. That's just a cop out.
This happened because people suspected another cover-up was in play - no-one believed the " under 18 so anonymous" bullshit - and people are sick of being taken for fools and for "anti racism" and "community relations" (which only work one-way, bear in mind) being a bigger priority for the powers that be than the very real social and cultural problems brewing in some communities.
They should learn from it. In reality, they'll play the same old tune, only harder and stronger.
If the Rwandan 17 year old had turned out to be a Muslim, would ‘people’ have been justified in burning police vans and attacking mosques?
One of the sadder recent spectacles is conservatism/Conservatism abandoning a belief in personal responsibility for one’s actions. Perhaps it was always inclined that way and I just haven’t noticed.
That’s rather close to whataboutry
The simple fact is that the official statements on the matter inflamed an ugly situation.
The cure is to come up with better official statements to take the wind out of the sails of the EDL and other thugs.
As someone else on this thread has pointed out - the far right is small and splintered. Without useful idiots attaching themselves to such mobs, Yarxley-Lennon and chums will be outnumbered by the police.
I don’t have as much faith that “better official statements” will help. Robinson/Yaxley-Lennon was in the UK recently showing a film that he has been banned from doing so because it’s been found to be libellous. He knows it’s all lies, but he still showed it.
As with Trump and MAGA, they will believe what they want to believe. Robinson’s supporters were already agitating before the stabbing and they would have invented some other reason without it.
Musk’s Twitter doesn’t care about what’s true. It would have spread lies, however good you made the official statements.
We had people on PB who knew that the attack had nothing to do with Islam who still felt this was a great time to claim Muslims are problematic.
Sure, look at how official statements are made and think whether that could be improved, but the main problems here are poorly moderated social media and a far right, Islamophobic/anti-immigration movement. The cure is better moderation of social media, strong police action against perpetrators, and not excusing racism.
Moderation is of no use, when the message you want to project is feeble or non-existent.
Simply giving up the social media field to the scum is giving them a victory by default.
Get out, ahead of them, with the truth. Then push and amplify the truth.
Moderation of online disinformation generally works very well to reduce the spread of disinformation. This is not giving up the social media field to the scum: it is taking back the social media filed from the scum.
I hope you are joking....government moderation of anything about speech leads to censorship...we do it then saudi will demand the right and russia...and iran and the GOP in america. It will cause more issues than it solves.
I'm asking social media companies to moderate themselves.
Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and the GOP in the US do what they want anyway (but I like your grouping! a new axis of evil?).
Unfortunately the social media companies have a very poor record of moderating themselves, preferring to censor content based on ideology rather than correctness.
Apart from anything who do you trust to determine whats true....example
Country A does something x
People find out thing x happened....Country A denies x happened
Social media company has no way of verifying if x happened or not and even if it did was country A responsible for x or not
Now what should social media company do
1) delete all posts saying x happened 2) delete all posts saying x happened and its the fault of country a 3) let posts stand about x happening even though its disputed but delete all posts tying x happening to country A 4) throw up their hands and say we dont actually know the posts might be true or might not but we dont actually know for sure
I would rather stick with 4) as the lesser evil personally
Instead of your hypothetical example, can I suggest we consider a real example? After the Southport stabbing, a Russian disinformation site claimed that the attacker was called "Ali Al-Shakati". This claim got nearly 20 million views and led to rioting in multiple sites. Twitter eventually removed the original tweet.
What do you think should have happened?
1) Twitter should have done nothing, left the tweet up 2) Twitter should have removed the tweet sooner 3) Twitter got it just right
The courts should engage with individuals posting illegal material. It should be nothing to do with the “platform”.
See Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the US, for why this is really important.
So (1)?
Yes. It has nothing to do with Twitter as a company.
The people drawing the lines need to be actual judges, rather than random employees of social media companies, which we understood in recent years to collectively have a very specific world view.
If someone said X that was wrong, and that statement is causing problems, then a judge should ask person X to withdraw his comments and possibly make a statement to that effect, able to hold them in contempt of court for not doing so.
You're not really suggesting social media should be moderated only by judges, not by the people operating the website?
That's surely the craziest thing I've heard since Donald Trump last opened his mouth.
Social media’s own moderation should be limited to removing clearly illegal material posted, not making judgements on the rights or wrongs of the opinions of individuals posting to them.
You just said posts should be removed only on the instruction of a judge, "rather than random employees of social media companies".
Perhaps you need to stop posting for a while and think things out.
Err, nope.
Posts should be removed by individuals on the order of a judge, the platforms should have nothing to do with it except to enable posts to be deleted in connection with a court order.
The previous problem was the likes of Twitter hiring a bunch of twentysomethings in California as moderators, with what should have been an obvious bias in their moderation.
You're saying something different in every post.
And frankly it's all nonsense. You're now saying anyone running any kind of social media website should be forced to publish anything anyone wants them to, on demand? And they have to get a court order to remove anything? (Though no doubt it will be different again in five minutes.)
Publishing of any kind has never worked like that, and only a fool could imagine it ever will.
Because social media companies aren't publishers I think the mods here will confirm one of us posts something that infringes a law they get a demand for our identity then the poster gets a visit not the site owners. If sites like this were held jointly liable the result would be they would probably largely stop allowing comments
People demanding moderation of social media really mean social media should only be allowed to post what I believe....they should be honest
What I believe is that sort of absolutist ad hominem attack is not a very helpful contribution to the debate, but I wouldn't want you to be blocked from making it.
How is it ad hominem when I didn't mention any one in particular....you for example want people to post only what you deem true, under the same system I would want them to believe is true....the two truths will often have failures to overlap....thats not ad hominem it is a simple fact of life.
Difference is I am not asking social media to delete stuff that I believe untrue
If you’re broadcasting your opinions in a public forum I really don’t see why you cannot accept accountability for your impact. If a poster is anonymous or untraceable then the platform becomes accountable.
If you have spicy views that you want to share, why not share them in private?
Because sometimes people want to share information that while not as you say spicy would get them sacked. For example @Ydoethur worked as a teacher....he has views on both the DFE and ofsted....if he was not anonymous and still a teacher would he still be as willing to share those views? Perhaps you think he shouldn't be able to share them?
It's a tricky tightrope with no perfect answer. But then most big issues are.
There's a middle ground that means you are not anonymous to the platform owner but are to the viewer of the platform. That means you can eliminate bots but don't face the disapproving employer issue.
I try to make sure nothing I post here or elsewhere would be embarrassing or problematic if my employers or family saw it (or indeed if I ever stood for elected office). I'm only half anonymous here and on one or two other forums anyway, and my Twitter account is not anonymous at all.
Thought was interesting how fast Starmer has pushed for expanded use of facial recognition. Labour party have historically been somewhere between very wary and absolutely against use of this technology, suggesting its a bit like stop and search, where issues with racial profiling etc.
Not really: Labour loves authoritarianism.
It's quite clear what we'll get from this administration, and it's similar to the last one: State, State and State.
Seems easier for some people here to throw the fascist card at Elon Musk than actually engage with the (pretty fascist) Labour policy proposal he is calling out.
I'll put my cards on the table: Tommy Robinson is a thug, and so are the motley crew that follow him, but one can't simply put every bit of disorder or protest that follows this as being down to the "far right" and then argue for massive increase in authoritarianism (which clearly Starmer gets off on) as a solution. That's just a cop out.
This happened because people suspected another cover-up was in play - no-one believed the " under 18 so anonymous" bullshit - and people are sick of being taken for fools and for "anti racism" and "community relations" (which only work one-way, bear in mind) being a bigger priority for the powers that be than the very real social and cultural problems brewing in some communities.
They should learn from it. In reality, they'll play the same old tune, only harder and stronger.
If the Rwandan 17 year old had turned out to be a Muslim, would ‘people’ have been justified in burning police vans and attacking mosques?
One of the sadder recent spectacles is conservatism/Conservatism abandoning a belief in personal responsibility for one’s actions. Perhaps it was always inclined that way and I just haven’t noticed.
That’s rather close to whataboutry
The simple fact is that the official statements on the matter inflamed an ugly situation.
The cure is to come up with better official statements to take the wind out of the sails of the EDL and other thugs.
As someone else on this thread has pointed out - the far right is small and splintered. Without useful idiots attaching themselves to such mobs, Yarxley-Lennon and chums will be outnumbered by the police.
I don’t have as much faith that “better official statements” will help. Robinson/Yaxley-Lennon was in the UK recently showing a film that he has been banned from doing so because it’s been found to be libellous. He knows it’s all lies, but he still showed it.
As with Trump and MAGA, they will believe what they want to believe. Robinson’s supporters were already agitating before the stabbing and they would have invented some other reason without it.
Musk’s Twitter doesn’t care about what’s true. It would have spread lies, however good you made the official statements.
We had people on PB who knew that the attack had nothing to do with Islam who still felt this was a great time to claim Muslims are problematic.
Sure, look at how official statements are made and think whether that could be improved, but the main problems here are poorly moderated social media and a far right, Islamophobic/anti-immigration movement. The cure is better moderation of social media, strong police action against perpetrators, and not excusing racism.
Moderation is of no use, when the message you want to project is feeble or non-existent.
Simply giving up the social media field to the scum is giving them a victory by default.
Get out, ahead of them, with the truth. Then push and amplify the truth.
Moderation of online disinformation generally works very well to reduce the spread of disinformation. This is not giving up the social media field to the scum: it is taking back the social media filed from the scum.
I hope you are joking....government moderation of anything about speech leads to censorship...we do it then saudi will demand the right and russia...and iran and the GOP in america. It will cause more issues than it solves.
I'm asking social media companies to moderate themselves.
Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and the GOP in the US do what they want anyway (but I like your grouping! a new axis of evil?).
Unfortunately the social media companies have a very poor record of moderating themselves, preferring to censor content based on ideology rather than correctness.
Apart from anything who do you trust to determine whats true....example
Country A does something x
People find out thing x happened....Country A denies x happened
Social media company has no way of verifying if x happened or not and even if it did was country A responsible for x or not
Now what should social media company do
1) delete all posts saying x happened 2) delete all posts saying x happened and its the fault of country a 3) let posts stand about x happening even though its disputed but delete all posts tying x happening to country A 4) throw up their hands and say we dont actually know the posts might be true or might not but we dont actually know for sure
I would rather stick with 4) as the lesser evil personally
Instead of your hypothetical example, can I suggest we consider a real example? After the Southport stabbing, a Russian disinformation site claimed that the attacker was called "Ali Al-Shakati". This claim got nearly 20 million views and led to rioting in multiple sites. Twitter eventually removed the original tweet.
What do you think should have happened?
1) Twitter should have done nothing, left the tweet up 2) Twitter should have removed the tweet sooner 3) Twitter got it just right
The courts should engage with individuals posting illegal material. It should be nothing to do with the “platform”.
See Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the US, for why this is really important.
So (1)?
Yes. It has nothing to do with Twitter as a company.
The people drawing the lines need to be actual judges, rather than random employees of social media companies, which we understood in recent years to collectively have a very specific world view.
If someone said X that was wrong, and that statement is causing problems, then a judge should ask person X to withdraw his comments and possibly make a statement to that effect.
Given the speed with which the courts move and issue over jurisdiction, that would mean the tweet would be up for months, or forever.
Your approach would have led to the tweet being more widely seen. This would likely have added to the riots. Does that concern you at all?
You’d be amazed at how quickly a judge can be made available on a Saturday afternoon, to spike a story about to appear in the Sunday press.
For how long did the likes of Huw Edwards, Jimmy Savile, Gary Glitter etc get away with it?
I don't see what Huw Edwards has to do with it.
Also, most Russian disinformation isn't illegal. You want a world with much more Russian disinformation in it.
Our tabloid press were never purveyors of misinformation, get over it.
Hard to believe that it was virtually impossible to get news other than from the BBC, a few licensed independent TV/Radio stations and a handful of newspaper moguls just 30 years ago.
To be fair in the UK they were (usually) more subtle than plain lying, inatead they made great use of the power to decide what was and wasn't newsworthy.
So something that didn't suit the agenda would be ignored (or mentioned briefly at the end of the bulletein or on page 94 if they didn't think it was credible).
Something that suited the agenda they would go on and on and on about it.
They might use a voxpop of ordinary people interviewed on the street. The one espouing the view that aligns with the editor they will choose an erudite, sober type. The one they choose for the opposite line will be some halfwit who comes across appallingly.
T'internet and social media have taken that power of omission away from them and they do not like it one bit.
People demanding moderation of social media really mean social media should only be allowed to post what I believe....they should be honest
What I believe is that sort of absolutist ad hominem attack is not a very helpful contribution to the debate, but I wouldn't want you to be blocked from making it.
How is it ad hominem when I didn't mention any one in particular....you for example want people to post only what you deem true, under the same system I would want them to believe is true....the two truths will often have failures to overlap....thats not ad hominem it is a simple fact of life.
Difference is I am not asking social media to delete stuff that I believe untrue
If you’re broadcasting your opinions in a public forum I really don’t see why you cannot accept accountability for your impact. If a poster is anonymous or untraceable then the platform becomes accountable.
If you have spicy views that you want to share, why not share them in private?
Because sometimes people want to share information that while not as you say spicy would get them sacked. For example @Ydoethur worked as a teacher....he has views on both the DFE and ofsted....if he was not anonymous and still a teacher would he still be as willing to share those views? Perhaps you think he shouldn't be able to share them?
It's a tricky tightrope with no perfect answer. But then most big issues are.
There's a middle ground that means you are not anonymous to the platform owner but are to the viewer of the platform. That means you can eliminate bots but don't face the disapproving employer issue.
I try to make sure nothing I post here or elsewhere would be embarrassing or problematic if my employers or family saw it (or indeed if I ever stood for elected office). I'm only half anonymous here and on one or two other forums anyway, and my Twitter account is not anonymous at all.
I have posted stuff related to work when it steps over into egregious misuse of public funds because I felt it needed highlighting. It was in relation to something we did for the NHS where the trusts demanded a change that really didn't effect the product but meant the nhs would spend about 30x more per unit
Comments
The social media companies do a lot of moderating of disinformation, misinformation, grooming, child pornography, criminal activity etc. etc. very effectively. In the face of orchestrated state action, e.g. Russian disinformation campaigns on Ukraine (see https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-60653-y ), I don't think the correct reaction is Muskian free speech libertarianism... not that Musk actually practises free speech. He's very ideological in his censoring.
Also these LLM can be specialised and that is where the real value is. Already, in you are in software development and if you aren't paying for Claude, Github Copilot, Supermaven, you are costing yourself time and money. The free accounts don't give you anywhere near enough tokens to be smashing those services day in day out.
I write maybe 20% of my code now and I don't even do mainstream stuff, and I pay out $100+ a month on these services per person.
I'm shocked that
@TheGreenParty
has expelled members for working with
@LibDems
to oust Jeremy Hunt
This is not progressive politics. It's sectarian old politics to reject inter-party collaboration for bigger cause of defeating the Tories. Reinstate them!'
https://x.com/PeterTatchell/status/1819354541659218183
"A bomb that killed Ismail Haniyeh was planted two months ago. Haniyeh was known to have stayed in before, was detonated remotely once it was confirmed that the Haniyeh was inside the room."
https://x.com/ImtiazMadmood/status/1819066828624109866
It seems a bit of a long shot strategy, they might go to this event in several months time, they might stay in the same room. Lets risk one of our top agents planting a bomb months ahead just in case. Rather than wait until we know, have them direct the guided missile.
Also ,I thought the original claims were they fired a rocket at the place.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Mahmoud_Al-Mabhouh
26 suspects, all of whom were out of the country before they found the body - in an hotel room locked from the inside. Was quite the diplomatic incident at the time.
What do you think should have happened?
1) Twitter should have done nothing, left the tweet up
2) Twitter should have removed the tweet sooner
3) Twitter got it just right
I put the same question to @Sandpit
Esther McVey introduced Jenrick so clearly in his camp now too and a fair number of YCs as well
See Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the US, for why this is really important.
At Robert Jenrick's Tory leadership launch in Newark, a video is shown beforehand of him visiting "all four nations". In the section for Northern Ireland, a screen behind him says "Welcome to Dublin"
Not to mention the small issue of users in countries where being gay (say) is a crime.
Of course, it is both. These riots are being fed by disinformation and misinformation, some of it seemingly coming from Russia. How would you have the authorities in the UK deal with this disinformation?
The only time the LL does not pay it is when there is a tenant in. There may be a short grace period - here it is one month, then the LL gets progressively mullered to the extent that it is a deterrent to deep renovation.
And it's once per house, so if it has been empty for some time the seller will have had it all, and it will be full charges from day 1.
Exceptions are possible, but quite difficult.
I think Social Media should be treated as publisher if misinformation is not rapidly taken down after being pointed out.
The people drawing the lines need to be actual judges, rather than random employees of social media companies, which we understood in recent years to collectively have a very specific world view.
If someone said X that was wrong, and that statement is causing problems, then a judge should ask person X to withdraw his comments and possibly make a statement to that effect, able to hold them in contempt of court for not doing so.
Your approach would have led to the tweet being more widely seen. This would likely have added to the riots. Does that concern you at all?
That's surely the craziest thing I've heard since Donald Trump last opened his mouth.
Voting is anonymous for the same reason....would you be happy if everyone could look at how you voted and use it to base whether to give you a job offer or not....for example a tory voting hiring manager not hiring you because you voted green?
Anyone with a house in London is wealthy full stop in a total sense.
But disinformation and misinformation clearly also has costs, as with the Southport riot and subsequent riots, as with Russian disinformation about the Ukraine war.
So what do you suggest?
Posting on social media is not.
For how long did the likes of Huw Edwards, Jimmy Savile, Gary Glitter etc get away with it?
If you wouldn’t say it to someone’s face, maybe don’t say it. Free speech always has consequences.
Perhaps you need to stop posting for a while and think things out.
Oddly enough, the Justice Department did not pursue the case vigorously, while Trump was president -- or so says the Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2024/08/02/trump-campaign-egypt-investigation/
(The withdrawal came days before the Loser was to become president.)
#HowToPissOffFrance
Posts should be removed by individuals on the order of a judge, the platforms should have nothing to do with it except to enable posts to be deleted in connection with a court order.
The previous problem was the likes of Twitter hiring a bunch of twentysomethings in California as moderators, with what should have been an obvious bias in their moderation.
Also, most Russian disinformation isn't illegal. You want a world with much more Russian disinformation in it.
Difference is I am not asking social media to delete stuff that I believe untrue
Would you have the judge spike out stories by every one individually? You do realise that bots can multiply faster than a judge can sign a document?
In which case, it can only be handled by the distributing organisation - i.e. the social media orgs.
I asked you about what happened in the Southport case. Sandpit kindly answered, but I don't think you have. Do you think Twitter should have left up the Russian disinformation blaming a Muslim? Or done more to take those posts down?
Oh hang on...
https://inews.co.uk/news/education/tories-strictest-headteacher-school-never-built-3201579
Also Italy and Netherlands both miles ahead of Germany is funny.
There are some pretty large countries that hardly make a dent on the medal table, some predictably but others a bit of a surprise. Look at the nations currently on zero golds: Poland, Brazil, Mexico, Turkey, India, Egypt. And those with no medals at all: Denmark, Czechia, Chile, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nigeria, Philippines...
The proportion of the global population with no gold medals is huge. Some of the largest countries on earth.
If you have spicy views that you want to share, why not share them in private?
Following the knife attack, there was incorrect speculation about the identity and religion of the suspected attacker online.[5] Misinformation, including false claims about the suspect's nationality and immigration status, were circulated on social media by high profile far-right accounts.[6] The false claim that the perpetrator was named "Ali Al-Shakati" originated from the website Channel 3 Now, and was further popularised on X.[7][8][9] X removed the original post falsely claiming the suspect's identity after receiving 1.7 million views, however the claim subsequently went viral and gained a further 17 million views.[10] According to research by BBC Verify, a newly created "Southport-themed" Telegram group became inundated with misinformation, including from the far-right National Front, prior to dissemination on social media platforms.[11] The spread of misinformation on social media has widely been attributed to the cause of the riots by various media outlets.[12][7][13][14]
Professor of political communication, Andrew Chadwick, described the tweet as being "deliberately fabricated to generate hostility toward ethnic minorities and immigrants, and it's a potentially Islamophobic piece of propaganda".[10] Former security minister, Stephen McPartland, accused Russia and Vladimir Putin's regime of involvement in the campaign of misinformation, describing it as "part of the Russian playbook".[15] Guardian columnist Owen Jones blamed X (formerly Twitter) as a "cesspit of disinformation and far-right talking points" for the spread of unverified claims.[16]
Merseyside Police attempted to quell speculation by confirming that the name being circulated was not connected to the case and was not the suspect.[17] The actual suspect was born in Cardiff and moved to the Southport area in 2013.[18]
Citations to articles at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Southport_riot#False_claims
2024 National GE:
Harris 47% (+5)
Trump 42%
Kennedy 6%
.@RMG_Research/@ScottWRasmussen, 3,000 RV, 7/29-31
If only we knew of a former Conservative Immigration Minister to ask why the Labour Government's immigration policy has been so disastrous for so many years.
And frankly it's all nonsense. You're now saying anyone running any kind of social media website should be forced to publish anything anyone wants them to, on demand? And they have to get a court order to remove anything? (Though no doubt it will be different again in five minutes.)
Publishing of any kind has never worked like that, and only a fool could imagine it ever will.
There's a middle ground that means you are not anonymous to the platform owner but are to the viewer of the platform. That means you can eliminate bots but don't face the disapproving employer issue.
I try to make sure nothing I post here or elsewhere would be embarrassing or problematic if my employers or family saw it (or indeed if I ever stood for elected office). I'm only half anonymous here and on one or two other forums anyway, and my Twitter account is not anonymous at all.
Hard to believe that it was virtually impossible to get news other than from the BBC, a few licensed independent TV/Radio stations and a handful of newspaper moguls just 30 years ago.
To be fair in the UK they were (usually) more subtle than plain lying, inatead they made great use of the power to decide what was and wasn't newsworthy.
So something that didn't suit the agenda would be ignored (or mentioned briefly at the end of the bulletein or on page 94 if they didn't think it was credible).
Something that suited the agenda they would go on and on and on about it.
They might use a voxpop of ordinary people interviewed on the street. The one espouing the view that aligns with the editor they will choose an erudite, sober type. The one they choose for the opposite line will be some halfwit who comes across appallingly.
T'internet and social media have taken that power of omission away from them and they do not like it one bit.