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…309310312314315…334

Comments

  • Options
    #9332
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,123 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    smacl wrote: »
    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.
    Yup. It's all a matter of getting the incentives right. If you set things up so that people can make money by diseminating injurious material, but not bear the economic costs associated with the injuries inflicted, you're giving them a finanaicl incentive to diseminate injurious material and, naturally, they will respoins to that incentive. The trick is to ensure that those who benefit from the upside of publishing information also bear any downside, so they have an incentive to balance the two considerations.


  • Options
    #9333
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Yup. It's all a matter of getting the incentives right. If you set things up so that people can make money by diseminating injurious material, but not bear the economic costs associated with the injuries inflicted, you're giving them a finanaicl incentive to diseminate injurious material and, naturally, they will respoins to that incentive. The trick is to ensure that those who benefit from the upside of publishing information also bear any downside, so they have an incentive to balance the two considerations.
    There is a difference between allowing Free Speech, and selling stolen goods.


    Even if Facebook believed that TR's beliefs and speech were injurious to the public good (which is obviously disputed by the huge crowds who gathered outside the Old Bailey after he was unlawfully locked up) then they could respond by disabling the "donate button" on his facebook page. Which they did last year, after a campaign by The Guardian newspaper calling on them to disable it.


    What we are seeing now is an assault on free speech itself by a private company. Which on the face of it is fine, except that we find now that a few global companies are increasingly controlling the public discourse. And possibly deliberately influencing elections and public policy, mainly for profit.


  • Options
    #9334
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,187 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    recedite wrote: »
    There is a difference between allowing Free Speech, and selling stolen goods.


    Even if Facebook believed that TR's beliefs and speech were injurious to the public good (which is obviously disputed by the huge crowds who gathered outside the Old Bailey after he was unlawfully locked up) then they could respond by disabling the "donate button" on his facebook page. Which they did last year, after a campaign by The Guardian newspaper calling on them to disable it.


    What we are seeing now is an assault on free speech itself by a private company. Which on the face of it is fine, except that we find now that a few global companies are increasingly controlling the public discourse. And possibly deliberately influencing elections and public policy, mainly for profit.

    Inciting violence is not covered under free speech in the UK.


  • Options
    #9335
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    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".
    Can't see any of the main social media platforms running short of cynicism any time soon.

    If a platform is storing data, or storing a link to data, and particularly when access to that data is monetized, then I'd have thought that the platform has a basic responsibility to ensure that what it's storing conforms to basic societal norms.

    Content encryption complicates that basis though - is WhatsApp really responsible for fake-news storms or illegal content when that content is visible only to the sender and recipient, and when it's stored only on the phone? What about stuff that's visible only to the end-user, but securely stored in the cloud (like iPhone piccies stored in iCloud)?

    And has anybody developed a social network where content is stored on the platform's hardware, but visible only to end-users? That'll come (if it's not here already) if and when states start making the platforms responsible in some fashion for the content they serve.


  • Options
    #9336
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,722 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    recedite wrote: »
    There is a difference between allowing Free Speech, and selling stolen goods.

    There is also a difference between free speech and incitement to hatred.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9337
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    smacl wrote: »
    There is also a difference between free speech and incitement to hatred.
    Of those three (free speech, selling stolen goods, and incitement to hatred) only two of them are offences.


    If TR was guilty of either, surely the law would deal with him?
    The British authorities have already proved themselves very keen to lock him up when he was innocent, so I'm sure they would be quick to nab him if he was guilty.


  • Options
    #9338
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,187 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    recedite wrote: »
    Of those three (free speech, selling stolen goods, and incitement to hatred) only two of them are offences.


    If TR was guilty of either, surely the law would deal with him?
    The British authorities have already proved themselves very keen to lock him up when he was innocent, so I'm sure they would be quick to nab him if he was guilty.

    One would hope that the law will deal with appropriately. In the meantime FB are free to make their own judgement on what he posted and do not have to meet the same level of proof as a court of law.


  • Options
    #9339
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 8,017 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    Inciting violence is not covered under free speech in the UK.




    Or the US, for that matter.


  • Options
    #9340
    Pawwed Rig
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 22,306 CMod ✭✭✭✭Pawwed Rig


    smacl wrote: »
    There is also a difference between free speech and incitement to hatred.


    Exactly then get rid of the incitement to hatred and leave the freedom of speech.
    Facebook has admitted to be left wing under qurestioning from the senate commitee in the US and has also admitted to moderating right leaning commentators far more than left. At the moment it is moderated by facebook under their ethos. With the power they have this seems unfair (given that they are already being accused of skewing elections in the US). I would say a company of that size should have legal people in each jurisdiction in which they operate draw up rules for local mods to enforce based on local laws.


  • Options
    #9341
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 8,017 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    Something that seems to have been missed in the concentration on the hate speech


    "The company said Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, broke rules that ban public calls for violence against people based on protected characteristics; rules that ban supporting or appearing with organised hate groups; and policies that prevent people from using the site to bully others."


    "The ban comes a month after Facebook issued a final written warning against Robinson, warning him that he would be removed from its platform permanently if he continued to break the company’s hate speech policies.
    That warning had been issued for breaches that included a post calling on people to terrorise and behead those who follow the Qur’an; a post calling on people to “make war” on Muslims; and multiple videos showing people being bullied.
    Following that warning, Robinson did break Facebook’s policies again, it says, through:
    • Organising and participating in events with recognised hate figures or groups, such as Proud Boys and Gavin McInnes
    • Public praise or support for these hate figures and groups
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/26/tommy-robinson-banned-from-facebook-and-instagram


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9342
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,187 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Pawwed Rig wrote: »
    Exactly then get rid of the incitement to hatred and leave the freedom of speech.
    Facebook has admitted to be left wing under qurestioning from the senate commitee in the US and has also admitted to moderating right leaning commentators far more than left. At the moment it is moderated by facebook under their ethos. With the power they have this seems unfair (given that they are already being accused of skewing elections in the US). I would say a company of that size should have legal people in each jurisdiction in which they operate draw up rules for local mods to enforce based on local laws.

    Do you expect FB to only delete the offending posts? How long do you think they should do this? I find this a strange attitude from a mod here


  • Options
    #9343
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Odhinn wrote: »
    Something that seems to have been missed in the concentration on the hate speech


    "The company said Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, broke rules that ban public calls for violence against people based on protected characteristics; rules that ban supporting or appearing with organised hate groups; and policies that prevent people from using the site to bully others."


    "The ban comes a month after Facebook issued a final written warning against Robinson, warning him that he would be removed from its platform permanently if he continued to break the company’s hate speech policies.
    That warning had been issued for breaches that included a post calling on people to terrorise and behead those who follow the Qur’an; a post calling on people to “make war” on Muslims; and multiple videos showing people being bullied.
    Following that warning, Robinson did break Facebook’s policies again, it says, through:
    • Organising and participating in events with recognised hate figures or groups, such as Proud Boys and Gavin McInnes
    • Public praise or support for these hate figures and groups
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/26/tommy-robinson-banned-from-facebook-and-instagram
    All of that alleged by The Guardian and Facebook, and as I said these had already conspired to block all donations to TR via Facebook.


    Your Proud Boys link is another attempted hatchet job by The Guardian.
    In the end though, it just makes the newspaper look petty.
    McInnes denies that his group is racist, and he and other Proud Boys point to the presence of non-white members...
    Putting that quote into the article is similar to the old trick of asking "So, when did you stop beating your wife?".


    Continuing to taunt his interviewee, the reporter finally gets what he considers to be an aggressive response, which is what he wanted to get all along...
    The Guardian reached McInnes by phone. Asked about the violence in Portland, he said: “You would have to be completely blind, which I think you are, to not see that fight for what it is, which is antifa, fully armed, attacking Joey Gibson and Joey Gibson’s friends.”
    Asked if sharing video of Nordean’s punch amounted to the promotion of violence, McInnes called the Guardian a “****ing weak human being”, a “vile little pussy” and a “tepid ****”. He then ranted about “the media class”, who he said “sit there picking fights, call everyone a Nazi, and then when someone dares defend themselves, and someone else says ‘Yay’, you say: ‘Well you’re promoting violence.’”
    Lots of people will consider that to be a very good response, though maybe not the average Guardian reader :D


  • Options
    #9344
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 8,017 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    recedite wrote: »
    All of that alleged (............)reader :D


    It's a bit more than the Guardian
    https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/proud-boys


    "The FBI now classifies the far-right Proud Boys as an “extremist group with ties to white nationalism”, according to a document produced by Washington state law enforcement."
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/19/proud-boys-fbi-classification-extremist-group-white-nationalism-report


  • Options
    #9345
    Pawwed Rig
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 22,306 CMod ✭✭✭✭Pawwed Rig


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    I find this a strange attitude from a mod here

    I am not a mod here. I am a person, like you, with their own opinions and thought processes.


  • Options
    #9346
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,187 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Pawwed Rig wrote: »
    I am not a mod here. I am a person, like you, with their own opinions and thought processes.

    Here as in boards.ie. Surely you realise that you cannot just constantly clean up after users who break the rules and eventually you must ban them?


  • Options
    #9347
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,722 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Pawwed Rig wrote: »
    Facebook has admitted to be left wing under qurestioning from the senate commitee in the US and has also admitted to moderating right leaning commentators far more than left. At the moment it is moderated by facebook under their ethos.

    Do you have a reference for that? Closest I could find was Zuckerbergs statement under questioning from Ted Cruz, which actually amounts more to a denial rather than an admission.
    Zuckerberg wrote:
    “First I understand where that concern is coming from because Facebook and the tech industry is located in silicon valley which is an extremely left-leaning place.

    “This is actually a concern that I have and that I try to route out in the company by making sure we don’t have any bias in the work that we do.

    “I think it is a fair concern for people to wonder about.”

    The full transcript is here


  • Options
    #9348
    SaifUllah
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24 ✭SaifUllah


    Odhinn wrote: »
    Something that seems to have been missed in the concentration on the hate speech


    "The company said Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, broke rules that ban public calls for violence against people based on protected characteristics; rules that ban supporting or appearing with organised hate groups; and policies that prevent people from using the site to bully others."


    "The ban comes a month after issued a final written warning against Robinson, warning him that he would be removed from its platform permanently if he continued to break the company’s hate speech policies.
    That warning had been issued for breaches that included a post calling on people to terrorise and behead those who follow the Qur’an; a post calling on people to “make war” on Muslims; and multiple videos showing people being bullied.
    Following that warning, Robinson did break Facebook’s policies again, it says, through:
    • Organising and participating in events with recognised hate figures or groups, such as and Gavin McInnes
    • Public praise or support for these hate figures and groups


    Tommy Robinson is a thug, he is a just spreading hate and division.


  • Options
    #9349
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    SaifUllah wrote: »
    Tommy Robinson is a thug..
    SaifUllah... doesn't that translate as the Sword of Allah?
    Great name for a headhacker. Not so great for a pacifist.


  • Options
    #9350
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,060 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    I took it to be South Ulster.

    Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar... the gain on yer islamoterrists under the bed radar might be turned up a little high?

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #9351
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 8,017 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    Eejit.

    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/the-irish-isil-bride-how-former-member-of-defence-forces-was-captured-in-syria-on-suspicion-of-supporting-isil-37894888.html


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9352
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Odhinn wrote: »
    Eejit.

    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/the-irish-isil-bride-how-former-member-of-defence-forces-was-captured-in-syria-on-suspicion-of-supporting-isil-37894888.html
    I wonder if she fought with IS against the Kurds and US troops?
    On the one hand, she was probably the best trained soldier they had.
    On the other hand, its difficult to fight while wearing a burqa, and also contrary to the general IS ethos for a woman to do a man's job.


    So not only a personal hazard of belief for her, but also a general hazard of belief for the male jihadi fighters. Either way, they are all losers now.


  • Options
    #9353
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Also, is this Odhinn's first ever criticism of a muslim?
    Perhaps helpd by the fact that the woman is white Irish. Who's the racist now?


  • Options
    #9354
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,187 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    recedite wrote: »
    Also, is this Odhinn's first ever criticism of a muslim?
    Perhaps helpd by the fact that the woman is white Irish. Who's the racist now?

    are accusations of racism allowed now in A&A?


  • Options
    #9355
    SaifUllah
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24 ✭SaifUllah


    Odhinn wrote: »
    Eejit.

    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/the-irish-isil-bride-how-former-member-of-defence-forces-was-captured-in-syria-on-suspicion-of-supporting-isil-37894888.html

    I would have expected more from you Odhinn.

    It's a sad day when you are spreading hate and Islamaphobic bigotry.


  • Options
    #9356
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,722 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    SaifUllah wrote: »
    I would have expected more from you Odhinn.

    It's a sad day when you are spreading hate and Islamaphobic bigotry.

    Why, given your long standing interest in Odhinn's posts, you having just joined this forum a couple of days ago?


  • Options
    #9357
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    SaifUllah wrote: »
    I would have expected more from you Odhinn.
    It's a sad day when you are spreading hate and Islamaphobic bigotry.
    Indeed, I nearly choked on my Punjabi tea when I saw the post.


  • Options
    #9358
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    recedite wrote: »
    Who's the racist now?
    As in the other thread, any more of this kind of comment and you will be carded.


  • Options
    #9359
    Pero_Bueno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 502 ✭✭✭Pero_Bueno


    [ragefail]


  • Options
    #9360
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Pero_Bueno wrote: »
    [ragefail]
    No need for that kind of trolling. More of it'll see you booted. The forum charter is here so you can read it before posting here again.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9361
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    ‘Modern-day Jesus’ is on a mission to share his ‘strong sperm’

    https://nypost.com/2019/03/12/modern-day-jesus-is-on-a-mission-to-share-his-strong-sperm/
    NY Post wrote:
    Kyle Gordy is a self-proclaimed “modern-day Jesus” who travels this great nation to impregnate scores of women with his “strong sperm.” The 27-year-old Los Angeles native started his mission in 2014 and has since sired 18 babies — with seven more on the way — all around the country, from Alaska and Colorado to Texas and Kansas. (Yes, the moms pay his travel costs and Dubai, the UK and Australia are on his international “wish list.”)

    It all started when he decided his super spunk was just too special to keep to himself. So, like the modern man he is, Gordy first advertised his gift on Craigslist. Within two weeks, he made his virgin offering to a local woman via artificial insemination. “I was going to apply to a sperm bank, but the whole thing just felt so cold and clinical,” he tells Caters News. “My sperm is much better than what is in a sperm bank, as it’s strong and fresh during the donation, while I also do it all for free.” With one successful pregnancy in the bag, Gordy says word of his gratis goods spread — and soon he was being inundated with requests and referrals from women ages 18 to 42. (Note: He gives away what earns some men up to $1,500 a month from the Manhattan/California Cryobanks.)

    Gordy says his super seed is fueled by organic food and 18 different herbs and supplements a day. The nonsmoker also claims he never drinks alcohol or uses drugs — and shares totally anecdotal tips for maximizing fertility on his website, BePregnantNow.

    “I need to keep myself healthy, so I have the best sperm,” he says. “I have no idea why a woman would want to use a sperm bank when she could just use me. The specimens at a bank could be sitting there for years. You don’t really know what you’re getting.” Oh, and about that whole second coming of Christ thing. “People have called me a modern-day Jesus, and I have to agree with that,” Gordy says. “I’m very generous and giving — and the fact that I’m Jewish while Jesus was also Jewish.”

    This modest fella says he always dreamed of having lots of children, but after a few failed relationships, he decided to go solo. Also, he’s turned off by high divorce rates and the responsibility that comes with monogamy. He has met four of his offspring, though, and trades photos with his various baby mamas via a Facebook group. “Kids are a huge responsibility, and I think that is too much for me to handle,” he says. “So now I can have kids and help women at the same time.”

    Oh, and about 25 percent of the time he gets lucky — six of his 18 spawn were conceived through actual sexual intercourse. “Some women don’t want to do artificial insemination as they don’t want to waste time and they feel it will be most effective if we do it the old-fashioned way,” says Gordy, who claims he never has sex for pleasure — only for donations. “They will ask if we can just have sex, and I’ll tell them I’m up for it and we exchange STD tests … Obviously, I’m a guy, so it is fun to do it that way if we both like each other.”


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement