I didn't know anything about Val Deming, but she seems like a good pick for the Biden VP slot: a black career police officer with a very humble background, who drives Harleys and comes from the key state of Florida.
All very good until they one day take down free speech that you happen to like.
What did she say this time?
Can’t stand her but, yes, the people cheering this on will,be the same crying bitter salt tears when their heroes get banned. I just blocked her on Twitter. Job done
She can set up her own blog and say whatever she likes on it just as OGH has done.
She has no right to be on Twitter if she breaks their rules any more than Martin Day has a right to be here if he breaks OGH's.
I did follow her as i find people who are not afraid to speak their mind interesting. This is not a right wing thing - I have attended Ken Livingstone talks as well for the same reason. From what I can recall , she got as good as she gave and just stated what may be considered forthright and insensitive posts from time to time but not sure they were hateful. Its a pity Twitter have done this as I cannot see there is a genuine case of breakign their rules just pressure from her many opponents
Every year the range of opinions Twitter permits shrinks, and at every election the Twitterati wonder why the voting didn't quite work out according to their favourite hashtags...
Question, though.
Like you, I'm a "state go away" kind of guy.
Why hasn't Gab taken off? Why is it that even though there are a bunch of other platforms that are every bit as good as Twitter, and every bit as easy to post and be on, none have managed to make headway.
Gab is an utter failure.
Why? (I suspect the answer is that people want a fight, and Twitter, like it or not, is the place to go for a fight.)
Twitter is allowed to have whatever policies it likes. Frankly, I think that - as a private company with responsibilities to its shareholders - it should make decisions as it sees fit.
So, for example, I have no issue with a restaurant that says "no breastfeeding", just as I have no issue with one that requires ties. I have no issue with male only, or female only, clubs. These are private institutions, and they should have maximum ability to choose their own clientele.
Within that, I also accept, that there should be some limits. You can't say "No Jews" or "No Blacks" or "No Catholics". But, as far as possible, private businesses should be allowed to choose what they want.
It's an intractable issue, but essentially some compromise is going to have to be reached unless we're prepared to accept a virtual monoculture on these platforms in the near future.
It's worth remembering that things change, and often change very quickly.
Internet Explorer was the dominant web browser, to the extent that the EU was really worried about it. (And mandated some stupid browser selection thing.)
Then suddenly it wasn't (and it wasn't anything to do with the EU). Google built a better product with Chrome and people switched.
Right now, Google is losing share in browsers to Brave, and in search to both DuckDuckGo and - somewhat unbelievably - Bing.
Young people don't use Facebook or Twitter. They use Snapchat and TikTok. Facebook and Twitter are for old people.
The government should not be interfering.
Only a tiny handful of my friends still use Facebook. So it’s not just the young deserting it
It used to be near universal.
I’m surprised this marked decline hasn’t really shown through in ostensible userbase or FB shares yet
Do you ever wonder if, perhaps, your personal anecdote isn't actually representative of the whole world? Amazing, I know, but bear with me.
There is extensive data on this and, while investors do worry about the aging user base, daily impressions have in actual fact continued to grow, albeit far more slowly than in the past.
This accords with my personal anecdote. People I know now use Facebook PASSIVELY. There is less interaction, fewer posts.
My friends are a smart tech savvy bunch so they might be pioneers here
As for my 24 year old wife and her friends, none of them go near Facebook. I think it is in trouble in the medium term, tho they also own WhatsApp and Instagram of course
I find this Facebook is "for old people" stuff f*cking weird.
I first signed up in 2006, when I was 24. It was cutting edge stuff.
I'm now.. um, 38.
Old?
Fuck off.
Same age, I turned 38 this week and I'm sorry to say we are a generation older now than the young people of today. When I was 18 MSN Messenger was cool - how is that going now?
TikTok is the cool app of the day, I can't be bothered with it.
Also worth mentioning the Shadow Cabinet, which, although vastly improved since the dismal Corbyn rag-bag, still looks lightweight and doesn't look like a government-in-waiting. The interview with Ed Balls on WATO today was a stark reminder that Labour used to have some serious Shad Cab figures.
To be fair, with experience and more exposure the frontbench team will no doubt improve. Nonetheless, Starmer could do with making a few forensic cuts. I'd suggest ditching RL-B would be a good start.
A decade ago Ed Balls was someone viewed with widespread derision.
Also worth mentioning the Shadow Cabinet, which, although vastly improved since the dismal Corbyn rag-bag, still looks lightweight and doesn't look like a government-in-waiting. The interview with Ed Balls on WATO today was a stark reminder that Labour used to have some serious Shad Cab figures.
To be fair, with experience and more exposure the frontbench team will no doubt improve. Nonetheless, Starmer could do with making a few forensic cuts. I'd suggest ditching RL-B would be a good start.
A decade ago Ed Balls was someone viewed with widespread derision.
All very good until they one day take down free speech that you happen to like.
What did she say this time?
Can’t stand her but, yes, the people cheering this on will,be the same crying bitter salt tears when their heroes get banned. I just blocked her on Twitter. Job done
She can set up her own blog and say whatever she likes on it just as OGH has done.
She has no right to be on Twitter if she breaks their rules any more than Martin Day has a right to be here if he breaks OGH's.
I did follow her as i find people who are not afraid to speak their mind interesting. This is not a right wing thing - I have attended Ken Livingstone talks as well for the same reason. From what I can recall , she got as good as she gave and just stated what may be considered forthright and insensitive posts from time to time but not sure they were hateful. Its a pity Twitter have done this as I cannot see there is a genuine case of breakign their rules just pressure from her many opponents
Every year the range of opinions Twitter permits shrinks, and at every election the Twitterati wonder why the voting didn't quite work out according to their favourite hashtags...
Question, though.
Like you, I'm a "state go away" kind of guy.
Why hasn't Gab taken off? Why is it that even though there are a bunch of other platforms that are every bit as good as Twitter, and every bit as easy to post and be on, none have managed to make headway.
Gab is an utter failure.
Why? (I suspect the answer is that people want a fight, and Twitter, like it or not, is the place to go for a fight.)
Twitter is allowed to have whatever policies it likes. Frankly, I think that - as a private company with responsibilities to its shareholders - it should make decisions as it sees fit.
So, for example, I have no issue with a restaurant that says "no breastfeeding", just as I have no issue with one that requires ties. I have no issue with male only, or female only, clubs. These are private institutions, and they should have maximum ability to choose their own clientele.
Within that, I also accept, that there should be some limits. You can't say "No Jews" or "No Blacks" or "No Catholics". But, as far as possible, private businesses should be allowed to choose what they want.
The whole issue is a conundrum. On the one hand, minimal government interference in private business is an obvious good for libertarians. However, for one of the premier communications platforms on the planet to either be dominated by or to exclude one side of politics is also an obvious evil for libertarians and many others.
You may well be right about why Gab etc. have failed to take off, but I suspect the main reason is the natural incuriousness produced by an overwhelmingly dominant option - people don't necessarily use Google because they have objectively assessed that it's the best search engine, but because its brand dominance is near-total, to the extent that the verb for 'to use a search engine to look up x' is 'to Google'.
Like you, I have no issue with private clubs having their own rules about membership. But the difference is that Twitter isn't the O&C, it has a massive global reach and impact. This is where I sympathize with some American libertarian lefties, who argue that media platforms of that scale have now replaced the traditional public arenas for discourse, and that access to them has become a social necessity. They should therefore be treated to some extent in law as public utilities and regulated as such - in the case of the US, that would mean applying 1st Amendment protections.
It's an intractable issue, but essentially some compromise is going to have to be reached unless we're prepared to accept a virtual monoculture on these platforms in the near future.
It's worth remembering that things change, and often change very quickly.
Internet Explorer was the dominant web browser, to the extent that the EU was really worried about it. (And mandated some stupid browser selection thing.)
Then suddenly it wasn't (and it wasn't anything to do with the EU). Google built a better product with Chrome and people switched.
Right now, Google is losing share in browsers to Brave, and in search to both DuckDuckGo and - somewhat unbelievably - Bing.
Young people don't use Facebook or Twitter. They use Snapchat and TikTok. Facebook and Twitter are for old people.
The government should not be interfering.
Only a tiny handful of my friends still use Facebook. So it’s not just the young deserting it
It used to be near universal.
I’m surprised this marked decline hasn’t really shown through in ostensible userbase or FB shares yet
I still show as a FB user, but check in less than once a month. I got sick of being spammed by crap adverts and their information tracking.
I didn't know anything about Val Deming, but she seems like a good pick for the Biden VP slot: a black career police officer with a very humble background, who drives Harleys and comes from the key state of Florida.
Also worth mentioning the Shadow Cabinet, which, although vastly improved since the dismal Corbyn rag-bag, still looks lightweight and doesn't look like a government-in-waiting. The interview with Ed Balls on WATO today was a stark reminder that Labour used to have some serious Shad Cab figures.
To be fair, with experience and more exposure the frontbench team will no doubt improve. Nonetheless, Starmer could do with making a few forensic cuts. I'd suggest ditching RL-B would be a good start.
I think that's fair comment. But I also think that with exposure the front bench team will be seen to be stronger than their Tory counterparts within a couple of years. Interestingly one who has had exposure recently, David Lammy, has in my opinion surpassed expectations, being very sensible on BLM issues including statues - a voice of reason.
R L-B had to be given a job as runner-up for the leadership, really. Given that she is up against the nonentity Gavin Williamson, if she doesn't outperform him I would expect Starmer to dispense with her services after a year or so.
Lammy is an out and out racist. He doesn't even deserve to be in Parliament let alone in the Shadow Cabinet.
You've written this before about Lammy (I ignored it then), and I think it's a shameful slur. Do you know him? Do you really think the people of Tottenham would continue to elect him (76% in 2019) if he were a racist, or are you saying that they too are racist, or are they just blind to their MP's racism?
He explicitly said the job of leading the Grenfell enquiry should not go to someone who was white.
If anyone said that a position should not go to someone because they were black they would be guilty of discrimination and probably out of a job.
What is the difference?
That is infantile.
It is in no way infantile. If anyone were to say someone should be denied a job because they were black you would be all over it. And rightly so. But apparently it is okay for Lammy to say exactly the same thing about whites.
If you believe that you are a hypocrite and are part of the problem.
David Lammy is an "out and out racist" because he wanted a BAME head for the Grenfell Inquiry?
C'mon Richard. If you abuse language like that you give yourself a real problem - because you now have no way to describe an out and out racist.
Also worth mentioning the Shadow Cabinet, which, although vastly improved since the dismal Corbyn rag-bag, still looks lightweight and doesn't look like a government-in-waiting. The interview with Ed Balls on WATO today was a stark reminder that Labour used to have some serious Shad Cab figures.
To be fair, with experience and more exposure the frontbench team will no doubt improve. Nonetheless, Starmer could do with making a few forensic cuts. I'd suggest ditching RL-B would be a good start.
I think that's fair comment. But I also think that with exposure the front bench team will be seen to be stronger than their Tory counterparts within a couple of years. Interestingly one who has had exposure recently, David Lammy, has in my opinion surpassed expectations, being very sensible on BLM issues including statues - a voice of reason.
R L-B had to be given a job as runner-up for the leadership, really. Given that she is up against the nonentity Gavin Williamson, if she doesn't outperform him I would expect Starmer to dispense with her services after a year or so.
Lammy is an out and out racist. He doesn't even deserve to be in Parliament let alone in the Shadow Cabinet.
You've written this before about Lammy (I ignored it then), and I think it's a shameful slur. Do you know him? Do you really think the people of Tottenham would continue to elect him (76% in 2019) if he were a racist, or are you saying that they too are racist, or are they just blind to their MP's racism?
He explicitly said the job of leading the Grenfell enquiry should not go to someone who was white.
If anyone said that a position should not go to someone because they were black they would be guilty of discrimination and probably out of a job.
What is the difference?
That is infantile.
It is in no way infantile. If anyone were to say someone should be denied a job because they were black you would be all over it. And rightly so. But apparently it is okay for Lammy to say exactly the same thing about whites.
If you believe that you are a hypocrite and are part of the problem.
David Lammy is an "out and out racist" because he wanted a BAME head for the Grenfell Inquiry?
C'mon Richard. If you abuse language like that you give yourself a real problem - because you now have no way to describe an out and out racist.
Yes he is. He is a racist as he wanted people hired by race.
There is a word for judging people by race and that word is racism.
All very good until they one day take down free speech that you happen to like.
What did she say this time?
Can’t stand her but, yes, the people cheering this on will,be the same crying bitter salt tears when their heroes get banned. I just blocked her on Twitter. Job done
She can set up her own blog and say whatever she likes on it just as OGH has done.
She has no right to be on Twitter if she breaks their rules any more than Martin Day has a right to be here if he breaks OGH's.
I did follow her as i find people who are not afraid to speak their mind interesting. This is not a right wing thing - I have attended Ken Livingstone talks as well for the same reason. From what I can recall , she got as good as she gave and just stated what may be considered forthright and insensitive posts from time to time but not sure they were hateful. Its a pity Twitter have done this as I cannot see there is a genuine case of breakign their rules just pressure from her many opponents
Every year the range of opinions Twitter permits shrinks, and at every election the Twitterati wonder why the voting didn't quite work out according to their favourite hashtags...
Question, though.
Like you, I'm a "state go away" kind of guy.
Why hasn't Gab taken off? Why is it that even though there are a bunch of other platforms that are every bit as good as Twitter, and every bit as easy to post and be on, none have managed to make headway.
Gab is an utter failure.
Why? (I suspect the answer is that people want a fight, and Twitter, like it or not, is the place to go for a fight.)
Twitter is allowed to have whatever policies it likes. Frankly, I think that - as a private company with responsibilities to its shareholders - it should make decisions as it sees fit.
So, for example, I have no issue with a restaurant that says "no breastfeeding", just as I have no issue with one that requires ties. I have no issue with male only, or female only, clubs. These are private institutions, and they should have maximum ability to choose their own clientele.
Within that, I also accept, that there should be some limits. You can't say "No Jews" or "No Blacks" or "No Catholics". But, as far as possible, private businesses should be allowed to choose what they want.
It's an intractable issue, but essentially some compromise is going to have to be reached unless we're prepared to accept a virtual monoculture on these platforms in the near future.
It's worth remembering that things change, and often change very quickly.
Internet Explorer was the dominant web browser, to the extent that the EU was really worried about it. (And mandated some stupid browser selection thing.)
Then suddenly it wasn't (and it wasn't anything to do with the EU). Google built a better product with Chrome and people switched.
Right now, Google is losing share in browsers to Brave, and in search to both DuckDuckGo and - somewhat unbelievably - Bing.
Young people don't use Facebook or Twitter. They use Snapchat and TikTok. Facebook and Twitter are for old people.
The government should not be interfering.
Only a tiny handful of my friends still use Facebook. So it’s not just the young deserting it
It used to be near universal.
I’m surprised this marked decline hasn’t really shown through in ostensible userbase or FB shares yet
Do you ever wonder if, perhaps, your personal anecdote isn't actually representative of the whole world? Amazing, I know, but bear with me.
There is extensive data on this and, while investors do worry about the aging user base, daily impressions have in actual fact continued to grow, albeit far more slowly than in the past.
This accords with my personal anecdote. People I know now use Facebook PASSIVELY. There is less interaction, fewer posts.
My friends are a smart tech savvy bunch so they might be pioneers here
As for my 24 year old wife and her friends, none of them go near Facebook. I think it is in trouble in the medium term, tho they also own WhatsApp and Instagram of course
I find this Facebook is "for old people" stuff f*cking weird.
I first signed up in 2006, when I was 24. It was cutting edge stuff.
I'm now.. um, 38.
Old?
Fuck off.
Same age, I turned 38 this week and I'm sorry to say we are a generation older now than the young people of today. When I was 18 MSN Messenger was cool - how is that going now?
TikTok is the cool app of the day, I can't be bothered with it.
I probably am old to them.
I accept I can't handle it.
You and Philip are young chickens to me. 38! My kids would agree with me.
All very good until they one day take down free speech that you happen to like.
What did she say this time?
Can’t stand her but, yes, the people cheering this on will,be the same crying bitter salt tears when their heroes get banned. I just blocked her on Twitter. Job done
She can set up her own blog and say whatever she likes on it just as OGH has done.
She has no right to be on Twitter if she breaks their rules any more than Martin Day has a right to be here if he breaks OGH's.
I did follow her as i find people who are not afraid to speak their mind interesting. This is not a right wing thing - I have attended Ken Livingstone talks as well for the same reason. From what I can recall , she got as good as she gave and just stated what may be considered forthright and insensitive posts from time to time but not sure they were hateful. Its a pity Twitter have done this as I cannot see there is a genuine case of breakign their rules just pressure from her many opponents
Every year the range of opinions Twitter permits shrinks, and at every election the Twitterati wonder why the voting didn't quite work out according to their favourite hashtags...
Question, though.
Like you, I'm a "state go away" kind of guy.
Why hasn't Gab taken off? Why is it that even though there are a bunch of other platforms that are every bit as good as Twitter, and every bit as easy to post and be on, none have managed to make headway.
Gab is an utter failure.
Why? (I suspect the answer is that people want a fight, and Twitter, like it or not, is the place to go for a fight.)
Twitter is allowed to have whatever policies it likes. Frankly, I think that - as a private company with responsibilities to its shareholders - it should make decisions as it sees fit.
So, for example, I have no issue with a restaurant that says "no breastfeeding", just as I have no issue with one that requires ties. I have no issue with male only, or female only, clubs. These are private institutions, and they should have maximum ability to choose their own clientele.
Within that, I also accept, that there should be some limits. You can't say "No Jews" or "No Blacks" or "No Catholics". But, as far as possible, private businesses should be allowed to choose what they want.
The whole issue is a conundrum. On the one hand, minimal government interference in private business is an obvious good for libertarians. However, for one of the premier communications platforms on the planet to either be dominated by or to exclude one side of politics is also an obvious evil for libertarians and many others.
You may well be right about why Gab etc. have failed to take off, but I suspect the main reason is the natural incuriousness produced by an overwhelmingly dominant option - people don't necessarily use Google because they have objectively assessed that it's the best search engine, but because its brand dominance is near-total, to the extent that the verb for 'to use a search engine to look up x' is 'to Google'.
Like you, I have no issue with private clubs having their own rules about membership. But the difference is that Twitter isn't the O&C, it has a massive global reach and impact. This is where I sympathize with some American libertarian lefties, who argue that media platforms of that scale have now replaced the traditional public arenas for discourse, and that access to them has become a social necessity. They should therefore be treated to some extent in law as public utilities and regulated as such - in the case of the US, that would mean applying 1st Amendment protections.
It's an intractable issue, but essentially some compromise is going to have to be reached unless we're prepared to accept a virtual monoculture on these platforms in the near future.
It's worth remembering that things change, and often change very quickly.
Internet Explorer was the dominant web browser, to the extent that the EU was really worried about it. (And mandated some stupid browser selection thing.)
Then suddenly it wasn't (and it wasn't anything to do with the EU). Google built a better product with Chrome and people switched.
Right now, Google is losing share in browsers to Brave, and in search to both DuckDuckGo and - somewhat unbelievably - Bing.
Young people don't use Facebook or Twitter. They use Snapchat and TikTok. Facebook and Twitter are for old people.
The government should not be interfering.
Only a tiny handful of my friends still use Facebook. So it’s not just the young deserting it
It used to be near universal.
I’m surprised this marked decline hasn’t really shown through in ostensible userbase or FB shares yet
I still show as a FB user, but check in less than once a month. I got sick of being spammed by crap adverts and their information tracking.
All very good until they one day take down free speech that you happen to like.
What did she say this time?
Can’t stand her but, yes, the people cheering this on will,be the same crying bitter salt tears when their heroes get banned. I just blocked her on Twitter. Job done
She can set up her own blog and say whatever she likes on it just as OGH has done.
She has no right to be on Twitter if she breaks their rules any more than Martin Day has a right to be here if he breaks OGH's.
I did follow her as i find people who are not afraid to speak their mind interesting. This is not a right wing thing - I have attended Ken Livingstone talks as well for the same reason. From what I can recall , she got as good as she gave and just stated what may be considered forthright and insensitive posts from time to time but not sure they were hateful. Its a pity Twitter have done this as I cannot see there is a genuine case of breakign their rules just pressure from her many opponents
Every year the range of opinions Twitter permits shrinks, and at every election the Twitterati wonder why the voting didn't quite work out according to their favourite hashtags...
Question, though.
Like you, I'm a "state go away" kind of guy.
Why hasn't Gab taken off? Why is it that even though there are a bunch of other platforms that are every bit as good as Twitter, and every bit as easy to post and be on, none have managed to make headway.
Gab is an utter failure.
Why? (I suspect the answer is that people want a fight, and Twitter, like it or not, is the place to go for a fight.)
Twitter is allowed to have whatever policies it likes. Frankly, I think that - as a private company with responsibilities to its shareholders - it should make decisions as it sees fit.
So, for example, I have no issue with a restaurant that says "no breastfeeding", just as I have no issue with one that requires ties. I have no issue with male only, or female only, clubs. These are private institutions, and they should have maximum ability to choose their own clientele.
Within that, I also accept, that there should be some limits. You can't say "No Jews" or "No Blacks" or "No Catholics". But, as far as possible, private businesses should be allowed to choose what they want.
The whole issue is a conundrum. On the one hand, minimal government interference in private business is an obvious good for libertarians. However, for one of the premier communications platforms on the planet to either be dominated by or to exclude one side of politics is also an obvious evil for libertarians and many others.
You may well be right about why Gab etc. have failed to take off, but I suspect the main reason is the natural incuriousness produced by an overwhelmingly dominant option - people don't necessarily use Google because they have objectively assessed that it's the best search engine, but because its brand dominance is near-total, to the extent that the verb for 'to use a search engine to look up x' is 'to Google'.
Like you, I have no issue with private clubs having their own rules about membership. But the difference is that Twitter isn't the O&C, it has a massive global reach and impact. This is where I sympathize with some American libertarian lefties, who argue that media platforms of that scale have now replaced the traditional public arenas for discourse, and that access to them has become a social necessity. They should therefore be treated to some extent in law as public utilities and regulated as such - in the case of the US, that would mean applying 1st Amendment protections.
It's an intractable issue, but essentially some compromise is going to have to be reached unless we're prepared to accept a virtual monoculture on these platforms in the near future.
It's worth remembering that things change, and often change very quickly.
Internet Explorer was the dominant web browser, to the extent that the EU was really worried about it. (And mandated some stupid browser selection thing.)
Then suddenly it wasn't (and it wasn't anything to do with the EU). Google built a better product with Chrome and people switched.
Right now, Google is losing share in browsers to Brave, and in search to both DuckDuckGo and - somewhat unbelievably - Bing.
Young people don't use Facebook or Twitter. They use Snapchat and TikTok. Facebook and Twitter are for old people.
The government should not be interfering.
Only a tiny handful of my friends still use Facebook. So it’s not just the young deserting it
It used to be near universal.
I’m surprised this marked decline hasn’t really shown through in ostensible userbase or FB shares yet
I still show as a FB user, but check in less than once a month. I got sick of being spammed by crap adverts and their information tracking.
I quite like twitter though.
I'm exactly the same. I'm a heavy WhatsApp user and also Instagram. TikTok not so much.
Will we see any principled and courageous "I'm no fan of Hopkins but ..." contributions?
EDIT -
Sorry, did not check before posting. They are coming thick and fast!
Thick is a little unfair.
Oh well, if you insist.
- The Woke have come for Katie. All are Woke today.
I have always felt that Katie Hopkins' role, like Ann Coulter in the States, was, whether intentionally or semi-intentionally, to be as repulsive as possible and be a sort of gargoyle figure for the liberal left to point at and say 'all right wing people are like that'. As such, her passing from Twitter, whilst I'm sure it's a satisfying moment for many, is regrettable from a left wing Twitter perspective, and beneficial in the long term for right wing politics.
For me that's overthinking it.
I see a person whipping up hate and prejudice for money - it's her career.
Doubt she believes the grosser stuff she comes out with. Which imo is an aggravating factor rather than a mitigating one.
It's an unabashed good that her platform and her reach have been curtailed.
Yes of course, the curtailment of free speech is always an unabashed good...
Did her tweets jump out of the screen and bite the reader? Or did readers have the option to block her or scroll past if they didn't want to read them, y'know, like adults do?
She will still be talking but fewer will get to hear. I'm sensing you have no clue about some of the stuff she's posted. Because if you had you would shed no tears about there from now on being less of it. This is not a left v right thing. It's about common decency.
In terms of social media, Facebook is now for the middle aged, Instagram for everyone over 24 and under 35, tiktok for under 24s. Snapchat is done.
Intelligent people don't waste their time with any of those.
It's really what you make of it. I use Instagram for keeping up with my friends and family and a few comedy accounts here and there. It was very annoying when all of this political stuff spilled into it for a few days but it's back to normal now. It's like an oasis of non-political bants.
Facebook still seems to have a cross-section of generations, in my experience, but the mean is definitely getting older. If that continues, it will gradually lose its position and give way to the other platforms.
However, it has the advantage of allowing more "space" in its interface, which may enable it to continue. Twitter, snapchat, Whatsapp et al seem terribly compressed and actually less user-friendly to me, even if less dated in their look and feel.
All very good until they one day take down free speech that you happen to like.
What did she say this time?
Can’t stand her but, yes, the people cheering this on will,be the same crying bitter salt tears when their heroes get banned. I just blocked her on Twitter. Job done
She can set up her own blog and say whatever she likes on it just as OGH has done.
She has no right to be on Twitter if she breaks their rules any more than Martin Day has a right to be here if he breaks OGH's.
I did follow her as i find people who are not afraid to speak their mind interesting. This is not a right wing thing - I have attended Ken Livingstone talks as well for the same reason. From what I can recall , she got as good as she gave and just stated what may be considered forthright and insensitive posts from time to time but not sure they were hateful. Its a pity Twitter have done this as I cannot see there is a genuine case of breakign their rules just pressure from her many opponents
Every year the range of opinions Twitter permits shrinks, and at every election the Twitterati wonder why the voting didn't quite work out according to their favourite hashtags...
Question, though.
Like you, I'm a "state go away" kind of guy.
Why hasn't Gab taken off? Why is it that even though there are a bunch of other platforms that are every bit as good as Twitter, and every bit as easy to post and be on, none have managed to make headway.
Gab is an utter failure.
Why? (I suspect the answer is that people want a fight, and Twitter, like it or not, is the place to go for a fight.)
Twitter is allowed to have whatever policies it likes. Frankly, I think that - as a private company with responsibilities to its shareholders - it should make decisions as it sees fit.
So, for example, I have no issue with a restaurant that says "no breastfeeding", just as I have no issue with one that requires ties. I have no issue with male only, or female only, clubs. These are private institutions, and they should have maximum ability to choose their own clientele.
Within that, I also accept, that there should be some limits. You can't say "No Jews" or "No Blacks" or "No Catholics". But, as far as possible, private businesses should be allowed to choose what they want.
The whole issue is a conundrum. On the one hand, minimal government interference in private business is an obvious good for libertarians. However, for one of the premier communications platforms on the planet to either be dominated by or to exclude one side of politics is also an obvious evil for libertarians and many others.
You may well be right about why Gab etc. have failed to take off, but I suspect the main reason is the natural incuriousness produced by an overwhelmingly dominant option - people don't necessarily use Google because they have objectively assessed that it's the best search engine, but because its brand dominance is near-total, to the extent that the verb for 'to use a search engine to look up x' is 'to Google'.
Like you, I have no issue with private clubs having their own rules about membership. But the difference is that Twitter isn't the O&C, it has a massive global reach and impact. This is where I sympathize with some American libertarian lefties, who argue that media platforms of that scale have now replaced the traditional public arenas for discourse, and that access to them has become a social necessity. They should therefore be treated to some extent in law as public utilities and regulated as such - in the case of the US, that would mean applying 1st Amendment protections.
It's an intractable issue, but essentially some compromise is going to have to be reached unless we're prepared to accept a virtual monoculture on these platforms in the near future.
It's worth remembering that things change, and often change very quickly.
Internet Explorer was the dominant web browser, to the extent that the EU was really worried about it. (And mandated some stupid browser selection thing.)
Then suddenly it wasn't (and it wasn't anything to do with the EU). Google built a better product with Chrome and people switched.
Right now, Google is losing share in browsers to Brave, and in search to both DuckDuckGo and - somewhat unbelievably - Bing.
Young people don't use Facebook or Twitter. They use Snapchat and TikTok. Facebook and Twitter are for old people.
The government should not be interfering.
But the corporate culture and politics of all these different companies is going to be rather similar, won't it? So you'll end up having the same spectrum of permitted centre > centre-left > hard left voices on Twitter / Snapchat / TikTok / WhatWhat / HelpHowDoesThisWork etc. Any flavour of ice-cream you like, as long as it's carbon-neutral, vegan, anti-imperialist vanilla.
I have a pet theory that doctrinaire libertarianism - attractive though I find it in theory - inherently trends towards its own destruction, because it gives free reign to voices and forces that are fundamentally hostile to it. I'm afraid something similar will eventually happen in the social media space - libertarianism for the platform owners, left-wing authoritarianism for the platform users.
Yes. But you don't get to choose who they host. That's their job as commercial organisations beholden to their shareholders. Fox News has proved that you can make money serving a predominantly right wing audience.
If you do go down the route of the government regulating these sites, then one day the levers of political power will be held by people you don't like, and don't agree with. Imagine if the BLM or Antifa mob were in power and decided which voices weren't being heard enough?
Will we see any principled and courageous "I'm no fan of Hopkins but ..." contributions?
EDIT -
Sorry, did not check before posting. They are coming thick and fast!
Thick is a little unfair.
Oh well, if you insist.
- The Woke have come for Katie. All are Woke today.
I have always felt that Katie Hopkins' role, like Ann Coulter in the States, was, whether intentionally or semi-intentionally, to be as repulsive as possible and be a sort of gargoyle figure for the liberal left to point at and say 'all right wing people are like that'. As such, her passing from Twitter, whilst I'm sure it's a satisfying moment for many, is regrettable from a left wing Twitter perspective, and beneficial in the long term for right wing politics.
For me that's overthinking it.
I see a person whipping up hate and prejudice for money - it's her career.
Doubt she believes the grosser stuff she comes out with. Which imo is an aggravating factor rather than a mitigating one.
It's an unabashed good that her platform and her reach have been curtailed.
Yes of course, the curtailment of free speech is always an unabashed good...
Did her tweets jump out of the screen and bite the reader? Or did readers have the option to block her or scroll past if they didn't want to read them, y'know, like adults do?
She will still be talking but fewer will get to hear. I'm sensing you have no clue about some of the stuff she's posted. Because if you had you would shed no tears about there from now on being less of it. This is not a left v right thing. It's about common decency.
I didn't follow her tweets, so I don't know exactly what she's been saying, but I'm afraid I don't accept the 'common decency' argument, because these days that gets applied to anyone who diverges from the accepted orthodoxy. I'm pretty sure that I despise Owen Jones as much as you do her, but guess what, I just ignore what he writes and would never ask for him to be banned, because I don't believe in censorship. That's the sensible, adult position against which a, um, Kulturkampf is currently being waged.
Also worth mentioning the Shadow Cabinet, which, although vastly improved since the dismal Corbyn rag-bag, still looks lightweight and doesn't look like a government-in-waiting. The interview with Ed Balls on WATO today was a stark reminder that Labour used to have some serious Shad Cab figures.
To be fair, with experience and more exposure the frontbench team will no doubt improve. Nonetheless, Starmer could do with making a few forensic cuts. I'd suggest ditching RL-B would be a good start.
I think that's fair comment. But I also think that with exposure the front bench team will be seen to be stronger than their Tory counterparts within a couple of years. Interestingly one who has had exposure recently, David Lammy, has in my opinion surpassed expectations, being very sensible on BLM issues including statues - a voice of reason.
R L-B had to be given a job as runner-up for the leadership, really. Given that she is up against the nonentity Gavin Williamson, if she doesn't outperform him I would expect Starmer to dispense with her services after a year or so.
Lammy is an out and out racist. He doesn't even deserve to be in Parliament let alone in the Shadow Cabinet.
You've written this before about Lammy (I ignored it then), and I think it's a shameful slur. Do you know him? Do you really think the people of Tottenham would continue to elect him (76% in 2019) if he were a racist, or are you saying that they too are racist, or are they just blind to their MP's racism?
He explicitly said the job of leading the Grenfell enquiry should not go to someone who was white.
If anyone said that a position should not go to someone because they were black they would be guilty of discrimination and probably out of a job.
What is the difference?
That is infantile.
It is in no way infantile. If anyone were to say someone should be denied a job because they were black you would be all over it. And rightly so. But apparently it is okay for Lammy to say exactly the same thing about whites.
If you believe that you are a hypocrite and are part of the problem.
David Lammy is an "out and out racist" because he wanted a BAME head for the Grenfell Inquiry?
C'mon Richard. If you abuse language like that you give yourself a real problem - because you now have no way to describe an out and out racist.
There is no abuse of language at all. If I were to say that someone should not get a job because of the colour of their skin what would you call that?
And bear in mind he didn't say the job should go to someone BAME. He said it should not be a white person.
As I said if you pretend that isn't racist then you are an out and out hypocrite.
I will also add of course that he attacked white people raising money to help poor people in Africa. Apparently that is racist as well in his warped world.
Attitudes like his and apparently yours are just as bad as those of Nick Griffin and the BNP.
I think Starmer is to some extent benefitting from not being Corbyn. I'm tempted to say that Labour have jumped straight from Foot to Blair, but actually I think Starmer is quite left-wing. Alastair Campbell was correct to say that we need to wait and see what Starmer presents to the country. Plenty of time for that, but it will be interesting to see what sorts of things Starmer proposes.
I'd suggest Starmer slots in rather nicely as Kinnock.
I think your suggestion does not hold water. For whatever reason English voters prefer an English leader. Both Kinnock and Brown were derided in many instances because of this. John Smith less so and Blair was seen as English.
Also to become leader of the opposition in 5 years is impressive as is his backstory. We are also told that politicians who have never done anything else are out of touch. SKS has had an an impressive career outside of politics. He is a breath of fresh air in comparison to our current leader and the leader of the USA.
I think Brown it was a two way thing - there were people calling him 'Broon' and there were a lot of other people for whom his Scottishness was part of the 'prudence' 'dour' 'clunking fist' image for austere economic competence that he had in the early years.
This actually got me thinking. How many Scottish PMs have won elections?
Well, it depends of course on what you mean by Scottish. You could include Macmillan and Baldwin in that list if you wanted to stretch the criteria a bit. Blair, certainly. But I don’t think a Scottish PM sitting for a Scottish seat has won a general election since World War Two. In that time Home and Brown are the only two Scots I can think of anyway who meet that criteria. Smith of course almost certainly would have won an election had he not died.
Even before World War Two the picture isn’t rosy. MacDonald was Scottish of course, bat sat for Seaham in the only general election he won. Asquith by contrast sat for North East Fife, but was a Yorkshireman. Campbell-Bannerman meets the criteria, and Rosebery was a Scottish peer. Balfour was Scottish, but as PM sat for a seat in Manchester and as Leader of the Opposition for the City of London.
I’ve got to give this to Yorkcity, he seems to be right.
Cameron is a Scottish name is it not? I've no idea of David Cameron's precise family history.
It is indeed. This came up in the referendum campaign now you remind me
Built for an American grain merchant apparently. Remarkably, the modern roof looks even worse than the original mock crenellations must have done. Pithily described as looking “like a half built battleship”
The modern roof is horrid - I thought it must be that, but then I saw an old picture without, and to be fair, I think it's just as ugly without.
Will we see any principled and courageous "I'm no fan of Hopkins but ..." contributions?
EDIT -
Sorry, did not check before posting. They are coming thick and fast!
Thick is a little unfair.
Oh well, if you insist.
- The Woke have come for Katie. All are Woke today.
I have always felt that Katie Hopkins' role, like Ann Coulter in the States, was, whether intentionally or semi-intentionally, to be as repulsive as possible and be a sort of gargoyle figure for the liberal left to point at and say 'all right wing people are like that'. As such, her passing from Twitter, whilst I'm sure it's a satisfying moment for many, is regrettable from a left wing Twitter perspective, and beneficial in the long term for right wing politics.
For me that's overthinking it.
I see a person whipping up hate and prejudice for money - it's her career.
Doubt she believes the grosser stuff she comes out with. Which imo is an aggravating factor rather than a mitigating one.
It's an unabashed good that her platform and her reach have been curtailed.
Yes of course, the curtailment of free speech is always an unabashed good...
Did her tweets jump out of the screen and bite the reader? Or did readers have the option to block her or scroll past if they didn't want to read them, y'know, like adults do?
She will still be talking but fewer will get to hear. I'm sensing you have no clue about some of the stuff she's posted. Because if you had you would shed no tears about there from now on being less of it. This is not a left v right thing. It's about common decency.
I didn't follow her tweets, so I don't know exactly what she's been saying, but I'm afraid I don't accept the 'common decency' argument, because these days that gets applied to anyone who diverges from the accepted orthodoxy. I'm pretty sure that I despise Owen Jones as much as you do her, but guess what, I just ignore what he writes and would never ask for him to be banned, because I don't believe in censorship. That's the sensible, adult position against which a, um, Kulturkampf is currently being waged.
Your alternative is that the government of the day should choose who gets banned (or not banned) by commercial organisations.
Don't you think that's a teensyweensybit more dangerous?
Also worth mentioning the Shadow Cabinet, which, although vastly improved since the dismal Corbyn rag-bag, still looks lightweight and doesn't look like a government-in-waiting. The interview with Ed Balls on WATO today was a stark reminder that Labour used to have some serious Shad Cab figures.
To be fair, with experience and more exposure the frontbench team will no doubt improve. Nonetheless, Starmer could do with making a few forensic cuts. I'd suggest ditching RL-B would be a good start.
I think that's fair comment. But I also think that with exposure the front bench team will be seen to be stronger than their Tory counterparts within a couple of years. Interestingly one who has had exposure recently, David Lammy, has in my opinion surpassed expectations, being very sensible on BLM issues including statues - a voice of reason.
R L-B had to be given a job as runner-up for the leadership, really. Given that she is up against the nonentity Gavin Williamson, if she doesn't outperform him I would expect Starmer to dispense with her services after a year or so.
Lammy is an out and out racist. He doesn't even deserve to be in Parliament let alone in the Shadow Cabinet.
You've written this before about Lammy (I ignored it then), and I think it's a shameful slur. Do you know him? Do you really think the people of Tottenham would continue to elect him (76% in 2019) if he were a racist, or are you saying that they too are racist, or are they just blind to their MP's racism?
He explicitly said the job of leading the Grenfell enquiry should not go to someone who was white.
If anyone said that a position should not go to someone because they were black they would be guilty of discrimination and probably out of a job.
What is the difference?
That is infantile.
It is in no way infantile. If anyone were to say someone should be denied a job because they were black you would be all over it. And rightly so. But apparently it is okay for Lammy to say exactly the same thing about whites.
If you believe that you are a hypocrite and are part of the problem.
David Lammy is an "out and out racist" because he wanted a BAME head for the Grenfell Inquiry?
C'mon Richard. If you abuse language like that you give yourself a real problem - because you now have no way to describe an out and out racist.
Yes he is. He is a racist as he wanted people hired by race.
There is a word for judging people by race and that word is racism.
Nuance rather than literalism is sometimes essential and this is such a case.
Nobody with any insight into what racism means could possibly get behind "David Lammy is an out and out racist". It is a statement of utter absurdity.
You can - at a stretch - say that he was wrong to be so convinced the Inquiry needed a BAME head for credibility that he suggested this be part of the job spec.
But this makes him an out and out racist?
Please. Language matters. It's all we've got on here.
What's interesting about Thatcher's 1979 election victory is how geographically and psephologically even it is across the ages.
The only clear trend is she won the ABs absolutely hands down.
Voting was then about economics and class, identity politics didn't come into it much.
Identity politics had already kicked off by 1970 with Powell activating nativist sentiment, and the NF were trying to kick things off for the entire decade, but indeed it was less important than in the 90s, or now.
Portland has gone from a very white, left of centre city with a reputation for the slightly quirky and quite a nice place to visit, to hotbed of mad far left activitism with near weekly stories of ANTIFA smashing the place up.
All very good until they one day take down free speech that you happen to like.
What did she say this time?
Can’t stand her but, yes, the people cheering this on will,be the same crying bitter salt tears when their heroes get banned. I just blocked her on Twitter. Job done
She can set up her own blog and say whatever she likes on it just as OGH has done.
She has no right to be on Twitter if she breaks their rules any more than Martin Day has a right to be here if he breaks OGH's.
I did follow her as i find people who are not afraid to speak their mind interesting. This is not a right wing thing - I have attended Ken Livingstone talks as well for the same reason. From what I can recall , she got as good as she gave and just stated what may be considered forthright and insensitive posts from time to time but not sure they were hateful. Its a pity Twitter have done this as I cannot see there is a genuine case of breakign their rules just pressure from her many opponents
Every year the range of opinions Twitter permits shrinks, and at every election the Twitterati wonder why the voting didn't quite work out according to their favourite hashtags...
Question, though.
Like you, I'm a "state go away" kind of guy.
Why hasn't Gab taken off? Why is it that even though there are a bunch of other platforms that are every bit as good as Twitter, and every bit as easy to post and be on, none have managed to make headway.
Gab is an utter failure.
Why? (I suspect the answer is that people want a fight, and Twitter, like it or not, is the place to go for a fight.)
Twitter is allowed to have whatever policies it likes. Frankly, I think that - as a private company with responsibilities to its shareholders - it should make decisions as it sees fit.
So, for example, I have no issue with a restaurant that says "no breastfeeding", just as I have no issue with one that requires ties. I have no issue with male only, or female only, clubs. These are private institutions, and they should have maximum ability to choose their own clientele.
Within that, I also accept, that there should be some limits. You can't say "No Jews" or "No Blacks" or "No Catholics". But, as far as possible, private businesses should be allowed to choose what they want.
The whole issue is a conundrum. On the one hand, minimal government interference in private business is an obvious good for libertarians. However, for one of the premier communications platforms on the planet to either be dominated by or to exclude one side of politics is also an obvious evil for libertarians and many others.
You may well be right about why Gab etc. have failed to take off, but I suspect the main reason is the natural incuriousness produced by an overwhelmingly dominant option - people don't necessarily use Google because they have objectively assessed that it's the best search engine, but because its brand dominance is near-total, to the extent that the verb for 'to use a search engine to look up x' is 'to Google'.
Like you, I have no issue with private clubs having their own rules about membership. But the difference is that Twitter isn't the O&C, it has a massive global reach and impact. This is where I sympathize with some American libertarian lefties, who argue that media platforms of that scale have now replaced the traditional public arenas for discourse, and that access to them has become a social necessity. They should therefore be treated to some extent in law as public utilities and regulated as such - in the case of the US, that would mean applying 1st Amendment protections.
It's an intractable issue, but essentially some compromise is going to have to be reached unless we're prepared to accept a virtual monoculture on these platforms in the near future.
It's worth remembering that things change, and often change very quickly.
Internet Explorer was the dominant web browser, to the extent that the EU was really worried about it. (And mandated some stupid browser selection thing.)
Then suddenly it wasn't (and it wasn't anything to do with the EU). Google built a better product with Chrome and people switched.
Right now, Google is losing share in browsers to Brave, and in search to both DuckDuckGo and - somewhat unbelievably - Bing.
Young people don't use Facebook or Twitter. They use Snapchat and TikTok. Facebook and Twitter are for old people.
The government should not be interfering.
But the corporate culture and politics of all these different companies is going to be rather similar, won't it? So you'll end up having the same spectrum of permitted centre > centre-left > hard left voices on Twitter / Snapchat / TikTok / WhatWhat / HelpHowDoesThisWork etc. Any flavour of ice-cream you like, as long as it's carbon-neutral, vegan, anti-imperialist vanilla.
I have a pet theory that doctrinaire libertarianism - attractive though I find it in theory - inherently trends towards its own destruction, because it gives free reign to voices and forces that are fundamentally hostile to it. I'm afraid something similar will eventually happen in the social media space - libertarianism for the platform owners, left-wing authoritarianism for the platform users.
Yes. But you don't get to choose who they host. That's their job as commercial organisations beholden to their shareholders. Fox News has proved that you can make money serving a predominantly right wing audience.
If you do go down the route of the government regulating these sites, then one day the levers of political power will be held by people you don't like, and don't agree with. Imagine if the BLM or Antifa mob were in power and decided which voices weren't being heard enough?
I quite understand your point about commercial organizations being solely responsible to shareholders. My issue is that adhering to the purity of that principle is likely to lead to very undesirable outcomes - some will judge that we have to accept those outcomes rather than compromise the integrity of the principle, but I'm less convinced that it's worth it.
As far as your second paragraph is concerned, I genuinely don't see what there is to imagine - BLM / Antifa etc. have absolute freedom of speech already on these platforms, and no one's going to ban them. I'm not arguing for a tipping of the scales in favour of the right - which would be a position susceptible to your 'what if someone you don't like gains power?' argument - but that there should be a level playing field in that users are only excluded for the most extreme, i.e. illegal, abuses of speech.
Portland has gone from a very white, left of centre city with a reputation for the slightly quirky and quite a nice place to visit, to hotbed of mad far left activitism with near weekly stories of ANTIFA smashing the place up.
Young liberal whites are being radicalised in US colleges on both the left and right.
Portland has gone from a very white, left of centre city with a reputation for the slightly quirky and quite a nice place to visit, to hotbed of mad far left activitism with near weekly stories of ANTIFA smashing the place up.
Amazing the nonsense that gets posted on here sometimes. You probably think inner city London is a no go area for non Muslims too.
Portland has gone from a very white, left of centre city with a reputation for the slightly quirky and quite a nice place to visit, to hotbed of mad far left activitism with near weekly stories of ANTIFA smashing the place up.
Young liberal whites are being radicalised in US colleges on both the left and right.
I used to visit Portland at least once a year for the past 20 years. Its a shame to see, as previously it was seemingly a nice tolerant safe place. But all those west coast cities have gone down the shitter, although the others is it more the drugs / homelessness.
Will we see any principled and courageous "I'm no fan of Hopkins but ..." contributions?
EDIT -
Sorry, did not check before posting. They are coming thick and fast!
Thick is a little unfair.
Oh well, if you insist.
- The Woke have come for Katie. All are Woke today.
I have always felt that Katie Hopkins' role, like Ann Coulter in the States, was, whether intentionally or semi-intentionally, to be as repulsive as possible and be a sort of gargoyle figure for the liberal left to point at and say 'all right wing people are like that'. As such, her passing from Twitter, whilst I'm sure it's a satisfying moment for many, is regrettable from a left wing Twitter perspective, and beneficial in the long term for right wing politics.
For me that's overthinking it.
I see a person whipping up hate and prejudice for money - it's her career.
Doubt she believes the grosser stuff she comes out with. Which imo is an aggravating factor rather than a mitigating one.
It's an unabashed good that her platform and her reach have been curtailed.
Yes of course, the curtailment of free speech is always an unabashed good...
Did her tweets jump out of the screen and bite the reader? Or did readers have the option to block her or scroll past if they didn't want to read them, y'know, like adults do?
She will still be talking but fewer will get to hear. I'm sensing you have no clue about some of the stuff she's posted. Because if you had you would shed no tears about there from now on being less of it. This is not a left v right thing. It's about common decency.
I didn't follow her tweets, so I don't know exactly what she's been saying, but I'm afraid I don't accept the 'common decency' argument, because these days that gets applied to anyone who diverges from the accepted orthodoxy. I'm pretty sure that I despise Owen Jones as much as you do her, but guess what, I just ignore what he writes and would never ask for him to be banned, because I don't believe in censorship. That's the sensible, adult position against which a, um, Kulturkampf is currently being waged.
Your alternative is that the government of the day should choose who gets banned (or not banned) by commercial organisations.
Don't you think that's a teensyweensybit more dangerous?
No, for goodness' sake - I think the government should _prevent_ users from being banned by monopolistic media platforms. That's it.
I just had time to listen to Kieran's podcast from the other day. The most interesting part for me was near the end, when Alistair Campbell and the other guest were asked what Labour's strategy for Scotland should be, and neither had the slightest clue, even though the latter was Scottish.
So I guess SKS is relying on winning back the red wall.
Portland has gone from a very white, left of centre city with a reputation for the slightly quirky and quite a nice place to visit, to hotbed of mad far left activitism with near weekly stories of ANTIFA smashing the place up.
You've missed out the weekly appearance of groups like the Proud Boys and other Facists who turn up to assault people for some reason.
All very good until they one day take down free speech that you happen to like.
What did she say this time?
Can’t stand her but, yes, the people cheering this on will,be the same crying bitter salt tears when their heroes get banned. I just blocked her on Twitter. Job done
She can set up her own blog and say whatever she likes on it just as OGH has done.
She has no right to be on Twitter if she breaks their rules any more than Martin Day has a right to be here if he breaks OGH's.
I did follow her as i find people who are not afraid to speak their mind interesting. This is not a right wing thing - I have attended Ken Livingstone talks as well for the same reason. From what I can recall , she got as good as she gave and just stated what may be considered forthright and insensitive posts from time to time but not sure they were hateful. Its a pity Twitter have done this as I cannot see there is a genuine case of breakign their rules just pressure from her many opponents
Every year the range of opinions Twitter permits shrinks, and at every election the Twitterati wonder why the voting didn't quite work out according to their favourite hashtags...
Question, though.
Like you, I'm a "state go away" kind of guy.
Why hasn't Gab taken off? Why is it that even though there are a bunch of other platforms that are every bit as good as Twitter, and every bit as easy to post and be on, none have managed to make headway.
Gab is an utter failure.
Why? (I suspect the answer is that people want a fight, and Twitter, like it or not, is the place to go for a fight.)
Twitter is allowed to have whatever policies it likes. Frankly, I think that - as a private company with responsibilities to its shareholders - it should make decisions as it sees fit.
So, for example, I have no issue with a restaurant that says "no breastfeeding", just as I have no issue with one that requires ties. I have no issue with male only, or female only, clubs. These are private institutions, and they should have maximum ability to choose their own clientele.
Within that, I also accept, that there should be some limits. You can't say "No Jews" or "No Blacks" or "No Catholics". But, as far as possible, private businesses should be allowed to choose what they want.
The whole issue is a conundrum. On the one hand, minimal government interference in private business is an obvious good for libertarians. However, for one of the premier communications platforms on the planet to either be dominated by or to exclude one side of politics is also an obvious evil for libertarians and many others.
You may well be right about why Gab etc. have failed to take off, but I suspect the main reason is the natural incuriousness produced by an overwhelmingly dominant option - people don't necessarily use Google because they have objectively assessed that it's the best search engine, but because its brand dominance is near-total, to the extent that the verb for 'to use a search engine to look up x' is 'to Google'.
Like you, I have no issue with private clubs having their own rules about membership. But the difference is that Twitter isn't the O&C, it has a massive global reach and impact. This is where I sympathize with some American libertarian lefties, who argue that media platforms of that scale have now replaced the traditional public arenas for discourse, and that access to them has become a social necessity. They should therefore be treated to some extent in law as public utilities and regulated as such - in the case of the US, that would mean applying 1st Amendment protections.
It's an intractable issue, but essentially some compromise is going to have to be reached unless we're prepared to accept a virtual monoculture on these platforms in the near future.
It's worth remembering that things change, and often change very quickly.
Internet Explorer was the dominant web browser, to the extent that the EU was really worried about it. (And mandated some stupid browser selection thing.)
Then suddenly it wasn't (and it wasn't anything to do with the EU). Google built a better product with Chrome and people switched.
Right now, Google is losing share in browsers to Brave, and in search to both DuckDuckGo and - somewhat unbelievably - Bing.
Young people don't use Facebook or Twitter. They use Snapchat and TikTok. Facebook and Twitter are for old people.
The government should not be interfering.
Only a tiny handful of my friends still use Facebook. So it’s not just the young deserting it
It used to be near universal.
I’m surprised this marked decline hasn’t really shown through in ostensible userbase or FB shares yet
Do you ever wonder if, perhaps, your personal anecdote isn't actually representative of the whole world? Amazing, I know, but bear with me.
There is extensive data on this and, while investors do worry about the aging user base, daily impressions have in actual fact continued to grow, albeit far more slowly than in the past.
This accords with my personal anecdote. People I know now use Facebook PASSIVELY. There is less interaction, fewer posts.
My friends are a smart tech savvy bunch so they might be pioneers here
As for my 24 year old wife and her friends, none of them go near Facebook. I think it is in trouble in the medium term, tho they also own WhatsApp and Instagram of course
Facebook’s user numbers are holding up thanks to India and Africa, as they lose users in North America and Europe. The new users don’t make an awful lot of advertising cash, so overall they’re steady as a company but likely to head down over time.
Also, expect millions of Americans to get thoroughly fed up of social media between now and November.
Disappointed Kieran didn't address my "Personality" theory.
No LotO has become PM since IPSOS-MORI started their leader image ratings in 1978 without leading on personality, and Boris leads Starmer 64-30
As has been stated several times on here, when 2024 arrives, the last thing we might feel we need is a "character" running the show.
"This time it's different". I see.
Thing is, that's what people who wanted Brown and EdM in number 10 said too
On a separate post, I made the claim that in 1970 Wilson was more charismatic than Heath, in 1979 Callaghan was seen as more charismatic than Thatcher etc, etc.
I would also add we are four years away from a GE and perceptions and/or personnel could well change.
In a shoot out between Starmer and Raab/Sunak/Patel who is deemed the dullest?
Callaghan wasn't seen as more charismatic than Thatcher according to IPSOS-MORI (if you take "Has got a lot of personality" to be a suitable question in that respect)
Yes, if Boris isn't the incumbent, it will change as no other politician, except maybe Farage, comes close to his level of "Personality" according to the IPSOS ratings. That's why I thought Starmer was a good lay to be next PM, as Boris will beat him, or if Boris is replaced he won't be the next PM, even if he won the next GE
I personally don't think it a very good metric. Boris could still be the leader, bouncing around like Tigger on steroids but if the economy is shot away Starmer wins.
Fair enough, it is just a theory, you're entitled to your own opinion.
Portland has gone from a very white, left of centre city with a reputation for the slightly quirky and quite a nice place to visit, to hotbed of mad far left activitism with near weekly stories of ANTIFA smashing the place up.
Young liberal whites are being radicalised in US colleges on both the left and right.
I used to visit Portland at least once a year for the past 20 years. Its a shame to see, as previously it was seemingly a nice tolerant safe place. But all those west coast cities have gone down the shitter, although the others is it more the drugs / homelessness.
I had a great week in San Diego year. It's still the only place in the US I like.
Will we see any principled and courageous "I'm no fan of Hopkins but ..." contributions?
EDIT -
Sorry, did not check before posting. They are coming thick and fast!
Thick is a little unfair.
Oh well, if you insist.
- The Woke have come for Katie. All are Woke today.
I have always felt that Katie Hopkins' role, like Ann Coulter in the States, was, whether intentionally or semi-intentionally, to be as repulsive as possible and be a sort of gargoyle figure for the liberal left to point at and say 'all right wing people are like that'. As such, her passing from Twitter, whilst I'm sure it's a satisfying moment for many, is regrettable from a left wing Twitter perspective, and beneficial in the long term for right wing politics.
For me that's overthinking it.
I see a person whipping up hate and prejudice for money - it's her career.
Doubt she believes the grosser stuff she comes out with. Which imo is an aggravating factor rather than a mitigating one.
It's an unabashed good that her platform and her reach have been curtailed.
Yes of course, the curtailment of free speech is always an unabashed good...
Did her tweets jump out of the screen and bite the reader? Or did readers have the option to block her or scroll past if they didn't want to read them, y'know, like adults do?
She will still be talking but fewer will get to hear. I'm sensing you have no clue about some of the stuff she's posted. Because if you had you would shed no tears about there from now on being less of it. This is not a left v right thing. It's about common decency.
I didn't follow her tweets, so I don't know exactly what she's been saying, but I'm afraid I don't accept the 'common decency' argument, because these days that gets applied to anyone who diverges from the accepted orthodoxy. I'm pretty sure that I despise Owen Jones as much as you do her, but guess what, I just ignore what he writes and would never ask for him to be banned, because I don't believe in censorship. That's the sensible, adult position against which a, um, Kulturkampf is currently being waged.
Your alternative is that the government of the day should choose who gets banned (or not banned) by commercial organisations.
Don't you think that's a teensyweensybit more dangerous?
No, for goodness' sake - I think the government should _prevent_ users from being banned by monopolistic media platforms. That's it.
Wait?
No, that's not what you're proposing.
Because, presumably, Twitter would still be allowed to ban some people. If you posted child pornography, or called for Mitch McConnell to be killed, then you would get banned.
What you're proposing is that the government of the day chooses who Twitter allows on their platform.
Also worth mentioning the Shadow Cabinet, which, although vastly improved since the dismal Corbyn rag-bag, still looks lightweight and doesn't look like a government-in-waiting. The interview with Ed Balls on WATO today was a stark reminder that Labour used to have some serious Shad Cab figures.
To be fair, with experience and more exposure the frontbench team will no doubt improve. Nonetheless, Starmer could do with making a few forensic cuts. I'd suggest ditching RL-B would be a good start.
I think that's fair comment. But I also think that with exposure the front bench team will be seen to be stronger than their Tory counterparts within a couple of years. Interestingly one who has had exposure recently, David Lammy, has in my opinion surpassed expectations, being very sensible on BLM issues including statues - a voice of reason.
R L-B had to be given a job as runner-up for the leadership, really. Given that she is up against the nonentity Gavin Williamson, if she doesn't outperform him I would expect Starmer to dispense with her services after a year or so.
Lammy is an out and out racist. He doesn't even deserve to be in Parliament let alone in the Shadow Cabinet.
You've written this before about Lammy (I ignored it then), and I think it's a shameful slur. Do you know him? Do you really think the people of Tottenham would continue to elect him (76% in 2019) if he were a racist, or are you saying that they too are racist, or are they just blind to their MP's racism?
He explicitly said the job of leading the Grenfell enquiry should not go to someone who was white.
If anyone said that a position should not go to someone because they were black they would be guilty of discrimination and probably out of a job.
What is the difference?
That is infantile.
It is in no way infantile. If anyone were to say someone should be denied a job because they were black you would be all over it. And rightly so. But apparently it is okay for Lammy to say exactly the same thing about whites.
If you believe that you are a hypocrite and are part of the problem.
David Lammy is an "out and out racist" because he wanted a BAME head for the Grenfell Inquiry?
C'mon Richard. If you abuse language like that you give yourself a real problem - because you now have no way to describe an out and out racist.
Yes he is. He is a racist as he wanted people hired by race.
There is a word for judging people by race and that word is racism.
Nuance rather than literalism is sometimes essential and this is such a case.
Nobody with any insight into what racism means could possibly get behind "David Lammy is an out and out racist". It is a statement of utter absurdity.
You can - at a stretch - say that he was wrong to be so convinced the Inquiry needed a BAME head for credibility that he suggested this be part of the job spec.
But this makes him an out and out racist?
Please. Language matters. It's all we've got on here.
Portland has gone from a very white, left of centre city with a reputation for the slightly quirky and quite a nice place to visit, to hotbed of mad far left activitism with near weekly stories of ANTIFA smashing the place up.
Young liberal whites are being radicalised in US colleges on both the left and right.
I used to visit Portland at least once a year for the past 20 years. Its a shame to see, as previously it was seemingly a nice tolerant safe place. But all those west coast cities have gone down the shitter, although the others is it more the drugs / homelessness.
I had a great week in San Diego year. It's still the only place in the US I like.
In SoCal, Santa Monica, Pasadena and San Clemente are also very nice. Newport Beach and Santa Barbara are also rans.
Portland has gone from a very white, left of centre city with a reputation for the slightly quirky and quite a nice place to visit, to hotbed of mad far left activitism with near weekly stories of ANTIFA smashing the place up.
Amazing the nonsense that gets posted on here sometimes.
I do wish people would stop posting things like this. Irony meters don’t come cheap and I don’t think the constant explosions are doing the conservatory roof any good.
Disappointed Kieran didn't address my "Personality" theory.
No LotO has become PM since IPSOS-MORI started their leader image ratings in 1978 without leading on personality, and Boris leads Starmer 64-30
As has been stated several times on here, when 2024 arrives, the last thing we might feel we need is a "character" running the show.
"This time it's different". I see.
Thing is, that's what people who wanted Brown and EdM in number 10 said too
On a separate post, I made the claim that in 1970 Wilson was more charismatic than Heath, in 1979 Callaghan was seen as more charismatic than Thatcher etc, etc.
I would also add we are four years away from a GE and perceptions and/or personnel could well change.
In a shoot out between Starmer and Raab/Sunak/Patel who is deemed the dullest?
Callaghan wasn't seen as more charismatic than Thatcher according to IPSOS-MORI (if you take "Has got a lot of personality" to be a suitable question in that respect)
Yes, if Boris isn't the incumbent, it will change as no other politician, except maybe Farage, comes close to his level of "Personality" according to the IPSOS ratings. That's why I thought Starmer was a good lay to be next PM, as Boris will beat him, or if Boris is replaced he won't be the next PM, even if he won the next GE
Disappointed Kieran didn't address my "Personality" theory.
No LotO has become PM since IPSOS-MORI started their leader image ratings in 1978 without leading on personality, and Boris leads Starmer 64-30
As has been stated several times on here, when 2024 arrives, the last thing we might feel we need is a "character" running the show.
"This time it's different". I see.
Thing is, that's what people who wanted Brown and EdM in number 10 said too
On a separate post, I made the claim that in 1970 Wilson was more charismatic than Heath, in 1979 Callaghan was seen as more charismatic than Thatcher etc, etc.
I would also add we are four years away from a GE and perceptions and/or personnel could well change.
In a shoot out between Starmer and Raab/Sunak/Patel who is deemed the dullest?
Callaghan wasn't seen as more charismatic than Thatcher according to IPSOS-MORI (if you take "Has got a lot of personality" to be a suitable question in that respect)
Yes, if Boris isn't the incumbent, it will change as no other politician, except maybe Farage, comes close to his level of "Personality" according to the IPSOS ratings. That's why I thought Starmer was a good lay to be next PM, as Boris will beat him, or if Boris is replaced he won't be the next PM, even if he won the next GE
Starmer is a good lay as next PM because Johnson might not make it all the way till the next election and the only way he can become next PM is for a general election to happen
How do you explain Attlee at GE1945?
Yes, you are agreeing with the point I just made!
I have never thought about it, I just used the ratings since IPSOS-MORI started doing them, which was in 78. My guess would be that in those days people weren't so easily dazzled by big personalities, and more likely the Beveridge Report/ end of WW2 made people more big state inclined.
My point really is that it's a relatively new phenomenon, and social media helps those possessing big personality to exploit it whilst competent, relative dullards don't cut through.
Yeah not a lot of energy in the match. The crowd sound on Sky makes it a bit better though.
Even that doesn't really work as it is just noise. No songs, no yourrrrrrr shitttttttarrrhhh or outrage when a dodgy freekick is awarded. Its the equivalent of canned laughter on a comedy show.
Disappointed Kieran didn't address my "Personality" theory.
No LotO has become PM since IPSOS-MORI started their leader image ratings in 1978 without leading on personality, and Boris leads Starmer 64-30
As has been stated several times on here, when 2024 arrives, the last thing we might feel we need is a "character" running the show.
"This time it's different". I see.
Thing is, that's what people who wanted Brown and EdM in number 10 said too
On a separate post, I made the claim that in 1970 Wilson was more charismatic than Heath, in 1979 Callaghan was seen as more charismatic than Thatcher etc, etc.
I would also add we are four years away from a GE and perceptions and/or personnel could well change.
In a shoot out between Starmer and Raab/Sunak/Patel who is deemed the dullest?
Callaghan wasn't seen as more charismatic than Thatcher according to IPSOS-MORI (if you take "Has got a lot of personality" to be a suitable question in that respect)
Yes, if Boris isn't the incumbent, it will change as no other politician, except maybe Farage, comes close to his level of "Personality" according to the IPSOS ratings. That's why I thought Starmer was a good lay to be next PM, as Boris will beat him, or if Boris is replaced he won't be the next PM, even if he won the next GE
I personally don't think it a very good metric. Boris could still be the leader, bouncing around like Tigger on steroids but if the economy is shot away Starmer wins.
Fair enough, it is just a theory, you're entitled to your own opinion.
Yeah not a lot of energy in the match. The crowd sound on Sky makes it a bit better though.
Even that doesn't really work as it is just noise. No songs, no yourrrrrrr shitttttttarrrhhh or outrage when a dodgy freekick is awarded. Its the equivalent of canned laughter on a comedy show.
It feels like watching a training match without it.
Will we see any principled and courageous "I'm no fan of Hopkins but ..." contributions?
EDIT -
Sorry, did not check before posting. They are coming thick and fast!
Thick is a little unfair.
Oh well, if you insist.
- The Woke have come for Katie. All are Woke today.
I have always felt that Katie Hopkins' role, like Ann Coulter in the States, was, whether intentionally or semi-intentionally, to be as repulsive as possible and be a sort of gargoyle figure for the liberal left to point at and say 'all right wing people are like that'. As such, her passing from Twitter, whilst I'm sure it's a satisfying moment for many, is regrettable from a left wing Twitter perspective, and beneficial in the long term for right wing politics.
For me that's overthinking it.
I see a person whipping up hate and prejudice for money - it's her career.
Doubt she believes the grosser stuff she comes out with. Which imo is an aggravating factor rather than a mitigating one.
It's an unabashed good that her platform and her reach have been curtailed.
Yes of course, the curtailment of free speech is always an unabashed good...
Did her tweets jump out of the screen and bite the reader? Or did readers have the option to block her or scroll past if they didn't want to read them, y'know, like adults do?
She will still be talking but fewer will get to hear. I'm sensing you have no clue about some of the stuff she's posted. Because if you had you would shed no tears about there from now on being less of it. This is not a left v right thing. It's about common decency.
I didn't follow her tweets, so I don't know exactly what she's been saying, but I'm afraid I don't accept the 'common decency' argument, because these days that gets applied to anyone who diverges from the accepted orthodoxy. I'm pretty sure that I despise Owen Jones as much as you do her, but guess what, I just ignore what he writes and would never ask for him to be banned, because I don't believe in censorship. That's the sensible, adult position against which a, um, Kulturkampf is currently being waged.
Your alternative is that the government of the day should choose who gets banned (or not banned) by commercial organisations.
Don't you think that's a teensyweensybit more dangerous?
No, for goodness' sake - I think the government should _prevent_ users from being banned by monopolistic media platforms. That's it.
Wait?
No, that's not what you're proposing.
Because, presumably, Twitter would still be allowed to ban some people. If you posted child pornography, or called for Mitch McConnell to be killed, then you would get banned.
What you're proposing is that the government of the day chooses who Twitter allows on their platform.
As I said in my longer post, the only proviso would be that they would be allowed to ban users who break the law, which is determined - as always - by said government of the day. Post legal material, and your free speech is protected. Post illegal material, threats of violence etc, and you're banned.
Yes, it's a degree of government interference in business, which is generally undesirable. But it's not an excessive degree, and a little bit of lateral thinking should tell these companies that allowing global social media to be dominated by the left may lead to far more actively anti-business governments in the future.
As an aside, years ago (i.e. pre-2016) I saw an internal Facebook analysis about advertising and content. It said - and I forget the exact numbers - that posts that encouraged excessive reaction were poor for advertising. People would - rather than clicking on the Oil of Olay advert - engage with the post, writing a response.
To maximise advertising revenue, you wanted people to click "like" and move on to the next post (and ideally advertisment), and not engage in heated discussion. Therefore sophisticated algorithms on the backend analyse decide whether your post is likely to improve ad revenue for the company or not.
Until today, I completely forgot about this. But it's a reminder that all Facebook (and Twitter) care about is your advertising dollars.
Yeah not a lot of energy in the match. The crowd sound on Sky makes it a bit better though.
Even that doesn't really work as it is just noise. No songs, no yourrrrrrr shitttttttarrrhhh or outrage when a dodgy freekick is awarded. Its the equivalent of canned laughter on a comedy show.
It feels like watching a training match without it.
To me it feels like watching somebody else play FIFA.
Also worth mentioning the Shadow Cabinet, which, although vastly improved since the dismal Corbyn rag-bag, still looks lightweight and doesn't look like a government-in-waiting. The interview with Ed Balls on WATO today was a stark reminder that Labour used to have some serious Shad Cab figures.
To be fair, with experience and more exposure the frontbench team will no doubt improve. Nonetheless, Starmer could do with making a few forensic cuts. I'd suggest ditching RL-B would be a good start.
I think that's fair comment. But I also think that with exposure the front bench team will be seen to be stronger than their Tory counterparts within a couple of years. Interestingly one who has had exposure recently, David Lammy, has in my opinion surpassed expectations, being very sensible on BLM issues including statues - a voice of reason.
R L-B had to be given a job as runner-up for the leadership, really. Given that she is up against the nonentity Gavin Williamson, if she doesn't outperform him I would expect Starmer to dispense with her services after a year or so.
Lammy is an out and out racist. He doesn't even deserve to be in Parliament let alone in the Shadow Cabinet.
You've written this before about Lammy (I ignored it then), and I think it's a shameful slur. Do you know him? Do you really think the people of Tottenham would continue to elect him (76% in 2019) if he were a racist, or are you saying that they too are racist, or are they just blind to their MP's racism?
He explicitly said the job of leading the Grenfell enquiry should not go to someone who was white.
If anyone said that a position should not go to someone because they were black they would be guilty of discrimination and probably out of a job.
What is the difference?
That is infantile.
It is in no way infantile. If anyone were to say someone should be denied a job because they were black you would be all over it. And rightly so. But apparently it is okay for Lammy to say exactly the same thing about whites.
If you believe that you are a hypocrite and are part of the problem.
David Lammy is an "out and out racist" because he wanted a BAME head for the Grenfell Inquiry?
C'mon Richard. If you abuse language like that you give yourself a real problem - because you now have no way to describe an out and out racist.
There is no abuse of language at all. If I were to say that someone should not get a job because of the colour of their skin what would you call that?
And bear in mind he didn't say the job should go to someone BAME. He said it should not be a white person.
As I said if you pretend that isn't racist then you are an out and out hypocrite.
I will also add of course that he attacked white people raising money to help poor people in Africa. Apparently that is racist as well in his warped world.
Attitudes like his and apparently yours are just as bad as those of Nick Griffin and the BNP.
All very good until they one day take down free speech that you happen to like.
What did she say this time?
Can’t stand her but, yes, the people cheering this on will,be the same crying bitter salt tears when their heroes get banned. I just blocked her on Twitter. Job done
She can set up her own blog and say whatever she likes on it just as OGH has done.
She has no right to be on Twitter if she breaks their rules any more than Martin Day has a right to be here if he breaks OGH's.
I did follow her as i find people who are not afraid to speak their mind interesting. This is not a right wing thing - I have attended Ken Livingstone talks as well for the same reason. From what I can recall , she got as good as she gave and just stated what may be considered forthright and insensitive posts from time to time but not sure they were hateful. Its a pity Twitter have done this as I cannot see there is a genuine case of breakign their rules just pressure from her many opponents
Every year the range of opinions Twitter permits shrinks, and at every election the Twitterati wonder why the voting didn't quite work out according to their favourite hashtags...
Trump and Brexit are the only 2 instances that really conform to your theory and we are about to get a judgement on the former very shortly.
GE2019. You couldn't move on Twitter for red roses, Labour smears, and 'long lines in London'. For all the good it did them
Winning is not like a football match, it is not an end in itself. What matters is what you deliver once you have achieved power.
If a Johnson government and Brexit end up as being as big a shambles as Trump after 4 years of being in office what was the point?
Yeah not a lot of energy in the match. The crowd sound on Sky makes it a bit better though.
Even that doesn't really work as it is just noise. No songs, no yourrrrrrr shitttttttarrrhhh or outrage when a dodgy freekick is awarded. Its the equivalent of canned laughter on a comedy show.
It feels like watching a training match without it.
To me it feels like watching somebody else play FIFA.
Gould, who read philosophy and divinity at Cambridge,....no wonder he has f##k all idea about tech.
We convinced the likes of Demis from Deepmind to sit on SAGE, but I bet nobody asked him about this app. They only have ~600 PhDs working for him, I am sure they could have run through the tech stack with those who needed to know.
Harris is being backed off the boards. What's going on?
Klobuchar withdrew and said the Veep nominee should be ‘a woman of colour.’ Realistically, that’s Harris.
That was much earlier. The price has only just shortened. It was in to 1.7 a moment ago. Out to 1.9 now but that's still far shorter than it has been of late. Suggests there's some information around somewhere but not public yet.
All very good until they one day take down free speech that you happen to like.
What did she say this time?
Can’t stand her but, yes, the people cheering this on will,be the same crying bitter salt tears when their heroes get banned. I just blocked her on Twitter. Job done
She can set up her own blog and say whatever she likes on it just as OGH has done.
She has no right to be on Twitter if she breaks their rules any more than Martin Day has a right to be here if he breaks OGH's.
I did follow her as i find people who are not afraid to speak their mind interesting. This is not a right wing thing - I have attended Ken Livingstone talks as well for the same reason. From what I can recall , she got as good as she gave and just stated what may be considered forthright and insensitive posts from time to time but not sure they were hateful. Its a pity Twitter have done this as I cannot see there is a genuine case of breakign their rules just pressure from her many opponents
Every year the range of opinions Twitter permits shrinks, and at every election the Twitterati wonder why the voting didn't quite work out according to their favourite hashtags...
Trump and Brexit are the only 2 instances that really conform to your theory and we are about to get a judgement on the former very shortly.
GE2019. You couldn't move on Twitter for red roses, Labour smears, and 'long lines in London'. For all the good it did them
Winning is not like a football match, it is not an end in itself. What matters is what you deliver once you have achieved power.
If a Johnson government and Brexit end up as being as big a shambles as Trump after 4 years of being in office what was the point?
Seriously? To keep the hard left out of power and prevent them wrecking everything I love about this country. Worth it for me a thousand times over.
Also worth mentioning the Shadow Cabinet, which, although vastly improved since the dismal Corbyn rag-bag, still looks lightweight and doesn't look like a government-in-waiting. The interview with Ed Balls on WATO today was a stark reminder that Labour used to have some serious Shad Cab figures.
To be fair, with experience and more exposure the frontbench team will no doubt improve. Nonetheless, Starmer could do with making a few forensic cuts. I'd suggest ditching RL-B would be a good start.
I think that's fair comment. But I also think that with exposure the front bench team will be seen to be stronger than their Tory counterparts within a couple of years. Interestingly one who has had exposure recently, David Lammy, has in my opinion surpassed expectations, being very sensible on BLM issues including statues - a voice of reason.
R L-B had to be given a job as runner-up for the leadership, really. Given that she is up against the nonentity Gavin Williamson, if she doesn't outperform him I would expect Starmer to dispense with her services after a year or so.
Lammy is an out and out racist. He doesn't even deserve to be in Parliament let alone in the Shadow Cabinet.
You've written this before about Lammy (I ignored it then), and I think it's a shameful slur. Do you know him? Do you really think the people of Tottenham would continue to elect him (76% in 2019) if he were a racist, or are you saying that they too are racist, or are they just blind to their MP's racism?
He explicitly said the job of leading the Grenfell enquiry should not go to someone who was white.
If anyone said that a position should not go to someone because they were black they would be guilty of discrimination and probably out of a job.
What is the difference?
That is infantile.
It is in no way infantile. If anyone were to say someone should be denied a job because they were black you would be all over it. And rightly so. But apparently it is okay for Lammy to say exactly the same thing about whites.
If you believe that you are a hypocrite and are part of the problem.
David Lammy is an "out and out racist" because he wanted a BAME head for the Grenfell Inquiry?
C'mon Richard. If you abuse language like that you give yourself a real problem - because you now have no way to describe an out and out racist.
There is no abuse of language at all. If I were to say that someone should not get a job because of the colour of their skin what would you call that?
And bear in mind he didn't say the job should go to someone BAME. He said it should not be a white person.
As I said if you pretend that isn't racist then you are an out and out hypocrite.
I will also add of course that he attacked white people raising money to help poor people in Africa. Apparently that is racist as well in his warped world.
Attitudes like his and apparently yours are just as bad as those of Nick Griffin and the BNP.
David Lammy as bad as Nick Griffin.
Keep going.
Now you are abusing language. Either that or you are simply thick. I said 'attitudes like his are as bad as those of Nick Griffin'.
That applies to anyone who makes judgements about people based on the colour of their skin. Or are you one of those idiots who thinks that only whites can be racist?
Wow - at first glance I thought Trump had said that today, and my response was to wonder "Is this his election-losing Gillian Duffy moment?", followed by "He's trying to provoke a physical-conflict election - I wonder whether he'll be successful".
I wonder whether he'd dare say it now. Given his lifetime penchant for "doubling down" and the fact that he seems crazier than ever (sceptics, please look at his Archbishop Vigano tweet), he might.
Renaming Washington and New York (states and cities) is actually the kind of idea that could take off, wham, among reasonable people who neither want, nor think in terms of, streetfighting between extreme left and extreme right, and who are capable of reflection as well as kneejerking. Many cities have been renamed. History hasn't come to an end.
Portland has gone from a very white, left of centre city with a reputation for the slightly quirky and quite a nice place to visit, to hotbed of mad far left activitism with near weekly stories of ANTIFA smashing the place up.
Amazing the nonsense that gets posted on here sometimes. You probably think inner city London is a no go area for non Muslims too.
Well, let’s just say I won’t be going to Portland on my holibobs anytime soon
Harris is being backed off the boards. What's going on?
Klobuchar withdrew and said the Veep nominee should be ‘a woman of colour.’ Realistically, that’s Harris.
That was much earlier. The price has only just shortened. It was in to 1.7 a moment ago. Out to 1.9 now but that's still far shorter than it has been of late. Suggests there's some information around somewhere but not public yet.
Well, the information is that she is the only plausible non-white female candidate.
It is of course of possible that it has taken Biden’s supporters all day to work this out, but if so, that augurs ill for the campaign.
Harris is being backed off the boards. What's going on?
Klobuchar withdrew and said the Veep nominee should be ‘a woman of colour.’ Realistically, that’s Harris.
That was much earlier. The price has only just shortened. It was in to 1.7 a moment ago. Out to 1.9 now but that's still far shorter than it has been of late. Suggests there's some information around somewhere but not public yet.
Well, the information is that she is the only plausible non-white female candidate.
It is of course of possible that it has taken Biden’s supporters all day to work this out, but if so, that augurs ill for the campaign.
I don't think they're allowed to use Betfair from the States.
Harris is being backed off the boards. What's going on?
Klobuchar withdrew and said the Veep nominee should be ‘a woman of colour.’ Realistically, that’s Harris.
That was much earlier. The price has only just shortened. It was in to 1.7 a moment ago. Out to 1.9 now but that's still far shorter than it has been of late. Suggests there's some information around somewhere but not public yet.
Well, the information is that she is the only plausible non-white female candidate.
It is of course of possible that it has taken Biden’s supporters all day to work this out, but if so, that augurs ill for the campaign.
I don't think they're allowed to use Betfair from the States.
Ah. That’s a relief.
I am assuming that somebody with large sums of money has just heard the news of Klobuchar’s withdrawal. Or possibly that Betfair has.
Portland has gone from a very white, left of centre city with a reputation for the slightly quirky and quite a nice place to visit, to hotbed of mad far left activitism with near weekly stories of ANTIFA smashing the place up.
You've missed out the weekly appearance of groups like the Proud Boys and other Facists who turn up to assault people for some reason.
Just like Glasgow, mad far left activists taking over the streets.
In which case the next statues to be attacked might not be Clive or Lincoln, they could be Mandela or Martin Luther King
Racists in America have been vandalising memorials to black lynching victims etc. for decades this isn't a new phenomena.
The memorial sign to Emmitt Till had to eventually be made out of bullet proof material so often it was shot up.
The Kingsmill memorial in Northern Ireland which commemorates 10 Protestant factory workers who were executed by the IRA in 1976 is regularly vandalised even today.
As an aside, years ago (i.e. pre-2016) I saw an internal Facebook analysis about advertising and content. It said - and I forget the exact numbers - that posts that encouraged excessive reaction were poor for advertising. People would - rather than clicking on the Oil of Olay advert - engage with the post, writing a response.
To maximise advertising revenue, you wanted people to click "like" and move on to the next post (and ideally advertisment), and not engage in heated discussion. Therefore sophisticated algorithms on the backend analyse decide whether your post is likely to improve ad revenue for the company or not.
Until today, I completely forgot about this. But it's a reminder that all Facebook (and Twitter) care about is your advertising dollars.
There is a notion among the intellectual ultraleft (don't ask me how I know) that the internet is essentially participatory advertising. Facebook etc. see things similarly but from the other side and they know well how to calibrate both the levels and the types of participation.
Harris is being backed off the boards. What's going on?
Klobuchar withdrew and said the Veep nominee should be ‘a woman of colour.’ Realistically, that’s Harris.
That was much earlier. The price has only just shortened. It was in to 1.7 a moment ago. Out to 1.9 now but that's still far shorter than it has been of late. Suggests there's some information around somewhere but not public yet.
Well, the information is that she is the only plausible non-white female candidate.
It is of course of possible that it has taken Biden’s supporters all day to work this out, but if so, that augurs ill for the campaign.
I don't think they're allowed to use Betfair from the States.
Ah. That’s a relief.
I am assuming that somebody with large sums of money has just heard the news of Klobuchar’s withdrawal. Or possibly that Betfair has.
Gone quiet now, so maybe just a single punter with deep pockets. Price holding at 10/11.
Gould, who read philosophy and divinity at Cambridge,....no wonder he has f##k all idea about tech.
We convinced the likes of Demis from Deepmind to sit on SAGE, but I bet nobody asked him about this app. They only have ~600 PhDs working for him, I am sure they could have run through the tech stack with those who needed to know.
I read Philosophy at Cambridge and have started a number of very successful technology companies.
Portland has gone from a very white, left of centre city with a reputation for the slightly quirky and quite a nice place to visit, to hotbed of mad far left activitism with near weekly stories of ANTIFA smashing the place up.
Amazing the nonsense that gets posted on here sometimes. You probably think inner city London is a no go area for non Muslims too.
Well, let’s just say I won’t be going to Portland on my holibobs anytime soon
A nation not remembered enough in these parts. Some with experience could be reminded that #NotAllImmigrants immigrate to do naughty things to the nation's daughters.
Gould, who read philosophy and divinity at Cambridge,....no wonder he has f##k all idea about tech.
We convinced the likes of Demis from Deepmind to sit on SAGE, but I bet nobody asked him about this app. They only have ~600 PhDs working for him, I am sure they could have run through the tech stack with those who needed to know.
I read Philosophy at Cambridge and have started a number of very successful technology companies.
You also had a long career in banking as an analyst which would have required you go come into daily contact with SQL and Python as a minimum. I think you probably just missed out on ML though as a mandatory thing to learn coming up the ranks to get ahead.
Will we see any principled and courageous "I'm no fan of Hopkins but ..." contributions?
EDIT -
Sorry, did not check before posting. They are coming thick and fast!
Thick is a little unfair.
Oh well, if you insist.
- The Woke have come for Katie. All are Woke today.
I have always felt that Katie Hopkins' role, like Ann Coulter in the States, was, whether intentionally or semi-intentionally, to be as repulsive as possible and be a sort of gargoyle figure for the liberal left to point at and say 'all right wing people are like that'. As such, her passing from Twitter, whilst I'm sure it's a satisfying moment for many, is regrettable from a left wing Twitter perspective, and beneficial in the long term for right wing politics.
For me that's overthinking it.
I see a person whipping up hate and prejudice for money - it's her career.
Doubt she believes the grosser stuff she comes out with. Which imo is an aggravating factor rather than a mitigating one.
It's an unabashed good that her platform and her reach have been curtailed.
Yes of course, the curtailment of free speech is always an unabashed good...
Did her tweets jump out of the screen and bite the reader? Or did readers have the option to block her or scroll past if they didn't want to read them, y'know, like adults do?
She will still be talking but fewer will get to hear. I'm sensing you have no clue about some of the stuff she's posted. Because if you had you would shed no tears about there from now on being less of it. This is not a left v right thing. It's about common decency.
I didn't follow her tweets, so I don't know exactly what she's been saying, but I'm afraid I don't accept the 'common decency' argument, because these days that gets applied to anyone who diverges from the accepted orthodoxy. I'm pretty sure that I despise Owen Jones as much as you do her, but guess what, I just ignore what he writes and would never ask for him to be banned, because I don't believe in censorship. That's the sensible, adult position against which a, um, Kulturkampf is currently being waged.
Your alternative is that the government of the day should choose who gets banned (or not banned) by commercial organisations.
Don't you think that's a teensyweensybit more dangerous?
No, for goodness' sake - I think the government should _prevent_ users from being banned by monopolistic media platforms. That's it.
Wait?
No, that's not what you're proposing.
Because, presumably, Twitter would still be allowed to ban some people. If you posted child pornography, or called for Mitch McConnell to be killed, then you would get banned.
What you're proposing is that the government of the day chooses who Twitter allows on their platform.
As I said in my longer post, the only proviso would be that they would be allowed to ban users who break the law, which is determined - as always - by said government of the day. Post legal material, and your free speech is protected. Post illegal material, threats of violence etc, and you're banned.
Yes, it's a degree of government interference in business, which is generally undesirable. But it's not an excessive degree, and a little bit of lateral thinking should tell these companies that allowing global social media to be dominated by the left may lead to far more actively anti-business governments in the future.
It is an excessive degree.
If Twitter only wants to show pro-Antifa posts or pro-Loyal Boys posts, that's their choice.
I don't have a personal account, but I have tweeted from business accounts before. She may have had 1m followers, but I doubt her Tweets got anything approaching that level of engagement - if Twitter even showed them to a 10th of her followers, she'd be lucky. And that's just her real ones - a lot of her 1m would have been bots.
Pulling down statues of Washington = Trump win in November.
I've been of the view that the Antifa/BLM riots improve the chances of the re-election of Trump, just as the '68 riots helped Nixon to power.
But it's not the only factor. In '68, I suspect the spiralling Vietnam conflict and the draft will have changed more votes than riots. Nixon could - and did - pull the US out of Vietnam, while the Democrats had managed to the get the US in a war they couldn't end.
This time around, the economy and CV-19 are much bigger issues than the statues.
If Trump navigates those, while the riots continue, then he's in with a good shot. But if the economy is in the shitter, and the virus is uncontained, then I don't think all the Antifa nonsense in the world will save him.
Pulling down statues of Washington = Trump win in November.
What if reasonable people are successful in getting reasonable but hitherto surprising points across, putting Trump totally at sea? I like the idea of renaming NY and Washington.
If it comes down to mass buying in to the idea of saving the country from extreme left, unAmerican, violent-against-property iconoclasts - in other words a McCarthyist surge - the mass of people who vote for Trump would have to want Trump to CRUSH the said menace. "Vote Trump and Kill for Keeping Statues", in other words? Are ~46% of voters so crazy? If so, it's a walk in the park for Trump...but it isn't. He's a provocative moron.
Milo didn't disappear because he was banned from Twitter.
He disappeared because he decided to make some (recorded) comments about it being good and healthy for pubescent boys to have sexual relationships with older men.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, a lot of his financial backers decided at that point to drop him like a hot potato.
Comments
Is Deming ready to be POTUS? Just a heartbeat away and that is what people will be looking at this Fall.
I accept I can't handle it.
I quite like twitter though.
The only clear trend is she won the ABs absolutely hands down.
Voting was then about economics and class, identity politics didn't come into it much.
C'mon Richard. If you abuse language like that you give yourself a real problem - because you now have no way to describe an out and out racist.
There is a word for judging people by race and that word is racism.
However, it has the advantage of allowing more "space" in its interface, which may enable it to continue. Twitter, snapchat, Whatsapp et al seem terribly compressed and actually less user-friendly to me, even if less dated in their look and feel.
If you do go down the route of the government regulating these sites, then one day the levers of political power will be held by people you don't like, and don't agree with. Imagine if the BLM or Antifa mob were in power and decided which voices weren't being heard enough?
And bear in mind he didn't say the job should go to someone BAME. He said it should not be a white person.
As I said if you pretend that isn't racist then you are an out and out hypocrite.
I will also add of course that he attacked white people raising money to help poor people in Africa. Apparently that is racist as well in his warped world.
Attitudes like his and apparently yours are just as bad as those of Nick Griffin and the BNP.
https://canmore.org.uk/collection/1638757
Those idiot cannon things it's bristling with.
Washington was everything Lee was, apart from a capable general.
Stands to reason.
This is one reason why I am not in favour of violent mobs toppling statues.
That said the person who vandalised that gravestone was especially sick.
Don't you think that's a teensyweensybit more dangerous?
Nobody with any insight into what racism means could possibly get behind "David Lammy is an out and out racist". It is a statement of utter absurdity.
You can - at a stretch - say that he was wrong to be so convinced the Inquiry needed a BAME head for credibility that he suggested this be part of the job spec.
But this makes him an out and out racist?
Please. Language matters. It's all we've got on here.
What did I miss?
Fuck cops on a large marble point sounds positively masochistic.
The memorial sign to Emmitt Till had to eventually be made out of bullet proof material so often it was shot up.
As far as your second paragraph is concerned, I genuinely don't see what there is to imagine - BLM / Antifa etc. have absolute freedom of speech already on these platforms, and no one's going to ban them. I'm not arguing for a tipping of the scales in favour of the right - which would be a position susceptible to your 'what if someone you don't like gains power?' argument - but that there should be a level playing field in that users are only excluded for the most extreme, i.e. illegal, abuses of speech.
Maybe the F-k Cops is a blind.
So I guess SKS is relying on winning back the red wall.
Also, expect millions of Americans to get thoroughly fed up of social media between now and November.
Being a Welshman I would not of course know.
No, that's not what you're proposing.
Because, presumably, Twitter would still be allowed to ban some people. If you posted child pornography, or called for Mitch McConnell to be killed, then you would get banned.
What you're proposing is that the government of the day chooses who Twitter allows on their platform.
I have never thought about it, I just used the ratings since IPSOS-MORI started doing them, which was in 78. My guess would be that in those days people weren't so easily dazzled by big personalities, and more likely the Beveridge Report/ end of WW2 made people more big state inclined.
My point really is that it's a relatively new phenomenon, and social media helps those possessing big personality to exploit it whilst competent, relative dullards don't cut through.
Yes, it's a degree of government interference in business, which is generally undesirable. But it's not an excessive degree, and a little bit of lateral thinking should tell these companies that allowing global social media to be dominated by the left may lead to far more actively anti-business governments in the future.
To maximise advertising revenue, you wanted people to click "like" and move on to the next post (and ideally advertisment), and not engage in heated discussion. Therefore sophisticated algorithms on the backend analyse decide whether your post is likely to improve ad revenue for the company or not.
Until today, I completely forgot about this. But it's a reminder that all Facebook (and Twitter) care about is your advertising dollars.
Keep going.
Doesn’t seem to fit what one might expect as head of a tech company, more like that of a Whitehall mandarin.
https://order-order.com/2020/06/19/boss-of-nhsx-should-be-fired-over-app-fiasco/
If a Johnson government and Brexit end up as being as big a shambles as Trump after 4 years of being in office what was the point?
We convinced the likes of Demis from Deepmind to sit on SAGE, but I bet nobody asked him about this app. They only have ~600 PhDs working for him, I am sure they could have run through the tech stack with those who needed to know.
That applies to anyone who makes judgements about people based on the colour of their skin. Or are you one of those idiots who thinks that only whites can be racist?
I wonder whether he'd dare say it now. Given his lifetime penchant for "doubling down" and the fact that he seems crazier than ever (sceptics, please look at his Archbishop Vigano tweet), he might.
Renaming Washington and New York (states and cities) is actually the kind of idea that could take off, wham, among reasonable people who neither want, nor think in terms of, streetfighting between extreme left and extreme right, and who are capable of reflection as well as kneejerking. Many cities have been renamed. History hasn't come to an end.
https://twitter.com/CGasparino/status/1273965231182667778
It is of course of possible that it has taken Biden’s supporters all day to work this out, but if so, that augurs ill for the campaign.
I am assuming that somebody with large sums of money has just heard the news of Klobuchar’s withdrawal. Or possibly that Betfair has.
https://twitter.com/marktarditi/status/1273348938066690048?s=20
Looks like these twats will be looking for a ruck tomorrow as well.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53106605
It’s taken all day and they still haven’t worked it out.
That’s not encouraging.
If Twitter only wants to show pro-Antifa posts or pro-Loyal Boys posts, that's their choice.
But it's not the only factor. In '68, I suspect the spiralling Vietnam conflict and the draft will have changed more votes than riots. Nixon could - and did - pull the US out of Vietnam, while the Democrats had managed to the get the US in a war they couldn't end.
This time around, the economy and CV-19 are much bigger issues than the statues.
If Trump navigates those, while the riots continue, then he's in with a good shot. But if the economy is in the shitter, and the virus is uncontained, then I don't think all the Antifa nonsense in the world will save him.
If it comes down to mass buying in to the idea of saving the country from extreme left, unAmerican, violent-against-property iconoclasts - in other words a McCarthyist surge - the mass of people who vote for Trump would have to want Trump to CRUSH the said menace. "Vote Trump and Kill for Keeping Statues", in other words? Are ~46% of voters so crazy? If so, it's a walk in the park for Trump...but it isn't. He's a provocative moron.
He disappeared because he decided to make some (recorded) comments about it being good and healthy for pubescent boys to have sexual relationships with older men.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, a lot of his financial backers decided at that point to drop him like a hot potato.