You can only...
A.) Truth and Justice for All
Stop us if you've heard this one before – or not because you have absolutely heard this one before – but Facebook billionaire Mark Zuckerberg is sorry he helped make society a little worse. The antisocial network's chief exec has shared a video to say how upset he is that Facebook's content checkers failed to remove from the …
The reality is, if there were no Facebook, there would be some other platform. Back when they started, there were a bunch of social media sites with MySpace leading the pack. They went away and Facebook rose up. There were others back then all wanting eyes and attention. Still are some waiting.
As humans are social creatures, that will want the interaction it provides. So I don't see FB going away unless some new platform appears and does something to make it better than what's available now.
I don't think FB can be blamed as the networks like this are just filling a demand and such problems but not as massive existed back in USENET and the BBS days. Yes, they can do a better job of policing their site and they should.
Disclaimer: As non-user of FB who wouldn't touch them with a 10 foot pole, I'm surprised at my self for saying what I just said. I think I need to go wash my hands.
I agree. It's something of an inevitability. It can't be easy being in charge of something that has enabled violence and social injustice on a global scale and I don't envy the job of having to address that, but Zuck has consistently done a shit job of it. If he truly felt bad he'd hand the reins to somebody that could take on the responsibility because it sure as shit doesn't look like he's the person for it.
I think P.T. Barnem might have said something along the lines of being unable to please everyone at the same time, and who arethe most nosily unpleased then ye average green & purple haird SJW? Perhaps if the Media would stop giving bothe Facebook, and Twater somuch free advertising they would both go away.
Humans are social creatures, they're also idiots who will believe anything. There really needs a law to make social networks publishers, and maybe in the case of something like a shooting, co-conspirators. Then you'd soon see Facebook et al managing to police their posts.
For big tech, in general, as long as lawyers and fines cost less than "doing the job properly", they ignore what is right. This needs to change.
Either the fines need to really hurt - most fines were set when people and companies earned a lot less, so they are chicken feed these days - or you need to start putting executives in gaol. Maybe then they'd start taking their duties seriously.
And pray tell us exacly WHO, or by what standard in which you would hold anyone least of all Facebook to? If we hold our laws in any reguard whats so ever then the very first ammendment MUST BE RESPECTED... Yes at the cost of either your respect or mine. There can BE NO hate speach, as there is only "Free Speach", or there is none. there is no middle ground here to debate. Free Speech cares a wet jot about your FeFe's.
There's no way you can build a network like this to suck any useful (and even not) data from each "user" and keep it "clean" from nefarious uses. It's simply too expensive - and the business model is not to publish user contents, it's making money from them through ads. The slurping and ads slinging features can scale, the monitoring can't, and will be always behind.
And there's no will to address the underlying issue until the laws give them a perpetual "get out of jail" card under the "user generated contents" excuse.
Zuckerberg can even profit from this kind of situation, as it keeps FB in the news and gives him the chance to appear the one who tries to fix things (to his gullible followers, of course) - only when things will get really out of hands, and something even worse than two people dead will happen, and in a country closer than Myanmar, he will find himself in very bad waters.
That is the problem, the companies build up a business, ignoring the laws and they are given a pass as a "growing company", so they never build legal compliance into their business model, until they are too big and it is no longer economical to do so.
If they were forced to comply with the law from the beginning, they would have to evolve with a business model that could be sustained whilst complying with the law. But as long as lawyers and fines are cheaper than "doing it right," they will continue to do it wrong and apologise afterwards.
I don't agree with 'I don't think FB can be blamed as the networks like this are just filling a demand'. So are drug dealers, child porn peddlers etc. I think the point of the article is that Facebook know full well that their platform is being used for all kinds of nefarious purposes, and that they are not taking adequate steps to prevent it. Hence they are condoning, and cynically profiting from, such illegality.
Again, who cares? Facebook (the last time I looked), were based in the USoA. That means they have to respect US Law. Unlike say GB Law, where Speach is not free, and lord help you if you record your dog doing cute things on youtube that might upset someone. Because the joke went over their heads.
We can either respect our eldest laws (coof) The First Ammendment (coof), or we can watch the country burn. You want a resonable discussion why I should address you in some prefered pronoun? Ok I'm willing to discuss it. But, never tell me that I must. Ether way the First Amendment stops when you start thworing Bricks, or Firebombs at mom & pop shops. and. contrary to some peoples enlightend beliefs Americans also have the right to defend themseelves, and or their property. Yes even with deadly force where needed. This is not the same as theright murder someone, and yes in the case of Geroge Zimmerman. You will eventually have to answer for it in a court of law.
> The reality is, if there were no Facebook, there would be some other platform.
Yes, very true, but Facebook's nefarious role in all this is that it gives these extremist sites a veneer - or the appearance - of legitimacy.
A social network website with the address https://www.welikeshootingblackpeoplewithrifles.org/ wouldn't be able to gain, or claim, mainstream legitimacy. Except perhaps among its members. It would be labeled as an extremist, racist website and that would be the end of it. While the government could not do anything to suppress their right to freely express their vile ideas, public opinion is not bound by the same constraints.
Post the same exact vile and extremist content on Facebook, and suddenly it's no longer vile or extremist. Now it's all about Facebook and Zuck -- mankind's self-appointed Archangels of Civil Rights -- defending freedom of speech and our inherent right as human beings to connect with each other and make the world a better place.
Someone by the name of Mark Zuckerberg is knowingly and intentionally creating, and defending, a false equivalence, for the sole purpose of profiting from it. Consequences be damned.
At this point, hard to tell who's more repugnant: those promoting extremism, or those providing them with the cover of false legitimacy.
The issue with Facebook is that the overwhelmingly majority of people have an account there, so it has the widest reach. If the market was more fragmented you'd only reach a fragment and such groups wouldn't be able to take off as well.
Sure, there are probably obscure subreddits where similar "calls to action" get made, but they have a millionth of the reach.
And whatever American-style libertarians say, this problem is not the price of democracy. A democracy can perfectly well have, and enforce, laws against hate speech and the like. A democracy does not have to tolerate intolerance. Yes, it would cost Facebook real money to censor evil postings. It might even drive them out of business. But it would be perfectly fair and democratic, since it would apply under the rule of law to every publisher.
The price to pay for democracy is indeed allowing people to voice opinions that are pretty nasty, so they can be discussed and challenged. That's rarely happening on Facebook, so there is very little benefit from paying that price in this case. As such Facebook isn't really contributing to a functioning democracy.
As for laws against certain types of speech, some things will be banned, you can't commit fraud and hide behind freedom of speech obviously. Where the limits are is up for discussion in a democracy. But, and this is important, any measures limiting speech should always be after the fact and decided in a public court. Not by some moderator (or AI) at a commercial company. What is currently happening is that governments are looking to Facebook to do their enforcement work for them (as judge, jury and executioner), which seems a really bad idea to me...
"In what way is it anonymous?"
How hard is it to create an account on Facebook under a pseudonym or an email address that 99% of the population cannot trace to you? For bonus points, how hard is it to do that in such a way that the law enforcement experts of some random foreign counrty (like, say, the US) cannot trace you or touch you in court even if they could trace you?
Well firstly scale. Usenet never had the number of users Facebook has. And secondly, Usenet was fully public anyone could (and did) respond to anything. Facebook is actively creating bubbles of like-minded people so there is very little actual conversation going on. But it does lend itself very much to self confirmation and promotes extremism. (Extremism is what happens when nuance gets removed. Facebook doesn't do nuance because it doesn't fit their business model...)
That's not to say Usenet was perfect, but at least it wasn't this bad.
Usenet had (has, I guess) just as many weird and wacko corners in it as 4chan+FB combined.
There was a fairly high degree of anonymity, and identity control available if you took time to learn how to craft your headers properly. It also was not generating revenue from selling advertising and what personal information could be scraped. It was just a mighty informational battleground of trolls, sock puppets, binaries for about anything you could imagine, and quite a few very normal, fairly tech savvy people. Possibly the knee high barrier to competency on the platform kept the moron ratio more manageable.
The funny thing is, there was some real wacko stuff out there, but the nature of Usenet (the anonymity, sock puppets, trolls etc) meant it wasn't treated as any sort of legitimate news outlet, and the media never had stories like "AGHLTFC today performed a troll invasion on alt.folklore.urban. Gabe Newell flamed" or any such nonsense.
The opposite of this anonymity is Facebooks whole "Since you like dogs, you probably like guns. If you like guns, you probably think like these people..." approach to user engagement with an end goal of harvesting as much information about you as possible to create a more valuable profile to sell.
Anonymity has gotten much more difficult...
Either you open your "Platform" to all.. or to none. I for one fail to see a need for an apology. On that note where was "Apology" to Winnie the Pohs PRC? Surly he must have offended someone in the Hidden Kingdom. But, again I'm probably on the less popular side of this argument.
Trouble is, it's like a mutant weed. Stomp it, and several more pop up in their place, able to regrow faster than you can stomp. Worse, they have Andromeda Strain characteristics, so nuking from orbit would be counterproductive. Frankly, the problem is the human condition, no less. You wanna keep the likes of Facebook from coming back? Evolve a better human first.
"It's because the team that enforces our policy against dangerous organizations is a specialized team,"
No, Zuck. It's because the task of enforcing that policy is simply impossible on the scale required to make your business model work.
Your business model is "Everyone can post whatever they like for free and we finance it by data-mining and ads.". Sadly, "everyone" includes the very worst that humanity has to offer and they get to hide in amongst the other 8 billion. There is simply no way to make a site like today's Facebook work in a reliably legal and ethical way. AI is nowhere near to understanding the level of nuance in human social interactions and policing with real people simply doesn't scale up to 8 billion users.
The world does not owe you (or anyone else) a business model. It is your job to either change how FB is financed and/or change how users are allowed onto the platform. If you don't, the rest of society is entitled to assume that you don't care about the criminality on the site as long as it makes you money. *That* is not going to be an acceptable defence when you end up in court.
While I certainly agree with what you write, I think it is even worse. FB's business model is not "everyone can post whatever they like...". It rather is: keep everyone as much involved with FB as possible. That is, keeping them on the platform.
How do you keep people involved? An effective way seems to foster splitting of people into groups/bubbles, mutual incomprehension, hate, disunity. Zuck knows this much better than I do and very much lives on that crap.
Colour me confused. I thought the Black (sic) Lives Matter (sic) terrorists had been using his platforms for three months to destroy tens of thousands of livelihoods and instigate the killings of more than 30 people. Democrat mayors and Democrat-tainted justice departments have done nothing to quell this violence so some patriotic Americans have done their duty and stepped in where others have abnegated.
Zuckerberg speaks up but only criticises the pro-American groups and remains silent and will continue to allow violent anti-American agitators on Facebook. Eh?
Here's a 30 minute video where a defense attorney uses the available video and some analysis of the Rittenhouse shootings by the New York Times to show what happened. He adds his analysis based on Wisconsin state laws
In a nutshell, the defense attorney feels that the Rittenhouse shootings were most probably self-defense, but there is part of Wisconsin law where if you are violating another law (like being a 17 year-old carrying a weapon that you have to be 18 years old to carry in Wisconsin), you cannot claim self-defense. The defense attorney thinks this is heading to be an important case involving the right to self-defense and the right to defend property at the request of the relevant property owner.
There's apparently an exemption for shotguns/rifles in Wisconsin that may well cover the kid involved, don't have specifics. Lawyers will make a ton out of this, get the feeling this will fade from view and he'll get off tbh.
Having seen the recordings I don't understand his motivation or those chasing an armed kid and attacking him. Whole situation is bonkers.
Well, young Kyle Rittenhouse has understandably become a cause celebre for gun rights enthusiasts and small businesspeople threatened by the current rioting around the U.S. The last I heard, two or three days ago, donations to his legal defense fund were above $100K. By now I am sure they are much more than that.
So he won't lack for resources in arguing his case for self-defense.
"By shooting people at a protest?"
Yes. For those nutter and idiots demanding the defunding of the police, this is what happens when the police refuse or are banned from doing their job of protecting the population. People themselves step up to protect their property.
Crying about someone getting shot at a protest (riot of thugs) while people are being killed and crippled by rioters and their livelihoods and places they live being trashed seems to miss that this is a reaction.
Hell Trump had to send federal agents in to cities because the local force wasnt dealing with the issue. The easiest way to stop the vigilante groups is for the police to do their job and protect citizens from criminals, mob or vigilante.
"a protest (riot of thugs)" ... "Trump had to send federal agents in to cities because the local force wasnt dealing with the issue"
Please stop watching Fox News. You're kinda forgetting that a lot, or most of, the violence on the streets was escalated or instigated by police intolerant of those with the opinion that the police aren't doing a great job.
Which is sorta like the definition of a police state.
"Please stop watching Fox News."
So which bit are you suggesting I have wrong? Calls for defunding of police? Police refusing to or being ordered not to stop the riots? People being killed and crippled in the riots? Rioters trashing private and public property? Federal agents having to be sent to do the work the police aint doing?
"You're kinda forgetting that a lot, or most of, the violence on the streets was escalated or instigated by police intolerant of those with the opinion that the police aren't doing a great job."
Ok. Except this seems to be marches against black people being killed. Very particular that its not whites, browns, yellow, gray but very distinctly black. And for that reasoning public property (e.g. statues) being torn down.
And this shooting is an escalation for allowing these thugs to destroy property. The initial causes can be discussed but now its resisting mob against violent rioting mob because the enforcers of law and order are not stopping it.
"Which is sorta like the definition of a police state."
Riots over the death of Floyd before facts had come out where the officers involved were very quickly processed into the justice system over the killing. What more justice did the rioters want? The justice system was processing them! The calls of course are for the defunding of police, which leads to people stepping up to protect as the police are not.
It looks like another upstanding citizen was shot purely for their skin colour and so another peaceful protest took place in his name.
Until the facts came to light.
...makes someone anti-American because they are protesting? They are terrorists? You mean like the people in Boston on December 16, 1773? That kind or terrorist?
Exactly how have members of Democatic party tainted our justice system? You mean like the Jim Crow laws of the Southern Reconstruction that were made illegal through civil rights legislation? Or do you mean like how Mitch McConnell refused to hear evidence from witnesses? Or do you mean like how Richard Nixon tried to get re-elected?
Exactly how is it patriotic to forego the rule of law, declare yourself judge and jury, and then execute those who demand nothing more than the fulfillment of our social contract?
If you want to paint with such a broad brush you might find it hard to fill in the details.
I must admit that I have seen absolutely no evidence of Marxism in the interviews I have read and watched with members and/or leaders of Black Lives Matter. I have not heard them advocate seizing the wealth of the propertied class. Nor have I heard them glorifying workers as the saviors of humanity. In fact I think it would be a stretch of the imagination to categorize them as a "Please Don't Kill Us Because of the Color of Our Skin" union.
The US doesn't have enough Marxists to organize a softball team much less a social movement. In the US what the Far Right calls "The Radical Left" is actually a "Moral Centrist" position and what they call "Moderates" are actually "Center Right." That makes our Far Right actually "Radical Authoritarian Right."
BLM do seem to have the makings of a powerful third political party though. That is more than enough reason for most of the dyed in the wool Republicans I know to start spreading lies and calling them every name they can think of.
I doubt your political classifications. Care to validate them with some evidence?
BLM simple aim, Stop Killing People who look like me.
It's got stuff all to do with Marx.
Stop spending fortunes on weaponry and start spending that money on communities and mental health provision.
Seems like a just cause, unless you have a problem with equality and justice.
BLM has gone far beyond its initial remit of fighting police brutality. Now they are out telling people to move out of homes they purchased in former minority neighborhoods (fighing gentrification by ethnic cleansing), getting right in the face of diners at bars and cafes when those people refuse to give the "Black Power" salute when BLM marchers demand it. Plus the BLM marches provide cover for rioters and looters, so BLM has allowed itself to become associated with violence.
And being Marxist is anti-American how, again?
I would maintain that, as we as a nation fought a war against it, that Fascism is anti-American. But since Fascism is the Flavor of the Week in Republicon circles, it's OK now. Is that how this works? Just wanna make sure I got this right (or Right).
> Well the BLM as an organisation is openly Marxist. Is that anti-American enough for you?
The US is a free country. There is not an official list of approved ideologies or political views. Anyone here in the US is perfectly welcome, and perfectly within their rights to espouse / adopt / promote Marxist economic or political views, if they so choose.
Marxist economics is not anti-American by any stretch of imagination. I'm willing to bet that you don't know the first thing about Marxist economics.
Under normal circumstances, here, in the US, the viability of any particular political view is tested and subsequently made at the ballot box. It is not made with automatic rifles, threats of violence, and murder.
If that is the type of society you want to live in, please relocate. There are plenty of other countries where political violence is the common currency. You would feel at home over there. Much more so than here.
Who has "instigated the killings of more than 30 people" on Facebook? Citation needed.
You may say that the right to protest does not entail the right to endanger and destroy other people's property. And if you left it at that, you'd have a point. But when you extend that to "and so it's OK to kill people if you think they might be doing these things", you are not even pretending to apply any sort of coherent morality. Even less so when it's someone else's property, and you haven't even asked the owner's views.
Protesters won't set fire to buildings or shoot people.
So what are these crowds?
Not everything comes down to someone being right or wrong, there are shades and people can have different opinions. The terrible thing about politics these days is that people are pushing things to two camps and if you aren't in their team you are considered against them.
You can support tighter controls on policing without wanting to defund the police. Just as you can supported the police without being pro-BLM.
One would THINK... If One were a "peacful protestor" One would actively distance themselves from the bad actors giving everyone else a bad name. Alas for reasons that are not apprently clear this is exaclty what IS NOT happinging.
Perhaps someone should ask why? But, again that would take the wind out of to many sails. and, CHAZ is such a hep spot to be in. An Anarchists wet dream or so I'm told. If anything good sould come from CHAZ, and its ilk... It WILL be another four years of President Trump.
The extremists who took control of the GOP were so successful to propagate a fear-based alternate reality that they will probably succeed to start the civil war they see as the only way to keep power because despite all their tricks real democracy will prevail in the end if they don't destroy it.
Every civilized country looks with astonishment and despair what the fucking mess the US has become.
Is Zuck just the fall guy, with an unseen hand behind the scenes pulling the strings?
Starter for $10M:
Don't forget also: Palantir, and the Founders Fund.
I mean, who needs the CIA and the NSA when you've got these guys?
ElReg writes "as wide-ranging as the NBA and Major League Baseball" ... Yeah, let's talk about that.
On Wednesday the 26th of August 2020, the San Francisco Giants and the LA Dodgers postponed their game. Which is fine, I have no issue with that.
Their reasoning was to protest the shooting of the dude in Wisconsin, half a country away from the home field of either team. This was characterized by both teams as "protesting police brutality". OK. Again. I have no issue with this. They are grown adults and are free to make decisions like this if they so choose.
However ... My question is, where were the Giants, Dodgers and MLB when the cops up in Guerneville, Sonoma County CA (the SF Giants, backyard) killed (that's KILLED, not paralyzed) a guy back on the 15th of August. Did they bitch about that killing? Did they even mention it? Hell no, of course not. The killing didn't make the national press, so there was no point in grandstanding. Can you say hypocrites?
But wait. It gets better. The guy was white. Apparently white guys don't matter. Doesn't that make all of MLB a racist organization, by definition? Isn't that a lovely state of affairs.
This kinda makes it seem like we're making it up, putting a spin on it, or were wrong to mention it. But games were called off in protest FWIW. The point is: the shooting wasn't low key. People at Facebook would have been aware of it and the protests, in all forms, that followed.
"Apparently white guys don't matter."
Ah c'mon man, this whataboutism is pretty weird. A violent encounter with the police doesn't get widespread attention so no violent encounters with the police should get widespread attention?
Why didn't you take to the streets or boycott sports fixtures over Miller's death? Are you envious of those who did take action after another clash with the cops?
The ElReg quote was simply a reference to where I was jumping into the conversation. It's long standing tradition in this form of communications, no?
Yes, I know why the games were called off. And I have no issue with it. I actually made that very point in my post.
It's not whataboutism. You have it precisely backwards. My meaning is not "A violent encounter with the police doesn't get widespread attention so no violent encounters with the police should get widespread attention", as you put it, rather my meaning is "if one violent encounter with the cops gets attention, all should get equal attention". As I stated, I am pointing out the hypocrisy of the protesters.
The fact of the matter is that if Jacob Blake had been white, the local Press wouldn't have spent hours going over and over the details, whipping its audience into a fury ... and the National press probably wouldn't have reported it at all, much less ad nauseam ... and not a one of the protesters would have even blinked an eye.
I am voicing my opinion here, and I have voiced my opinion to various news outets here in the bay area. All have told me that I am racist because I think that ALL lives matter, not just black ones.
I am not envious of anything. Actually, I am sad ... all sides investing in violence are in the wrong, and innocents are getting hurt ... and I am getting caught in the backlash because of something I have had no part in. Somewhere Dr. King and Ghandi are crying.
I think you're overlooking the fact people of color are targeted by police disproportionately to the population mix, and that Blake's shooting was taken as another potential example of this. It's not clear the officers arresting him knew exactly what he was wanted for. It's not great he resisted arrest. I don't think shooting him 7 times was the answer.
And yes, what happened to Miller was terrible.
I guess what I and others find distasteful here is the whiff of outrage at people daring to protest or get upset at inequality, injustice, and prioritization of policing over education, community, and health. It's as if you want them to go back to their lower-paid jobs in their lower-valued homes, keep quiet, and stay out of the way.
Presumably so that you can take to the streets to protest against the killing of people like Miller.
The officers who ultimately shot Jacob Blake were told by their dispatcher that there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest, though they were not told that it was for sexual assault. Thats why they immediately proceeded to an arrest, instead of "de-escalating" the situation.
And Blake's resisting arrest lead to a physical attempt to bring him into custody, and when that failed they unsuccessfully tased Blake, and after that he reached for the knife that he has admitted that he had in his possession. At that point, given he had a deadly weapon, and the failure of non-lethal methods to bring Blake into custody, he was going to get shot
"he reached for the knife that he has admitted that he had in his possession"
No, the police said he admitted he had a knife and one was retrieved from his car -- you're just retelling the post-shooting police spin. Him reaching for a weapon is an assumption. He was visibly unarmed and beaten up while trying to go his car. Him resisting arrest is not good, and trying to evade the cops made it worse. The whole situation is not good.
Shooting him seven times was the cops giving up and executing him. They didn't even know what he was wanted for. That's why people are a bit miffed.
The fact of the matter is that if Jacob Blake had been white, the local Press wouldn't have spent hours going over and over the details, whipping its audience into a fury ... and the National press probably wouldn't have reported it at all, much less ad nauseam ... and not a one of the protesters would have even blinked an eye
If Jacob Blake had been white, he wouldn't have been shot in the back 7 times at close range in front of his children.
"If Jacob Blake had been white, he wouldn't have been shot in the back 7 times at close range in front of his children."
If he had an arrest warrant out on him for sexual assault, trespassing, and disorderly conduct in connection with domestic abuse ... had the warrant served on him, fought with the police who served it, managed to ignore a couple tasings, declared he had a weapon, tried to get into his car (bringing his fight to three children in the car), presumably to retrieve the weapon ... Then yes, he quite likely would have been shot if he were white. But you and I would never have heard of the shooting. And there would have been no protestors. Because he was white. Which is kind of my point.
 What would YOU have thought he was doing if you were that cop? You have a couple of milliseconds to decide, multiple other lives may be in the balance.
What are MLB supposed to protest against?
That video kinda looks like the cops tried to restrain him and he died due to repeated tazer usage.
Yes, he died. Yes there were police in attendance as a proximate cause of his death.
Drawing an equivalence between the two incidents is beneath you mate. That video looks like officers trying their best with tragic consequences for someone having a mental health crisis.
The other video with the man shot in the back, seven times from close range doesn't seem to have anything in common with this video. Perhaps you could point out what I'm missing.
"What are MLB supposed to protest against?"
Nothing. It's not in their remit.
The guy here in California was walking out of a store holding his wife by the arm, trying to stop her from calling 911 to get some help because he was off his meds. She told the cops he was off his meds. He was was tased several times, which lead to his death. Frankly, if they had let him wander off until he calmed down, chances are good he would have survived, but the cops decided strong-arm tactics were required.
The guy in Milwaukee had warrants out for his arrest on charges of sexual assault, trespassing, and disorderly conduct in connection with domestic abuse. He chose to ignore the cops attempts to peacefully arrest him, fought with the cops, shrugged of a couple of tasers, and was in fact trying to get into his car, putting the three children in the car at risk when he was shot.
Still missing the point?
The guy who died in California, was treated professionally, and compassionately by the officers.
Despite him being a big guy, and shrugging off the tazer. The police acted professionally and didn't pull a gun.
The guy in Milwaukee would be able to walk if the same standard of when to apply lethal force was applied.
Why did the cop shoot him seven times, why was another application of the taser not an option?
It's hard to escape the conclusion that lethal force is disproportionately used against people of colour.
"The police acted professionally and didn't pull a gun."
Nonetheless, he was killed. Had he been black, there would have been huge backlash against the police. You and I both know this is true. But he was white, so that didn't happen. Apparently it's OK in the minds of the protestors if the cops kill white guys.
"Why did the cop shoot him seven times, why was another application of the taser not an option?"
Put yourself in the position of the cops. He had already physically fought with the cops. He claimed he had a weapon. The tasering already didn't work on him. He was (possibly) reaching for his weapon. Other lives are potentially in danger. You have milliseconds. Choose wisely.
"It's hard to escape the conclusion that lethal force is disproportionately used against people of colour."
That is an entirely different conversation, and one that needs to be addressed. But probably not here. There are too many emotions running hot.
 But instead of protesting in tiny, little Guerneville (Pop. 4500ish), they'd no doubt protest in San Francisco, Oakland and Berkeley ... whose cops had nothing to do with it.
I don't really know how to respond to this.
I know you are not a Trumper, and I don't believe you to hold prejudiced views, outside of the acceptable realms (computing, machinery, cars etc) [ potentially ill judged attempt at humor]
I understand the point you are making about how some stories are amplified and some are suppressed.
I also have some sympathy for someone in a life or death situation trying to get home safely that night.
I don't think the protesters, large numbers of whom appear to be white, are in favour of being killed by police. I think the death of people of any colour or creed is tragic. That includes, cops, white, black, Sámi or otherwise.
The problem is, a great deal of the unrest is predicated on the feeling that black bodies are treated with brutality as a first resort. The compounding problem is the presence of large numbers of white supremacists in police forces.
The guy will never walk again, had been facing the cop who shot him, perhaps you could argue the man was in fear of his life, but you can't shoot someone in the back and claim self-defence.
This was tested in English Law, with the case of Tony Martin . (he killed a burglar who was running away).
The police choose to impose their authority at gunpoint, that's a big step, perhaps, you could justify a single shot, but seven? Okay, lets say he's in fear, and fired until empty. Lets assume the cop would have been the same with a white man. Do you think he should be policing the community?
Let's be honest, if you pull a knife on someone with a gun, that's not going to end well, I accept that. According to the video and the bullets, he neither threatened them with a knife, nor was facing them at the time of his shooting.
Conversely, I don't see what the video from CA, allowed the officer to do. They were called to a hostage situation, with a large man, completely resisting arrest, and your suggestion was to let him wander off and cool down? Really? why was that not appropriate for the black man, who wasn't holding anybody hostage? The reason that video didn't cause outrage, is that the Police didn't try to kill him.
I think there is a policing problem in the States, I can see that a place where everyone can be armed, is a scary place to wear a police uniform. I don't know how to fix that, but the police should not be a leading cause of death.
I agree there are no wide spread protests at the killing of white people by police atm, I think that's related to the way that the police treat white mass shooters like  and .
This is especially troubling, as this poor man who bravely tackled the white gunman, only to be killed by police for his trouble.
A soldier named Nobushige came to Hakuin, and asked: “Is there really a paradise and a hell?”
“Who are you?” inquired Hakuin. “I am a samurai,” the warrior replied.
“You, a soldier!” exclaimed Hakuin. “What kind of ruler would have you as his guard? Your face looks like that of a beggar.” Nobushige became so angry that he began to draw his sword, but Hakuin continued: “So you have a sword! Your weapon is probably much too dull to cut off my head.”
As Nobushige drew his sword Hakuin remarked: “Here open the gates of hell!” At these words the samurai, perceiving the master’s discipline, sheathed his sword and bowed.
“Here open the gates of paradise,” said Hakuin.
Interesting. I had to study the story for a bit (Hakuin was a Zen Bhuddist monk, FTR), but perhaps a few corollaries are in order. One of them is that what one speaks and what the other hears may not be the same thing; perceptions can differ (just look in the US), and one man's dare may be another's mortal insult.
Yes. And Straw man.
Whatever their motivation, watching that cunt sit in the street, shoot two people dead, then calmly stroll back past two massive police trucks makes me think you're on the wrong side.
It's not police brutality, it's the way your country works.
Sabroni, I realize that you have always had issues with parsing my writing, but could you please show me where you think that I typed anything at all about Kyle Rittenhouse's heinous crimes? Or where I condoned them? Because I did neither. I would very much like to see you post a retraction and an apology for those blatant untruths about me.
Ignoring the issue of how many of those police shootings are suicide by cop, I don't really have an answer to your question. Why ARE the protestors picking one incident over another?
Except for the obvious, of course ... They never protest a white guy getting shot. Or any shooting where the cop is black. And more white guys get shot by the cops than non-white guys. It couldn't possibly be their own racism making their decision for them, could it? I mean, that would make them hypocrites, right?
Why do politicians encourage non-compliance when it's exactly that which leads to many of these incidents?
Even if you assume a majority of police are racist, the sensible thing to do would be to push for change and encourage compliance in the meantime and additional monitoring like mandatory body cameras (which many police units don't have due to lack of funding for them).
Instead over 30 people have died as a result of riots..
Let alone every other Team from the MLB to the NHL But, FWIW I don't quite know myself why we are even having a Baseball Season this year for. They should have just shut it down, along with the rest. Again all this is political BS in an election year. Which in a better dimionsion could have possbly worked. Alas back in this One we are stuck with Creepy old Pedo Joe. and, well its President Trump's game to lose. and, god help us if he somehow does. I deffintly DCO NOT want to live in a world where President Kamala Haris, and Vice President Kill 'em all Hillary are the ones in charge.
I don't think anyone from BLM would deny that there is a police violence problem generally in America. I don't think anyone from BLM would deny that there is a violence problem generally in America, for that matter. The BLM movement and protestors are focused on a particular element of that problem, which is a systemic bias against black people specifically, one which results in the police targeting black men and women for violence and intimidation. As another poster points out, that systemic racism has been baked into American politics and policing since the country was founded. This is one of many moments in American history where people have tried to root out the causes of that racism and rebelled against its practice. Now, as in literally every other case where black people have stood up against racial injustice, violence is ensuing because there's a hard core of people in America who absolutely refuse to accept the notion of racial equality and a soft outer layer of people who claim that they do accept it but only are willing to do so in the most milquetoast terms.
Rather than pissing and moaning about how "racist" BLM is, maybe you might try embracing some of their ideals, one of the main ones being that the police should be defunded and replaced in part with people trained in deescalation rather than the use of firearms, tasers, pepper spray, tear gas, and the good old billy club. Or is it perhaps that you don't really care about anyone at all being shot by cops and you just want to virtue signal your opposition to BLM by pretending to have a miniscule ounce of compassion for someone else?
To put it in information security terms, let's say you've identified a vulnerability which affects a particular group of servers in your estate, and you know that the vulnerability is prone to exploitation because it keeps getting exploited. Is it "serverist" to try to protect those servers, or do you say "all servers matter"?
I can tell from your writing that you'd be one of the first to whine about "the bad guys" should the police actually be defunded. But don't you worry your pretty little head about that, the police are not going to be defunded. You'll stay safe in your cozy little corner of the world.
Bringing servers into the conversations seems borderline psychotic ... We are talking about people, not inanimate objects.
I say this deeply... We are not ready for social media.
Humans simply cannot cope with social media, its a breeding ground of narcism and gaslighting.
People from all walks of life with different levels of IQs delve in this "social" platform and all have different ways of life and when you put it all together, it just doesn't work.
Remove it. Let's just keep WhatsApp, Telegram... Hell, lets go back to SMS so our parents can let us know when dinner is ready.
Way too late for that. That genie left the bottle well before Facebook ever appeared, and now that we know about it, many will never go back. Even if you were to cut off the Internet itself, they'll just make a replacement. Same with Facebook. And since a lot of the participants are voting adults, I don't thnk even a Supreme Global Dictator could stop the crush without just going, "What boots it?" and blow up the planet.
Did anyone think the Internet would turn into Facebook? Even the most unregulated thing I can think of back in the day (Usenet) didn't actively push nutjob post after nutjob post just to get more views to get more ad revenue, and before you know it the recipients have fallen down the rabbit hole into unmitigated bullshit like QAnon while Zuckerborg appears every once in a while saying "I don't give a fuck, I'm going to let society burn because I want to make another billion dollars today, what are you going to do about it?"
Having seen a number of recent incidents from several different angles, I have become extremely guarded of late about trusting the popular accounts of many of these high profile deaths by the hands of police.
In particular, the awful incident with George Floyd is a good example of a man that clearly didn't deserve to die.
However, watching all of the police cam footage paints a completely different story of the context surrounding what actually happened.
Floyd was high on drugs and completely off his head. He was incoherent, and uncooperative. The incident kicked off because he had allegedly passed off some counterfeit money in a local shop. Police discovered him high on drugs and sitting in the driver seat of a car where it was reasonable to assume he was going to attempt to drive off. Admittedly, the police were aggressive and confrontational in terms of their initial approach, swearing at him to show his hands.
However, throughout the entire remainder of the encounter, they seemed calm, patient and pretty professional in an impossible situation. At no point did there seem to be any racial component to the incident. They used no racial epithets at him, they were completely justified in arresting him on multiple charges.
Yet the hysterical reporting of the incident concentrated on the fact that he was a black man and that the police were racist arseholes, further evidence of the systemic racism of modern day America.
To be honest, I'm hard pressed to believe much of what is reported these days unless I can see it with my own eyes and even then I would be suspicious of curated editing of the footage.
You need to return your moral compass, it's broken.
The man was murdered on camera, while people stood around shouting.
Your excusing that is deplorable.
The video show him cooperating and dying as a result of a racist cop. Kneeling on his neck for over eight minutes, it's utterly disgusting to claim otherwise.
Give your head a wobble.
He had a deadly amount of fentanyl in his body. He repeatedly complained that he couldn't breathe in the minutes leading up to being wrestled to the ground. Even if they locked him in the back seat of the police cruiser with handcuffs, he probably would have died of his overdose.
When the story came out, it looked like he was strangled to death. After the bodycam footage was released, it's pretty clear that the evidence that he was killed by police is basically zero.
Let's put this stupidity to bed. Medical examiners have ruled it was homicide, and he died from "cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression." Yeah, he had drugs in his system, and was in a bad way: he tested positive for the COVID-19 virus. So, perhaps the last thing he needed was a knee on his neck.
By your logic, terminal cancer patients are fair game to the police -- they're just dead people walking, huh?
“... throughout the entire remainder of the encounter, they seemed calm, patient and pretty professional...” kneeling on his neck for 8 fucking minutes. Seriously? Is that the standard you are holding police to? Personally, I hope for better. (And yes, most are better, which is why it’s important to remove the bad ones.)
Facebook is an echo chamber for this kind of thing, but they’re not the only player. Sites like infowars and other extremist breeding grounds engage with much more action oriented groups.
The original “call to arms” is still posted on the Alex Jones hate porn site and the comments are telling. Some saying that if the police attempt to impede the militants then they will have sided with the “terrorists” and must be treated appropriately (presumably shot by armed children).
Facebook does have a role to play, but as long as there’s a rabid racist in the White House actively demonizing protestors, while simultaneously approving of white nationalist retaliation, it’s (unfortunately) unfair to hang everything on Facebook.
... how many "operational mistakes" that Facebook keep making. You know, such as live streaming massacres, selling data to shady 3rd parties and ignoring reports about groups fomenting hate or planning violence. Yup, it must be super-duper hard for a company that specializes in analytics to miss all these red flags.
This is actually not that hard a problem to solve.
People work for Facebook. If you work for them, and you don't like what they're doing, then quit. If enough people do that then Facebook will either stop existing or its owners will realise that they need to fix the problem or they will stop existing.
Yes, quitting will mean you have to find another job or be poorer than you are now, or both. But not quitting means people will die: this should not be a hard decision to make, should it? And you have all these really desirable skills, after all: you know how to build hugely scalable computing systems, how to do all this fancy AI-big-data cleverness: you're not going to be out of a job for long, are you?
Of course, you won't quit. You might tell your friends how cross you are, or even, if you are really brave, speak up in a company meeting about how cross you are, but quitting? No, not that. After all it's not your fault. So, some people have died and more will, but you're just doing your job, just following orders. The people who are dying are, after all, not people you know: they're just little people, far away. Perhaps not even really people at all. Certainly your standard of living is more important than their lives. And you're just following orders.
(And yes: I did, although not from Facebook.)
Ok Zuck. Time to put your money where your mouth it. As the majority shareholder in Facebook, you could just close it down. You have the voting rights to stop any protest. Yes, you will lose most of your $100B fortune but if you really, really cared about the human race it would not bother you.
But... naturally you won't close it down and you will continue to get richer on the addictive design of Facebook.
There seems to me to be different levels of responsibility that need to be addressed here. On the one hand FB as it is providing the platform for the posters should be monitoring what is published and selectively removing content that is unreasonable. I guess the volume of what is posted globally hourly makes this a very difficult goal, but the moment complaints are made regarding a specific post that should be considered a clue where to focus attention.
Ultimately the content and context of posts are the responsibility of the posters - a few successful prosecutions in individual accountability wouldn't go amiss.
More news form over here in TrumpLand: the Arizona State University College Republicans are soliciting donations for the legal defense of Kyle Rittenhouse, that 17-year-old Trumpster charged with killing two people at protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Is the Zuck going to ban them?
Not to be undone, the Christian crowdfunding site GiveSendGo has a fundraising drive for terrorist Kyle Rittenhouse after legitimate crowdfunding sites like GoFundMe refused to do so. GiveSendGo has raised $100K so far. I wonder if Steve Bannon works there. Jesus would be proud! Is GiveSendGo on Facebook?
These last 4 years over here remind me of Germany in the 30s. Apparently that's what MAGA means to Republikons over here.
It's funny how they keep making these "mistakes" and always come up with some lame ass apology after the fact when it is too late. Oops sorry we livestreamed that massacre, we'll do better next time. Oops sorry we sold all your data to shady analytics companies we'll do better next time. Oops sorry we hosted an armed militia get-together during a protest, we'll do better next time. Always an excuse. And yet they're still disseminating hate / racism / division / anti-science / threats of violence / incel / qanon brain damage right now and you can bet they'll wheel out the same pathetic excuse next time.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020