Twitter 2.0 signal boosts Taliban 2.0 through Blue subscriptions Like whack-a-mole, it seems that for every issue Elon Musk believes he has fixed in his pursuit of Twitter 2.0 paradise, another one pops its head up. In this case, the unintended consequences of Musk's actions are that Taliban 2.0 has bought Twitter Blue subscriptions. Or maybe they are intended. Twitter CEO (yes, still) Musk …
'The BBC is funded by British households to the tune of £159 ($194) a year and strives "to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which inform, educate and entertain." The "state" does not have a hand in its coverage.'
The state has no hand in the BBC's coverage??? This has to be some kind of joke, right? Also I would love a chance to offer the Taliban some anger management training should they be bold enough to post something that shows up in my Twitter feed. Bring it on!
Perhaps it would have been wise for the author of the article to take a look at the chairman, the board, and their political history before committing such a bold claim to the www.
Nevertheless I checked a handful of BBC accounts on Twitter and couldn't find any labelled as state affiliated media, so that's me trolled by Musk.
To be fair, technically, it's not the state interfering with the BBC, it's the Conservative Party who are (currently) in government who have been stuffing the BBC's board with political stooges, and have been doing that since the time of Thatcher, with Jacob Rees-Mogg's daddy.
In the interests of balance, I think Blair probably did much the same when Labour were in power. It's very hard to remove political influence from such institutions, especially when there is so much money slushing around from media barons in the rival "free" press that might influence things.
Seems like it's staffed with whatever the opposite political view is of the person complaining. There is probably a bias in some way due to being staffed by people who can get jobs there (Degree educated and probably with parents that know someone who works there), but don't worry they are rectifying that by employing an army of token northerners.
Token northener here who was employed by the BBC for over thirty years since 1978, didn't (at the time) have a degree, and who is highly amused at the knee-jerk hate-the-BBC reflex visible by people who have neither worked there nor troubled themselves to inform themselves about it.
I like them, on the whole. As a TV license refusenik I've always found it a little baffling that they hoard their archives and won't let me just buy a copy of something I might want to watch and would happily pay for, making piracy either the only or superior option available; but I still like them.
Radio 4, Today programme this morning: the interview with RMT leader was accusatory and interrogative, even though the other party (railway company TransPennine) had declined to take part. The BBC's job is not to sit on the fence, but to get to the truth, and sometimes the first cut of that is partial.
The BBC annoys me and delights me in equal measure. Probably means they got it about right.
@Androgynous Cupboard
"Hang on, I thought you thought the BBC was packed full of whiny lefty liberals? Come on man, pick a side - is it a pinko hotbed or an organ of the state?"
Nice exaggeration of my opinion but yes whiny lefty is correct.
"Unless you think UK.gov is also currently packed with whiny lefty liberals, in which case you are - frankly - terrifying"
If you consider it terrifying then go hide in your colleges safe space.
The so-called "whiny lefty" as we know it today is a creation of the right wing, it first appeared in the 1980s as "compensation culture", the idea (encouraged, if not actively promoted, by the government) that anyone who's had a product or service that falls short of expectations is automatically entitled to monetary compensation. This segued into 'victimhood culture', the idea that if you're not getting what you think you deserve out of life then you are, once again, entitled to some kind of compensation.
The result has been a bear pit of people squabbling among themselves. Effectively fighting over the crumbs while the loot disappears out the back (these days, out the front since its got so brazen).
All this is encouraged by mass media. If you know your Goebbels then you'll know that mass media doesn't just reflect societies tastes, it can be used to guide and shape them.
So, yes, its quite possible to have a "whiny lefty" fronting for a rapacious right wing. Not a real lefty, of course -- you may recall a notorious Newsnight hit job on Corbyn as a blatant piece of propaganda. Usually its more subtle. Anyway, if you want to believe that two plus two is five far be it from me to try to persuade you otherwise.
The so-called "whiny lefty" as we know it today is a creation of the right wing, it first appeared in the 1980s as "compensation culture", the idea (encouraged, if not actively promoted, by the government) that anyone who's had a product or service that falls short of expectations is automatically entitled to monetary compensation. This segued into 'victimhood culture', the idea that if you're not getting what you think you deserve out of life then you are, once again, entitled to some kind of compensation.
This, in turn, degenerated segued into 'MAGA culture', the idea that if you're not getting what you think you deserve out of life then you are entitled to be "led" by Donald tRump.
@martinusher
"The so-called "whiny lefty" as we know it today is a creation of the right wing"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVlRompc1yE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDYNVH0U3cs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rewp2EXSL9k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04NXGb1pA6g
"So, yes, its quite possible to have a "whiny lefty" fronting for a rapacious right wing."
So in your mind the right wing is just evil people? You talk of Goebbels but seem to forget the current N.Korea, China, USSR, Russia after that collapsed. But I am guessing you consider these examples fronts for the right? No true lefty?
You should note Androgynous Cupboard was exaggerating my opinion but for some reason thinks organ of the state is different from left. I assume he was trying to comment the position of the tory govs
Stating the bloody obvious - the extreme far left and extreme far right end up looking much the same.
The most obvious examples are Stalin and Hitler.
Successful left-leaning social democracies are readily found in Western Europe and Scandinavia. When one argues against the current round of Tories, or lunatics like Farage and Corbyn; it's because we know there are better models to be found literally next door to us.
I'm absolutely a whiny lefty by the definition created by the right wing, and ironically, I stand by the view that Major is probably the best PM we've had in the last 40 years. His career was ended by far-right media and euroskeptics that eventually Cameron was unable to contain and blew up into Brexshit with all of the obvious consequences that only the most blinkered religious nutters fail to see.
New Labour did not rise to the challenge of creating change despite a wave of enthusiasm. Current Tories are corrupt to the core.
@Binraider
"Stating the bloody obvious - the extreme far left and extreme far right end up looking much the same.
The most obvious examples are Stalin and Hitler."
True which is interestingly why the National Socialists as a claim of magically jumping to the extreme right is contestable. Interestingly without the Aryan race stuff the Nazi manifesto passes well with the labour members.
"Successful left-leaning social democracies are readily found in Western Europe and Scandinavia. When one argues against the current round of Tories, or lunatics like Farage and Corbyn; it's because we know there are better models to be found literally next door to us."
I hear arguments like that but not many people arguing for it seem to want to emulate Scandinavia. Some such being against Academy schools, privatising public services, abolish minimum wage, high taxation on the whole population and severely restricting immigration. There would also be the issue of effectively giving up on being a military power and hiding behind the US for protection. I doubt the conversation would get anywhere as soon as you mention disbanding the NHS.
"Brexshit with all of the obvious consequences that only the most blinkered religious nutters fail to see."
We do also have the benefits of being out so its swings and roundabouts really. Also brexit was a cross party issue with left and right having their own issues with the EU.
"New Labour did not rise to the challenge of creating change despite a wave of enthusiasm. Current Tories are corrupt to the core."
New labour were popular for giving sweeties to everyone but not telling them about the cost. And I couldnt agree more about the Tories.
Sweden, Norway and Finland do not hide behind NATO.
Sweden has one of the largest and most capable militaries in Europe, and their probable joining with NATO severely improves NATO's overall capability.
I'd love to hear the Brexit benefits, I have yet to see any examples other than the rhetoric of "taking back control". Show me some tangible stories and I'll listen. Nobody ever can.
@Binraider
"Sweden, Norway and Finland do not hide behind NATO."
Some of the nordics are in NATO and others understandably didnt want to antagonise Russia by joining, until now. FYI- https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locations=SE-FI-NO
"Sweden has one of the largest and most capable militaries in Europe, and their probable joining with NATO severely improves NATO's overall capability."
I agree they are and will be an addition, I dont dispute that. But the point is its easier to do social spending when you cut spending on defence.
*Edit: Oops I forgot to add-
https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing-europe.php
https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.php
@Binraider
"I'd love to hear the Brexit benefits, I have yet to see any examples other than the rhetoric of "taking back control". Show me some tangible stories and I'll listen. Nobody ever can."
Seriously? Have you never read any of my previous comments on this? One of the immediate benefits was the vaccine procurement. The difference between the UK and EU response was huge and the difference stunning.
>> One of the immediate benefits was the vaccine procurement
Yet again you state that and yet again you are wrong. The UK could have done what it did do whether it was in or out of the EU - and in fact we were still a EU member when the decisions were made. Under EU legislation, any member state is allowed to grant authorisation for a medical product for various reasons including to prevent the spread of infectious diseases. The UK Government itself announced that it was granting authorisation in accordance with the EU legislation (reg 174 I believe).
Neither were member states obliged to take part in the EU procurement.
The fact that this is the only "benefit" you can state about Brexit and the fact that it is wrong should be telling you something. Only I doubt you'd listen to yourself.
Do you ever wonder that your opinions might be wrong, or do you genuinely believe that everyone who gives you a downvote is stupid, and you are cleverer than them?
Because I know some genuinely very intelligent people (for example, one of them still receives patent dividends on telecoms patents from the 1970s and is by far the most erudite person I know), and you are clearly not operating on the same level as them. I can accept that others are cleverer than me, or know more about a subject than I do. I can also tell, as can pretty much everyone here, that you do not fall into that class.
And before you decide to say something dumb like, "you are an idiot because you started two sentences with conjunctions," that would imply that I didn't do so deliberately, with full awareness, and it wouldn't make me look silly to point it out.
@Elongated Muskrat
"Do you ever wonder that your opinions might be wrong"
Yes which is why I am willing to discuss my opinions and I do admit when I am wrong. That is why when someone says the same dumb thing no matter how many times you prove them wrong over years it is fair to conclude they are an idiot. As I said at least they hid behind AC. A downvote is an irrelevance, its XFactor thinking that adds little but minor entertainment for some. Conversation with genuine sharing of ideas and perspectives is worth something.
That is why I gave up on our other thread of conversation as you were jumping around like a coked up kangaroo throwing insults and going on random tangents.
"Because I know some genuinely very intelligent people"
That is not a boast, that should be the norm. Everyone should know people smarter than themselves, it helps them grow. And I dont take offence at your statement that I dont operate at the same level as them. From our conversation so far I think you having friends who left high school is a good thing.
So, you'll be admitting that brexit was a bad thing then?
Hahahaha, nope, of course not. You will only admit when you think that you are wrong, not when the evidence suggests it. You will go out of your way to cherry-pick and search for distorted "evidence" to support your views. You will twist and turn, and switch arguments, refer (without links) to supposed previous "proofs" but never be able to provide them. And if that fails, you will switch to ad-hominem attacks, or just lie.
Why would I say brexit was a bad thing?
My point is that you would not. Even once we get to the point where the vast majority of the human race agrees that it is.
Just like my point of comparing you to someone who is very obviously very intelligent is to compare and contrast, not to boast about "look who I know".
You go out of your way to not get the point.
@Elongated Muskrat
"My point is that you would not"
I wouldnt say brexit is a bad thing because its not been a bad thing. I also dont see it being a bad thing either. So just because in your opinion you think its a bad thing (from your perspective it might be) does not mean I think it is. Just because I dont agree with your opinion does not make me wrong.
"Just like my point of comparing you to someone who is very obviously very intelligent is to compare and contrast, not to boast about "look who I know"."
Sorry if you missed it, I served back your insult. Dunno if it was too complicated but you did just make me laugh.
""I'd love to hear the Brexit benefits, I have yet to see any examples other than the rhetoric of "taking back control". Show me some tangible stories and I'll listen. Nobody ever can."
Seriously? Have you never read any of my previous comments on this?"
Sorry, self-referencing your own comments does not equate to facts. I know this comes as a shock to you.
Still thanks for the bingo, I now have the full house on your ridiculous ntions - nazis were socialists (apart from the aryan stuff, natch), ? Cool.
@Mooseman
"Sorry, self-referencing your own comments does not equate to facts. I know this comes as a shock to you."
But having to keep reiterating the facts and sources going on years gets tiresome.
"Still thanks for the bingo, I now have the full house on your ridiculous ntions - nazis were socialists (apart from the aryan stuff, natch), ? Cool."
Did I write that? Or that it is arguable that the national socialist party with left wing proposals and fighting for the same left wing voters as the communist party were left wing? But then reading isnt your strong suit.
I have never, once, seen you provide a primary source, in context, for any assertion you have made. I suspect you don't even know what a primary source is. For reference, it is not an opinion piece, or an article reporting on what someone else has found, which does not reproduce the findings in full, and filters it through a lens of deliberate selection and unconscious bias.
It's almost as if you go looking for things that support your views, and explicitly don't go looking for anything that might contradict them.
@Elongated Muskrat
"I have never, once, seen you provide a primary source"
You 'have never seen' being the key there. I have linked to datasets and laws where appropriate and yes I also link to opinion pieces and news articles, just as others here do. Amazingly when it comes to commenting on stuff where its announcements to media news sources are the right ones to link to. If you dont like it then you probably take issue with most 'sources' put on here. What have you provided? Your glorious opinion?
Where I make a claim, I provide a source. Where I don't make a claim, but offer my opinion, it is clearly an opinion, and as such, doesn't require a source to verify it.
Importantly, I do not present the latter as the former, because I can tell the difference.
As for taking issues with "sources". Yes, I might do so, if they are all not real sources. Being discerning is a positive thing, not a negative one.
Granted, I have seen you link to raw statistics, and laws in the past. Crucially, it is your opinion on what those show that you present as fact. Your lack of intellectual rigour is as startling as your recourse to name-calling and insults is predictable.
A good example is that, in the past, you have linked to the infamous "banana EU regulation" in an attempt to prove either that it means we cannot sell straight or bendy bananas (I can't recall which, and the exact point is moot, as both are clearly ridiculous claims), and that this is a justification for leaving the institutions of the EU, and giving up the benefits of membership.
The exact regulation (note regulation, not law, the laws are laid down by the member nations in national law, in order to fulfil the regulation) is about grading produce, and not mislabelling lower grade produce as higher grade produce. I have in the past actually read the text of the regulation, because I actually go and read things, to inform myself. If I remember rightly, the only mention of bananas is in the accompanying explanatory text, which does not form part of the regulation itself. Of course, the root of all this is a newspaper article from Boris Johnson, deliberately conflating the two. The same Boris Johnson who has been fired from multiple jobs for lying. Hardly a solid source, or primary evidence, I'm afraid.
@Elongated Muskrat
"Granted, I have seen you link to raw statistics, and laws in the past."
Thank you again. Its been fun beating on a troll but you have brought it to such a ridiculous low that I am again done. You sink your own comments too much. I hope you finally understood the insult and not just noticed from me telling you, the rest of your comment attributing stuff to me seems to just be all out lies. Not very creative.
You keep telling yourself that, buddy. The fact that the vast majority of people disagree with pretty much everything you ever post MUST mean that you are right, and everyone else is always wrong, right? You must have the worst downvote ratio of anyone here, and that includes Dave gibberish.
@Codejunky is exactly the same as Stalin.
Prove me wrong...
The thing is, when you are stood at either political extreme, anything else looks equally extreme to you.
Moderate social democracy is perfectly achievable, and functions well, but to the likes of our darling CJ, they look the same as Stalin. QED
The first line that claims Labour* members agree with Nazi ideology. You're really going to have to provide a verified source for that assertion, which borders on the libellous. I suspect you can't, and once again, you are presenting opinion as fact.
I'd rather not read any more of your comments, the vast majority of which are complete nonsense. When asked to back up any of your various claims, your response is either "I've proved this before", or "here's a link to an unverifiable, un fact-checked opinion piece from a UKIP member / Patrick Minford** / random Youtuber".
If you can't tell the difference between facts and opinion (and boy are you full of opinions), you should have a good listen to yourself. Please don't inflict that punishment on us, I suspect it's in breach of the Geneva Convention for being cruel and unusual.
Wait a moment, ARE you Patrick Minford? That would explain quite a lot, actually.
*capital L please, it's a proper noun, I give the same courtesy to others I may disagree with, and to not do so is childish
**Even Thatcher admitted Minford's economic ideology, which he has been touting for decades is a load of old bollocks.
@Elongated Muskrat
"The first line that claims Labour* members agree with Nazi ideology."
Excellent start, you disprove your previous comments claim about me- 'Moderate social democracy is perfectly achievable, and functions well, but to the likes of our darling CJ, they look the same as Stalin'. So the absolute start of your comment is to prove your previous comment wrong. Looking good so far.
"You're really going to have to provide a verified source for that assertion, which borders on the libellous. I suspect you can't, and once again, you are presenting opinion as fact."
Why on earth is it libellous that leftys supported left wing ideas? This was a while ago and a quick google hasnt brought it up so I would have to go look back for where I have previously sourced it (anyone else have a link to the story feel free to save me the job).
"When asked to back up any of your various claims"
I usually do and you cry as in this comment. Didums.
"If you can't tell the difference between facts and opinion"
See the start of this comment. Hit and sink.
"*capital L please, it's a proper noun, I give the same courtesy to others I may disagree with, and to not do so is childish"
Not an english teacher. No disrespect intended but I honestly dont care about the capitalisation (same with others as you may note in my comments).
"**Even Thatcher admitted Minford's economic ideology, which he has been touting for decades is a load of old bollocks."
Not sure why you brought Minford into this. Not something I particularly studied although I have heard the name before.
@Elongated Muskrat
"I brought Minford into it"
Yes you did. Because you are floundering. What the hell are you on about? How the hell has the conversation gone from the BBC and the state to you randomly throwing names?
"A bit of selective memory there to add to your litany of bullshit."
You said something that has nothing to do with what we were discussing in the remotest sense and expect me to understand what you are on about? I cant keep up with how fast you are running.
"You talk of Goebbels but seem to forget the current N.Korea, China, USSR, Russia after that collapsed. But I am guessing you consider these examples fronts for the right? No true lefty?"
Dear god, you don't give up your endless diatribe of drivel do you? Yup, N Korea and Russia are clear examples of left wing government, not autocratic right wing dictatorships at all (in Russia's case is a kleptocracy but hardly "left"). You could, maybe, argue that the USSR and China are or were left wing, but little more than a cursory glance would tell you they were simple dictatorships masquerading ast socialism. What's next, the nazis were socialists?
And what exactly have any of these "examples" got to do with the current crop of broadly left wing politicians we have? Are you suggesting all labour MPs and members (of which I am neither before you start jumping up and down about bias) are the same as Stalin?
>The so-called "whiny lefty" as we know it today is a creation of the right wing, ... This segued into 'victimhood culture'
Agreed, the right wing have done a good job of elevating their victimhood culture (they are victims because the isn't running how they believe it should) to the point where many simply accept their highly distorted view of the world as being normal...
We should all be rushing back to "the Office" just so that the ‘the honourable member for the 18th century’ can be happy...
@Roland6
"Agreed, the right wing have done a good job of elevating their victimhood culture (they are victims because the isn't running how they believe it should) to the point where many simply accept their highly distorted view of the world as being normal..."
I think you just described the left incredibly there. You see them as right wing?
I see plenty of folks in both the left and right wing as selfish, self-obsessed children who throw a hissy fit whenever anyone thinks differently from how they do. If they are given poer, they usually try to twist the system towards dictatorship. If they achieve that, everyone else eventually gets fucked rigid, until a bloodbath puts adults back in charge again.
I'm invoking the 'regardless of topic or scope' clause...
"Godwin's law, short for Godwin's law (or rule) of Nazi analogies, is an Internet adage asserting that as an online discussion grows longer (regardless of topic or scope), the probability of a comparison to Nazis or Adolf Hitler approaches 1"
And strictly, the comparison was to Goebbels, not to Hitler, or to the Nazis in general.
It's also worth reading the whole wikipedia article on Godwin's Law (it's not a long one, fnarr), specifically the cases where Godwin himself has added his own thoughts.
For example, "If you're thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler when you talk about Trump, or any other politician."
I'd say that the post that had Godwin called on it meets those particular criteria (except, of course, it wasn't a comparison to Hitler)
Of course, this is all moot, I'm sure the commenter calling Godwin didn't do so to end the conversation anyway, but as a light-hearted aside (if any comparison to fascism can be considered light-hearted).
Nothing to do with left/right/liberals, or my own political views, or what you think my political views may be.
From the Taliban's point of view, who are the ones making the claim, it makes no difference which political party is in power. Foreign policy towards the Taliban will be the same regardless and the BBC viewpoint will reflect that policy. Therefore, as far as the Taliban are concerned the "state" in the UK is constant and the BBC are part of it.
From what I can gather, those at the top of the tree would have "Tory stooge" written through them in blue ink if you cut them in half. However, a lot of the people who actually work in the BBC (including those who I know personally) do tend to be to the left of the political spectrum.
This can be put down to the fact that intelligent, hard-working people tend not to swallow Tory bullshit, and the BBC has high standards when it comes to not hiring thickies.
Yes, I'm aware that this comes across as a mite patronising towards those who might like to think of themselves as right-wing. My advice would be to take a good long look at yourself and wonder whether your lords-and-masters in government are doing an especially good job of running the country into the ground and stealing all the money.
@Androgynous Cupboard
I'm trying to work out whether the answer is "useful idiot" or "psychopath". Scarily, I'm beginning to waver towards the latter, because there doesn't seem to be any "theory of mind" there whatsoever. I hope he's on a watch-list, but the actual terrifying thing is that our current government is more likely to pander to him.
Emily Maitlis says ‘active Tory party agent’ shaping BBC news output
Former Newsnight presenter says former No 10 communications chief Sir Robbie Gibb on board acting as ‘arbiter of impartiality’
Actually "Russia Today" is a model of transparency and openness compared to outlets like the BBC. They appear to have adopted the "Lord Reith" model used by the BBC back during its heyday. The approach to news then was simply facts are facts -- they might be selective about what to feature but there's no attempt to openly shape the news. This earned the BBC an enormous reputation that they've been living off ever since. RT is following the old model, I'd guess to build an audience, especially among the non-aligned states.
If you contrast this with the messaging from, say, Ukraine then you can see the problem. Someone broke ranks with the narrative over that recently blown up apartment building, saying -- quite plausibly -- that a shoot down of an incoming missile caused it to crash and explode at this building rather than the building being deliberately targeted. He got fired for 'unauthorized messaging'. We've whiplashed from the open reporting of the Vietnam era to the closely controlled 'embedded' reporting of the modern age and the quality has suffered as a result.
These days our media tends to start with the message they want delivered followed by figuring out how selected events can be shaped to fit the messaging. Understandable. Until you overdo it, then it just looks silly.
Ukraine is in the middle of a bloody war - of course they're controlling the message. There has never, ever been a country in the history of warfare that didn't recognise the importance of this - you mention Vietnam, but I would suggest this is the exception rather than the rule.
As for your man who was fired for unauthorised messaging, after Ukraine Air Defence said they didn't have the technical capability to shoot down ballistic missiles (the X-22 does Mach 4) he quit "blaming tiredness and stating that it was “one theory” put forward by a friend who happened to be near the scene". Which is not quite the same narrative. I hadn't heard of this guy before but the article implies he was a bit of a self publicist and an irritant.
It wouldn't surprise me if they don't contain a whole load of high-tech gubbins, such as satellite transceivers, that would make it trivially easy to make them go all 'splodey thanks to munitions launched from the safety of the next country over, if the previous owners so desired. In much the same way that Ukraine successfully tracked Russian troop movements in the early days of the invasion thanks to them nicking mobile phones from murdered Ukrainian civilians, combined with the wonders of cell triangulation.
Maybe the Taliban are just better at op-sec than Russia.
So the US and UK sponsored Taliban 1.0 (among many more both before and after), but now the author has a problem with Musk supposedly sponsoring Taliban 2.0 (a rather weird choice of phrase though, as by Twitter taking money from them, surely it's the other way around)?
It's evident that Musk has peeved many self-important folk out there, but come on, can't you come up with anything better than "oh no, he's accepting money from someone I've been told to not like?"
Twitter did nothing about daesh and other islamist-terorist accounts for years, some of which were verified under the old system, and even appeared to be tacitly supporting them by rejecting reports of obvious calls to violence and other breaches of the twitter TOS at the time. Really, what's changed now? A representative of the current (oppressive) government of Afghanistan has a verified account, but now the Musky one is in charge while it's happening, so it's all hands to the gun deck I guess.
"from someone I've been told to not like"
Are you an actual outed apologist for the Taliban? You've seen what they're about yeah? Wow. Apparently a lot of their population have decided not to like them without being told not to! Funny that. Almost like they are as bad as we're told they are.
Are you an actual outed apologist for the Taliban ?
well, let's see: before the US invaded Afghanistan, the Taliban ruled there and people had enough to eat. After 20 years of US occupation and closing their eyes on Afghan farmers turning to opium production instead of food, the Taliban rule again and now people are starving.
So ... the conclusion would be that the US ruling Afghanistan is worse than the Taliban ruling Afghanistan. If you look aver what happened in Syria or Chile, or Ukraine now, this seems like a recurring scenario
So Russian trolls weren't all sent to the front yet to serve as cannon fodder. That may come soon.
the Taliban ruled there and people had enough to eat.
Women were treated like cattle (and now are again), music was forbidden as were television, theatres and computers , people were executed or mutilated routinely, historic heritage was destroyed with explosives and Al-Qaeda found a safe heaven in Afghanistan. Removing them from power was a good thing, letting them coming back is not
Afghanistan is a mess since the Soviet invasion.
But no kudos to Twitter for not self-labelling its state affiliation, i.e. the state of Saudi Arabia whose rulers are the second biggest share holders after Musk. Let's see how Musk's free speech ideas are welcomed in the country run by his co-owners and football watching friends:
What's been going on at Twitter -- but strangely enough not reported through the mass media I read -- is that we're in this rather strange state these days where we champion free speech but only if its the correct free speech. The so-called "Twitter files" are revealing just how extensive cooperation with government has been, its actually been a platform for manufactured consent. Part of this process is the suppression of alternative voices.
I am a bit like Musk, a free speech absolutist. I believe that you should be able to say anything --- but at the same time you should be held accountable for what you say, you need to 'own' your utterances. We've been in the worst of all worlds where supposedly free speech is actively curated but the mob is free to anonymously pillory anyone who dares to disagree with the Party Line.
So let the Taliban talk. Just so long as we get to talk back.
I know you think you sound reasonable, but…
“The so-called "Twitter files" are revealing just how extensive cooperation with government has been, its actually been a platform for manufactured consent.”
If that was your takeaway, you are either being deliberately misleading or you’re a fool.
Or both. That's also an option.
The Twitter files were the most overblown story since... well, since the Trump-Alfa bank nonsense, which I'm ashamed to admit I bought into for a week or so. So far all the documents released by Musk have shown the opposite of what he said they did. He is relying, of course, on vanishingly few people reading the actual source, as opposed to the misrepresentations posted on Twitter by his approved churnalists.
The purpose of the subscription tick is that you "rocket to the top replies, mentions and search" and see "half" the ads (coming soon) among other features.
I don't think we have to wait. With the mass exodus of advertisers from the "platform" well underway, and showing no signs of abating, one probably sees well less than half the ads already.
Note: As there isn't enough money in the world to get me onto that "platform", much less spring for Elon's tick, I cannot personally verify that this is the case. However logic tells us...wait -- applying logic to Elon's "platform" is a fool's errand so...hmmm.....
It might make some areas of the financial industry rather less efficient:
Rings bell
Hear ye, Hear Ye
News has just been received that the potentate of the far colonies over the ocean hath (6 months ago) declared that ye interest rate on US treasury bonds shall be increased
Would you like it if the discussion here was a dry discussion of the technological merits of one mechanism of managing and recording "blue tick" subscriptions over another? Because I don't think anyone else would be reading that.
To be clear, up there is a link to the actual story, written by a journalist, about a tech news item on a tech site. Down here are a bunch of people, who are not (for the most part) journalists, and who are not writing news stories. Do you see the difference? Do we need to use some flash cards for you?
Funny how I got banned for questioning the link between UK politicians/civil servants and business in the never ending merry go round of jobs for ex-watchdogs and oversears for the very companies they monitored, as I implied illegal activities, but it's OK for a bunch of religious, sexist, hate filled nutters, living in the dark ages to have an account spreading their poison words. Ah, I joined free, Taliban speaks Musk's language, the holy $$$ !
Maybe we need a new $$$ for IT Icon ?
https://www.rand.org/blog/2022/03/why-the-bbc-world-services-new-ukrainian-shortwave-service.html
BBC World Service (which *does* have stronger links to the UK government than the main BBC) has resumed limited shortwave broadcasts beamed at Ukraine/Russia.
As receiving a radio broadcast on a hardware based receiver involves no metadata at all, no storage on the device, perhaps there will, sadly, be more services to e.g. Afghanistan.
100 year technology has some merit sometimes.
Have a read of this from The Verge which illustrates in great detail the utter shit show the company now is.
(not that they were that great before, but hey....)
https://www.theverge.com/23551060/elon-musk-twitter-takeover-layoffs-workplace-salute-emoji
Dear God I am tired of people complaining that Twitter, Facebook, et al are trampling on their "Freedom of Speech." They're doing nothing of the sort.
In most western countries you, as an individual, have every right to say more or less what you like, subject to local laws, to write and publish what you like, subject to local laws, and even to make web site with whatever you like, subject to local laws.
What you do NOT have is a right to force your harebrained or illegal opinions, videos, or attacks onto any and every web site on the Internet. The content placed on Twitter or Facebook or even El Reg is up to whatever the owners of those places decides is appropriate.
If that really bothers you so much your solution is simple: do what Donald Trump did and start your own web site, and post whatever your heart desires.
Of course by doing that you face two hard truths: it takes real work to develop a good looking and functioning web site, and you may find that your audience is much, much smaller than you would hope for.
Of course the Taliban are 'bad' and references to hanging and whatnot are true. But for the Americans to be all holier-than-thou when they still do the death penalty is a mite hypocritical.
Along the lines of 'we are not arguing about what you are, now we are haggling on price'.
It is clear that in few years time. United States is going to have to invade Afghanistan again because of the Taliban. This crazy religious people are going to increase their harm until they result in wave of new dangerous terrorism around the world. It can only ever end that way. I do hope that there's an internal rebellion against the Taliban, but for now that's not going to happen.
I also hope that the Taliban get blocked for all social media while that format of communication exists (because its going to go extinct in few years time, because the world just does that sometimes).
Paying to be able to use Twitter to its full is not the opposite of free speech. Free speech is the right to say pretty much what you want, not the right to be able to use a private company's product to say it - free of charge.
The author is confusing "free as in speech" with "free as in beer".
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
