Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Hazards of Belief

Options
1…308309311313314…334

Comments

  • Options
    #9302
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,283 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    recedite wrote: »
    As it says there,


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNd2bvLvyk4

    how is that related to his FB and IG bans?


  • Options
    #9303
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    "As it says there" while quoting the article. I can't make this any simpler for you.


  • Options
    #9304
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,283 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    recedite wrote: »
    "As it says there" while quoting the article. I can't make this any simpler for you.

    your quote is about mainstream media. FB and IG are not mainstream media.


  • Options
    #9305
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    your quote is about mainstream media. FB and IG are not mainstream media.
    Take it up with The Guardian, or with smacl who posted the link to the article.


  • Options
    #9306
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Crusader beheaded.
    800 years after getting home safely.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9307
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,402 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    smacl wrote: »
    I see that Tommy Robinson has picked himself up a permanent ban from Facebaook and Instagram for breaching its policies on hate speech. Good riddance!
    Anybody catch Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon making any comments regarding the conviction of that foreign, religious fundamentalist pedophile George Pell?

    I don't remember seeing him addressing the topic, nor the dreadful censorship surrounding the conviction amongst the mainstream media.

    I'm sure it's just a matter of time before Mr Yaxley-Lennon notices this cover-up and turns his attention to the matter.

    Do keep an eye out folks.


  • Options
    #9308
    Pawwed Rig
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 22,328 CMod ✭✭✭✭Pawwed Rig


    I don't think I am comfortable with private companies deciding what viewpoints I can and cannot hear.
    Did he actually call for violence?


  • Options
    #9309
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,283 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Pawwed Rig wrote: »
    I don't think I am comfortable with private companies deciding what viewpoints I can and cannot hear.
    Did he actually call for violence?


    Yes per the BBC



    https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47371290


  • Options
    #9310
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,729 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Pawwed Rig wrote: »
    I don't think I am comfortable with private companies deciding what viewpoints I can and cannot hear.
    Did he actually call for violence?

    Meh, I've no problem with private companies refusing to provide their services to promote a point of view where that point of view promotes hatred of other people. I actually applaud social media providers having a policy that bans hate speech. Worth remembering that hate speech is a criminal offence in the EU and while I'm all for freedom of expression, it doesn't extend to using that freedom to make other people's lives a misery. Could also be that these companies are actually legally obliged to censor in this instance.


  • Options
    #9311
    Pawwed Rig
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 22,328 CMod ✭✭✭✭Pawwed Rig


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    Yes per the BBC



    https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47371290

    Now did he say that muslims are filthy scumbags or did he describe a group of people who happen to be muslims as filthy scumbags. Context is key in these scenarios. Better to see what he said and make up our own minds.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9312
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,283 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Pawwed Rig wrote: »
    Now did he say that muslims are filthy scumbags or did he describe a group of people who happen to be muslims as filthy scumbags. Context is key in these scenarios. Better to see what he said and make up our own minds.

    and what excuse can you come up with for these two:
    a post urging people to terrorise and behead those who follow the Koran
    a post urging people to "make war" on Muslims


  • Options
    #9313
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    Yes per the BBC

    https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47371290


    Would this be the same BBC that tried to do another hatchet job on TR, as per the Panodrama exposé a few posts back? Thinking him to be an uneducated working class bloke, on the level of "a cannibal".
    Except TR was too smart for them.


    Even your link above is full of untruths.
    For example...
    In May, Mr Robinson, 35, was jailed for contempt of court. The 13-month sentence sparked a series of #freetommy protests. The conviction was later quashed after procedural concerns.The case has now been referred to the attorney general.
    Procedural concerns my ass. His conviction was quashed on appeal because it was completely unlawful in the first place. The above quote would lead you to believe he is guilty of something, and is due to be put away any day now.

    According to Facebook, a written warning had been sent to Mr Robinson last month about a number of posts on his page that had violated its community standards, including:

    a post calling Muslims "filthy scum bags"
    • a post urging people to terrorise and behead those who follow the Koran
    • a post urging people to "make war" on Muslims
    • multiple videos depicting individuals being bullied
    I don't believe any of that. We all know what kind of people call for holy war, jihad and beheadings. And its certainly not a white guy from London.


  • Options
    #9314
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 8,042 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    recedite wrote: »
    Would t(...............)


    I don't believe any of that. We all know what kind of people call for holy war, jihad and beheadings. And its certainly not a white guy from London.




    Tommy Robinson isn't a white guy?


  • Options
    #9315
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 8,042 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    Every single Muslim watching this... on 7/7 you got away with killing and maiming British citizens... you had better understand that we have built a network from one end of the country to the other end... and the Islamic community will feel the full force of the English Defence League if we see any of our British citizens killed, maimed, or hurt on British soil ever again.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8j7IX_5a_9M&feature=youtu.be


    Yep...misunderstood.


  • Options
    #9316
    Pawwed Rig
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 22,328 CMod ✭✭✭✭Pawwed Rig


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    and what excuse can you come up with for these two:

    I haven't come up with any excuses. I just want go be able to hear what is said in context rather than selected quotes from sources with agendas.


  • Options
    #9317
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,283 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    recedite wrote: »
    Would this be the same BBC that tried to do another hatchet job on TR, as per the Panodrama exposé a few posts back? Thinking him to be an uneducated working class bloke, on the level of "a cannibal".
    Except TR was too smart for them.


    Even your link above is full of untruths.
    For example...Procedural concerns my ass. His conviction was quashed on appeal because it was completely unlawful in the first place. The above quote would lead you to believe he is guilty of something, and is due to be put away any day now.


    I don't believe any of that. We all know what kind of people call for holy war, jihad and beheadings. And its certainly not a white guy from London.

    The judge who heard the appeal disagrees with you. I'll take his opinion over yours.


  • Options
    #9318
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,283 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Pawwed Rig wrote: »
    I haven't come up with any excuses. I just want go be able to hear what is said in context rather than selected quotes from sources with agendas.

    Please educate me as to what context makes these acceptable
    a post urging people to terrorise and behead those who follow the Koran


    a post urging people to "make war" on Muslims


  • Options
    #9319
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,402 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Pawwed Rig wrote: »
    I don't think I am comfortable with private companies deciding what viewpoints I can and cannot hear.
    Happens all the time - here on boards too. A private company can make whatever rules it likes about how it's own privately-owned platform can be used. Same as you or I can make whatever rules we like concerning whatever rules might apply to our own dinner-tables or our own houses.

    It's different at the level of platforms which are state-owned - they are broadly required, by the state's own free-speech laws, to allow everybody freedom to speak regardless of political tinge, once the basic rules regarding "falsely shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" are adhered to. Though I note that Mr Yaxley-Lennon hasn't bothered to meet even this basic criterion for decency.

    Haven't wasted any time checking this either, but I'd imagine that Mr Yaxley-Lennon or his supporters, have specifically chosen to ignore the important distinction between spaces which are privately-owned spaces and those which are publicly-owned.


  • Options
    #9320
    Pawwed Rig
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 22,328 CMod ✭✭✭✭Pawwed Rig


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    Please educate me as to what context makes these acceptable

    So why not print what was said rather than their summary? As I said context is key.


  • Options
    #9321
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,729 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Pawwed Rig wrote: »
    I haven't come up with any excuses. I just want go be able to hear what is said in context rather than selected quotes from sources with agendas.

    That's fair enough but the likes of Facebook don't have any obligation in helping you with that exploration where the same information is no doubt available from the EDL home page. If they consider someone to be hate mongering it is quite reasonable they ban him. Worth remembering that Facebook strives to limit it's content to what is broadly acceptable to all audiences, given it's business is centred around having the largest possible audience. It is not a public service.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9322
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Pawwed Rig wrote: »
    I don't think I am comfortable with private companies deciding what viewpoints I can and cannot hear.

    That's a nice, reasonable perspective on the face of it. But think about what its implications are.

    Let's suppose for argument's sake that there's a person who thinks that all Sikhs should be murdered. Let's further suppose that that person wants to air that view on boards.ie.

    Your argument is that boards.ie shouldn't have the right to prevent this website being used as a platform for people who express the view that all Sikhs should be murdered; that it's a dangerous obstruction to free speech and a slippery slope to clamp down on the "viewpoint" that every Sikh must die.

    You would argue that it's impossible to judge the validity or otherwise of this call to mass murder without the proper context, and that a private company has no right to prevent its users from being persuaded of the merits of genocide.

    Is that a caricature of your point of view? If it is, it's a mild one. If Facebook wants to prevent a vile scumbag like Yaxley-Lennon from spreading his message of hatred, that's fine with me. It's about time they took some responsibility for the crap that's peddled on their platform.


  • Options
    #9323
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,402 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    It's about time they took some responsibility for the crap that's peddled on their platform.
    While I can't disagree with that, taking any responsibility at all opens up all kinds of hard-to-deal-with legal issues.

    Historically, telecom companies have avoided responsibility for whatever passes over their networks by reasonably claiming that nothing is monitored and they have no control over the speech which is transmitted. To the best of my knowledge, Facebook, Twitter and the rest rely on a similar defence - and only allowing a minimal level of responsibility to accrue where one network user's content is judged by some other network user to be non-compliant with carrier rules.

    Rather than requiring the platforms to assume some responsibility, an easier sell is the idea of user accounts banded according to likely authenticity - though again, the platforms have little interest in that, at least without significant pushing by, for example the EU - wishing instead to inflate their numbers in order to sell more ad interactions.


  • Options
    #9324
    Pawwed Rig
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 22,328 CMod ✭✭✭✭Pawwed Rig


    Facebook might be too big to be given as much leeway as a site like boards. Their power is huge and 'with great power comes great responsibility'.
    They are very left leaning as a corporation. Due to their power I think they need outside moderation rather than being allowed decide themselves what is good and what is not. If it is within the law then it should be heard.
    The world has moved on from state media.


  • Options
    #9325
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,729 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Pawwed Rig wrote: »
    Facebook might be too big to be given as much leeway as a site like boards. Their power is huge and 'with great power comes great responsibility'.
    They are very left leaning as a corporation. Due to their power I think they need outside moderation rather than being allowed decide themselves what is good and what is not. If it is within the law then it should be heard.
    The world has moved on from state media.

    Moderated by who exactly? On the one hand you're concerned that Tommy Robinson has been censored and on the other your calling for greater moderation of privately held media. Public incitement to hatred is neither socially acceptable nor legal in the EU, so I'd suggest that Facebook are merely operating with in societal norms here. As for Facebook being very left leaning, that rather depends on your notion of where the centre lies. I'd be interested in knowing how you would (or could) objectively support this statement.


  • Options
    #9326
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    robindch wrote: »
    Historically, telecom companies have avoided responsibility for whatever passes over their networks by reasonably claiming that nothing is monitored and they have no control over the speech which is transmitted. To the best of my knowledge, Facebook, Twitter and the rest rely on a similar defence - and only allowing a minimal level of responsibility to accrue where one network user's content is judged by some other network user to be non-compliant with carrier rules.

    Platforms like Facebook and Twitter would dearly love to be able to lean on the "mere conduit" defence, but it relies on an extremely cynical refusal to distinguish between "access" and "hosting".

    Back to my hypothetical Sikh-hater: he connects to boards.ie using an ISP who provides him with a broadband connection. If he posts his genocidal manifesto, the packets that contain that message will transit across the ISP's network in a matter of a few milliseconds. Most ISPs won't look any deeper into those packets than the IP header, which give just enough information to determine the route they should take. Even assuming they could be bothered looking deeper (and why on earth would they waste resources doing that?) the payload is encrypted and unreadable.

    Boards.ie, on the other hand, is then hosting that message. It stores that message in its database, and presents a clear-text copy of it to anyone who looks for it.

    One of those businesses is a mere conduit. The other is not. There is no comparison.


  • Options
    #9327
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    The judge who heard the appeal disagrees with you. I'll take his opinion over yours.
    Nope. Try reading the actual judgement before you go posting false statements.



    There's a lot of incitement to hatred going on in this very thread.
    Hatred towards Tommy Robinson.


  • Options
    #9328
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    recedite wrote: »
    There's a lot of incitement to hatred going on in this very thread. Hatred towards Tommy Robinson.


    Yaxley-Lennon incites hatred of Yaxley-Lennon every time he speaks.


  • Options
    #9329
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,729 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Platforms like Facebook and Twitter would dearly love to be able to lean on the "mere conduit" defence, but it relies on an extremely cynical refusal to distinguish between "access" and "hosting".

    Agree entirely with this, most other forms of media can and do get prosecuted or sued for publishing material that is illegal or defamatory. Had something similar with adverts.ie some time back where I brought an add to their attention which was demonstrably for stolen goods. I got a boilerplate response back saying this was something that I should take up with the police (i.e. not their responsibility). Same happens regularly on the likes of ebay. The "mere conduit" defense is flawed on the basis that sites that host illegal material make money by doing so and are thus liable through profiting from criminal activity.


  • Options
    #9330
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    smacl wrote: »
    Agree entirely with this, most other forms of media can and do get prosecuted or sued for publishing material that is illegal or defamatory. Had something similar with adverts.ie some time back where I brought an add to their attention which was demonstrably for stolen goods. I got a boilerplate response back saying this was something that I should take up with the police (i.e. not their responsibility). Same happens regularly on the likes of ebay. The "mere conduit" defense is flawed on the basis that sites that host illegal material make money by doing so and are thus liable through profiting from criminal activity.
    So you're comparing an add for stolen goods with Facebook censoring all future utterances of a person they don't like. And you're saying they are the same thing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9331
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,729 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    recedite wrote: »
    So you're comparing an add for stolen goods with Facebook censoring all future utterances of a person they don't like. And you're saying they are the same thing.

    I'm saying that companies that make money on the back of publishing illegal or defamatory content should be liable to prosecution for doing so, which is the case for most mainstream media. This is as true of fencing stolen goods and incitement to hatred.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement