Deplatforming hate forums doesn't work, British boffins warn Depriving online hate groups of network services - otherwise known as deplatforming - doesn't work very well, according to boffins based in the United Kingdom. In a recently released preprint paper, Anh Vu, Alice Hutchings, and Ross Anderson, from the University of Cambridge and the University of Edinburgh, examine efforts to …
I'm only somewhat familiar with these trolls, but that only works when the trolling stays online. When it stays online, any target of the trolling can, as a last resort, just log off.
When this crosses over into Real Life actions like swatting or having people turn up at family members' residences, what are the targets supposed to do? It may be a different site that has the suicide counter for those that it's been harassing but I think we can all agree that logging off from Real Life is not a solution when that's something that these scum are *proud* of.
"what are the targets supposed to do?"
If they go RealLife, you return the favo(u)r and call the cops. You do NOT go after the idiots yourself ... that's what they want. If that means you have to educate your local police force, so be it ... at least next time they will already have some clues.
Of course that's the correct answer, but it's a different answer to the one you supplied in your original comment of ignoring the trolls.
These hate farms and the people taking part are willing to put personal resources into bringing trolling to Real Life and are perfectly happy to make life miserable and scary for acquaintances of the target as well as the target.
Edit: It's also worth noting that the targets have often done nothing wrong (like many victims of crime) but those who are already in vulnerable positions are often targeted as they are easier to get under the skin of. My main exposure to this is from a youtube channel from a sufferer of DID working to raise awareness of their conidition and how they were targeted as somebody who has a lot to work through. The sensibility of them having a mildly successful youtube channel while in their position is debatable but it's not something they should have to deal with.
A lot of issues come as a result of modern upbringing and kids who have never been given boundaries or told 'no'. They live in a belief that they are right, always right, never wrong and if anyone questions them then the other person is wrong and must be made to understand. As such they will gravitate towards others who reenforce their worldview which then creates an even more extreme reaction to any differing worldview.
The result is people who glue themselves to roads or jump on snooker tables and DEMAND they get their way.
Worth noting, in some cases one's local police force (or a significant percentage of the individuals in it) are more sympathetic toward the trolls than their target. Obviously no police force enjoys being the tools of internet assholes, but the Ontario PD wasn't exactly eager to treat @keffals gently either.
To say nothing of the fact that being outed on the internet as <whatever minority status> is bad enough, but forcing one to go to one's local police force and *tell them* that one is gay, trans, whatever (and bonus potentially get hostile treatment/response by individual policeassholes) is yet another special sort of win for the internet assholes.
Yep, that's the kicker alright.
Talking about the UK, I have enough trust in the police that they'd deal with me being trans at least somewhat professionally. Texas? Florida? Tennessee? (Really, anywhere in the US South or countries where being LGBTQ+ isn't kosher) that "Go to the police option" stops being feasible. Then what do you do?
"Talking about the UK, I have enough trust in the police that they'd deal with me being trans at least somewhat professionally. Texas? Florida? Tennessee? (Really, anywhere in the US South or countries where being LGBTQ+ isn't kosher) that "Go to the police option" stops being feasible."
You obviously know nothing about these states or the "US South." I know plenty of trans around these here parts and they do just fine. They call the cops when they need assistance and, gosh durnit, they get help. Try not collating your facts from hysterical internet forums and news outlets.
"You obviously know nothing about these states or the "US South." I know plenty of trans around these here parts and they do just fine. They call the cops when they need assistance and, gosh durnit, they get help. Try not collating your facts from hysterical internet forums and news outlets."
Perhaps if you knew those "plenty of trans" better, you'd know they consider 'trans' to be an adjective, not a noun.
No little irony seeing that showing up in a post implying someone else's lack of familiarity from a misused label, too, "US South" AC person.
(If your post was actually intended as sarcasm, then mea culpa.)
"I read these bills going through states' legislatures so they are probably true"
OK SB129 - Healthcare professionals found to knowingly referred for or provided gender transition procedures to an individual under twenty-six (26) years of age shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a felony.
Arizona SB10001 - An employee [...] of a school district or charter school may not knowingly address, identify or refer to a student [...] by a pronoun that differs from the pronoun that aligns with the student's biological sex unless the school district or charter school receives written permission from the student's parent.
Wyoming SF0111 - A person is guilty of child abuse, a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than ten (10) years, if a person intentionally inflicts upon a child under the age of eighteen (18) years any procedure, drug, other agent or combination thereof that is administered to intentionally or knowingly change the sex of the child.
https://translegislation.com/
I know that you're a very self-confident greybeard, Jake, but you aren't an expert on everything.
"It's also worth noting that the targets have often done nothing wrong (like many victims of crime) but those who are already in vulnerable positions are often targeted as they are easier to get under the skin of."
This makes me think you've never read about some of the people on those forums. So, you're telling me the people who are zoophiles and torture and sexually assault animals are doing nothing wrong? That the furries grooming children over Twitter are doing nothing wrong? The people manipulating teenage boys into becoming femboys and then bragging about amassing harams on social media are also doing nothing wrong? What the hell is wrong with you where you think protecting people like that are worth your time? You don't even know what you're talking about. You don't even know what goes on beneath the internet you seem to only be able to access.
I don't frequent those forums. I have seen a couple of people who did nothing to deserve being targeted beyond already being vulnerable get targeted.
Beyond that, the internet has a well-recorded history of going after people without sufficient evidence and making people's online lives hell for nothing more than an imagined slight (just look at twitter). While there are people who deserve bad things(TM) to happen to them, this is what laws and a functioning police/judicial system is for rather than vigilante justice.
Finally, not sure what you're talking about manipulating teenage boys into becoming femboys, but either you're talking about trans girls or effeminate boys and they're allowed to be whoever they are without you judging them, thank you very much.
Good luck tracking down the perpetrators when their anonymity is protected ny the platform and both they and the platform are in a different jurisdiction from you.
Also note that attempts to "solve" this problem by making anonymity impossible will face a backlash from precisely the minorities you are trying to protect. In fact, it's the kind of approach favoured by Pooh bear and Putin.
It's a hard problem.
Good luck tracking down the perpetrators when their anonymity is protected ny the platform and both they and the platform are in a different jurisdiction from you.
Anonymity is a bit of an Internet myth given LEAs can and do compel platforms to supply subscriber information. Jurisdiction is a different matter, but many countries do have data retention and lawful disclosure legislation. Or LEAs could maybe just get the information from a data aggregator instead. As you say, not all jurisdictions do though, or have good co-operation between LEAs.
It's a hard problem.
Indeed
So your observation is on point mostly. There are still people trolling for fun and attention, even through the sad lens they view the world. But the same people have been a fertile recruiting ground for extremists of every stripe, and once they drink the flavor-aid they aren't really trolls anymore. They are just using the same methods of harassment, bullying, and intimidation. At least until the trajectory of their radicalization takes them to escalate past purely online harassment.
The media has really accelerated that change by calling every semi-organized group of hostile actors online a "troll-farm". Even when the group is a state sponsored APT that clock in from a government building on a daily basis. And if that is a troll farm, state sponsored kidnapping, harassment and censorship must also be trolling right? Organization online for IRL assaults, invasion of government meetings and targeting and stalking of whatever vulnerable people that group hates is just more trolling. At least until they start patrolling the streets at which point they are either a gang or a militia depending on their fashion choices.
Stop giving cover to these people. What most of them are doing isn't trolling, and calling that is just helping them dodge accountability for their words and actions.
Yes and no. That many believe what they are saying few will doubt. But that doesn't mean they aren't ALSO trolls, looking to "own the libs" or whatever group is the target of their hate. If they are forced into a dark corner where ordinary people won't see it, it takes a lot of the fun out of it for them.
I saw more than one article claiming that the various extreme right wing racists/Nazis/militia nuts and so forth don't enjoy Gab as much as Twitter even though it is far more welcoming of their worst viewpoints, because there isn't anyone to argue/fight with. Often people who believe the worst things seem to get off on putting those views out there and "shocking" others. Having them in the mix with the normals also shifts/widens the Overton window which only makes our political divisions worse.
Sure for the absolute worst of the worst, i.e. the people who heard Trump's call and showed up on Jan. 6 to beat up cops and hang Mike Pence, it is useful having their posts out in full public view as it makes the job of law enforcement easier. But that's like a town ratcatcher wanting people to leave the lids off their garbage making the rats easier to find - the rest of us shouldn't have to deal with the mess just to make someone else's job easier!
So what about the people who brought as guillotine to the white house
People bringing symbolic non functional props as part of a demonstration is not the same in any way whatsoever as people showing up with weapons to break through barriers, beat down cops, break down doors and windows and enter a building getting less than 60 feet from the guy they were chanting to hang at one point with only a handful of capitol police standing in their way. They also brought a gallows, and even a prop gallows might function well enough to hang someone while the prop guillotine couldn't have popped a balloon let alone cut off a head.
I disagree, most of them really are simply trolls. All one has to do is look at the numbers the Southern Poverty Law Center and ADL reports and there are a total of 3-6000 KKK members, the largest white supremacist rally attracted a total of 150 people. Compare that to the number of posts seen online. It's obvious that the people who actively participate is extremely small compared to the rest of the population.
True. Same story with the anti-trans types the media are obsessively providing oxygen of late. I would've said "crowd" but it's always the same up-to-maybe-a-dozen you see at all of their, erm, gatherings. But if you only looked at media and their trolling you'd think they were the huge majority that they claim to be.
How many people believe or sympathize with the KKK's positions for every one person willing to associate their name by becoming a member, let alone showing up in person at a rally? I mean, you could say "well only 20,000 people show up at Trump's rallies so he's not very popular on a national scale", but he got 74 million to vote for him in the last election.
Now clearly a lot of those people weren't voting FOR him so much as they were voting against Biden/democrats, but safe to assume at least half that 74 million would vote for him again even if by election day 2024 he was behind bars for his crimes related to the last election (or he had fled the country prior to the jury's verdict)
whenever I think of "Feeding Trolls" I am reminded of an old Screwball Squirrel cartoon (and a similar Bugs Bunny cartoon)
"I will love him and hug him and call him George"
(Screwy Squirrel was literally squished to death when the dog hugged him a bit too much...)
It is not censorship in any way, shape or form.
It is removing something from private property that costs more to keep than it provides to the property owner.
I don't rent out server space for my health, I do it to earn a living. If my admins are spending so much time dealing with complaints about someone that I have to hire more admins, that is taking money out of my pocket. So I kick the trolls out. Done, no problem.
> It is not censorship in any way, shape or form.
You saying it's not censorship doesn't make it not censorship.
Censorship doesn't require government involvement, it just requires that a person's words or actions be blocked or altered by another.
It's okay to not like some forms of censorship, but allow others. You don't have to try and redefine words.
> It is removing something from private property that costs more to keep than it provides to the property owner.
In the KiwiFarms case, KiwiFarms is the private property, and it is people who do not own that private property who want to burn it to the ground because they don't like what's being said on that private property. So these people bully the security and fire insurance companies to stop doing business with said private property, and entirely coincidentally someone firebombs the private property shortly afterwards.
> If my admins are spending so much time dealing with complaints about someone that I have to hire more admins, that is taking money out of my pocket. So I kick the trolls out. Done, no problem.
What if the trolls are the ones submitting the complaints? Would you kick out the subject of the harassment?
Kiwi farms isn't being forced to self censor. It's being kicked to the curb by it's service providers. It's also dealing with the blowback from it's own actions. They were free to express themselves, they chose to do so by stalking, harassment, and co-ordinating criminal actions in multiple countries against the laws of those countries and in many cases the ones the users live in and the site was hosted in.
The site operators refuse to limit ongoing criminal activity or coordinate with law enforcement, making themselves accessories to the ongoing criminal activity under the site. That then exposed all of their service providers to legal exposure and they were in most cased dropped like a hot potato. They have since sought out hosting from so called bullet proof hosts that agreed to take them for the notoriety, many of which went on to drop them after realizing that they bring more trouble than they will ever be worth.
So what is happening is at most censorship after the fact, and as collateral damage because the site refuses to curtail the illegal and criminal conduct of the membership, mods, and the sites own operators.
The Trolls of Kiwifarms have and continue to kick out whoever they like(or don't like as the case may be). Who cares? That's not remotely the concern here and no one is stopping them from kicking people off the site they operate.
What you are trying to arguing for in a roundabout fashion is that other people and other companies are obliged to support and assist a toxic site with little to no redeeming value even if it costs them business, violates their ethical standards, and risks making them an accessory to criminal conduct. That's both a violation of their rights, including their free speech rights, and holding them hostage to a third parties criminal conduct. And your attempt to compare it to fire insurance is equally laughable, as no insurance company is going to willingly insure a company engaged in criminal activity when they may be liable for that conduct. No sane industry, and no court of law requires a company to insure someone who is actively inciting the act that they are insuring against losses. Fire or life insurance, it does not matter.
Vu, Hutchings, and Anderson argue that deplatforming by itself is insufficient
Being insufficient doesn't mean it is useless. At least if makes those forums less visible, and make them harder to grow.
Reducing global hatred needs two pillars: investing a lot in education and drastically reduce inequalities.
Sadly modern times are driven by hatred and the perception of inequalities. Entire government departments are created to 'tackle' these issues but the reality is they are just a hole into which money is shovelled so successive governments can make claims that 'we are fixing it'.
"Vote for us and we will (give you free money)/(fix the problems we've caused)/(ban the thing you don't like)/(tax the rich)"
The 'greatest country on earth' has a school system that results in illiterate and innumerate kids 'graduating' in the name of 'equity' as it is perceived that making the kids actually turn up, behave in class, pay attention and learn harms them.
"...reduce activity and toxicity levels of relevant actors on Twitter and Reddit, limit the spread of conspiratorial disinformation on Facebook, and minimize disinformation and extreme speech on YouTube,"
There were shades of "What have the Romans ever done for us?"
But apart from all the ways deplatforming reduces the chance of people stumbling over misinformation and hate speech (and being radicalised by it), and all the ways it raises the standard of what we see as acceptable public discourse, what good does deplatforming actually do...?
It would be interesting to know how much the streisand effect is at play here.
A lot. I'd never heard of Kiwifarms before the demands to ban this filth. I've still never visited it, but at least know I now to avoid it.
By making a song and dance about certain topics are more people going down the rabbit hole?
Probably, but that's always been the problem with propaganda and psyops. There's a great example of that here-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-65114966
The 'ninjas' fighting climate change denial on Twitter
"At the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether they get suspended because of Covid-19 misinformation or Nazi symbols," Maria tells me. "When they're gone, they're gone."
Thousands of hours of slow, painstaking work paid off - or so the "ninjas" like to believe. They claim that, as a result of their actions, about 600 Twitter accounts promoting climate change denial were suspended.
Where the Bbc actively encourages trolling, denial and censorship, because their trolls are right and everyone else is wrong. The Bbc regulary gets climate stuff wrong, and promotes 'fake news', eg-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/ecu/the-man-who-first-discovered-plastic-in-the-ocean-bbccouk
The BBC would expect that, in most circumstances, photographs illustrating online reports which look as if they depict an actual occurrence will be authentic, and that it should be made clear to readers if they have been altered in any significant way.
But fake news and disinformation is fine for the Bbc (and other parts of the MSM) because they're righteous. I come across these trolls pretty often online because they're usually easy to spot and rely on spouting the same old, tired memes that are easily debunked. But this is also one of the dangers with current activist-trolling/censorship, because if and when people realise they're being lied to by people they're supposed to trust, then trust is destroyed. The way the Bbc lies about certain topics certainly hardened my opposition to them, and made me wonder why they're so opposed to reasoned debate and free speech.
Is any advertising good advertising?
"Deplatforming" doesn't tell people of a specific group they can no longer do something. It tells all people of all types that they now have to figure out how to do that same something on their own. Luckily, there's the internet to teach you how to do anything.
Is any advertising good advertising?
This Bud must be good for you. Or just good for mockery, or allowing people to debate the wisdom of trying to grow your brand to an audience that makes up <1% of the population. Quite impressive AB managed to wipe $5-6bn off their value on the back of one ill-considered ad campaign though.
""There are multiple research programs and field experiments on effective ways to detox young men from misogynistic attitudes, whether in youth clubs and other small groups, at the scale of schools, or even by gamifying the identification of propaganda that promotes hate," they argue."
Because as everybody knows, all young women are sweetness and light.
Although there are plenty of female trolls out there, it is nearly always men who are ready to bring their trolling into the real world and attack, injure, or kill people. And the misogyny of some of these groups also feeds directly into harassment and worse of women.
I'd be interested to know what the researchers define as 'misogynistic attitudes'. The paper is rather short on detail.
Just read any Disney or Prime press release or coverage of recent masterpieces like Wheel of Time, Rings of Power, The Marvels etc etc. Any criticism of the show is because the critics are obviously misogynist, racist and just "Don't get it". Then perhaps watch Critical Drinker, Disparu or other's criticisms who point out the showrunner's 'vision' generally tramples all over existing lore and frequently just sucks.
Incels are more curious to me though. I've dabbled with debating some of those and came to the conclusion that they're really vcels, ie voluntarily celibate. I also discovered that I'm apparently 'based' and had to look up what that meant. It's also an area rife with toxicity from both sides, and I think a menace to society and mental health in general. Relationships are complex and confusing, and a lot of the 'advice' given is counter-productive. You can't generally force people to change viewpoints and behaviors because that just risks negative reinforcement, especially when messaging around relationships can be very mixed and confusing.
Censorship certainly doesn't work, and just risks sending vulnerable people down rabbit holes, where they're harder to monitor and more easily radicalised. This is one of the reasons why the 'Dark Web' was created and exists. Being out of sight doesn't mean being out of mind. It's a fascinating minefield to dance through though, and I think ultimately boils down to identity crises. People are confused about who they should be, and what ideals they should conform to rather than experimenting and discovering their own identities. As a kid, one of the best bits of advice I had on relationships was 'be yourself'. Took me a while to figure out what that meant, then I had a lot of fun.. but women are tricksy like that.
Some young men do not want to put themselves in the position where they could be subject to a false rape claim. Entitlement culture has shown some women that they can get anything they want from the simps and if anyone says no they just need to call the police.
The recent case in the UK where a woman beat herself with a hammer shows the level of mental instability there is in the world.
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-england-cumbria-64957687
Mattress girl in the US is another great case. Ruined a guy's life as he didn't want to see her any more and despite him being proven innocent she still got to play the victim.
Some young men do not want to put themselves in the position where they could be subject to a false rape claim. Entitlement culture has shown some women that they can get anything they want from the simps and if anyone says no they just need to call the police.
Like I said, relationships can get complicated. Both women were caught, prosecuted and convicted. But stats show women are far more frequently the victims of sex crimes, although things like date rapes, drugging etc can happen to men as well. Taking precautions is pretty much the same for any sex and gender though, ie be aware, maybe actually get to know the person first etc. Or just make sure you have witnesses, if group play is your thing.
But it's strange. All men who dare to disagree are often labelled misogynists, yet misandry seems activily encouraged and promoted. Both could technically be considered crimes given they're attacks against protected characteristics. One could probably also add racially motivated because some think all white males are fundamentally evil. Somehow, we've ended up in a bizarre situation where inequality is being encouraged in the name of equality.
The big problem is that every time a woman lies it hurts not only the man/men directly involved but it hurts women in general. A good number of these women are suffering from some personality disorder and think they are the centre of the universe and nothing else matters.
It almost seems like the fake claims get more police attention than the real claims. Maybe this is because the women who have suffered the real crimes are not as vocal. Along with the 'believe all women except the one accusing Joe Biden' mindset.
The whole 'teach your son not to rape' thing is also garbage. The VAST majority of men will never rape (that regrettable consensual one night stand with the ugly guy is not rape) but by treating all men as potential rapists does sow the mindset of 'meh, gonna get accused of it anyway so why not!'. Another self fulfilling prophecy. It is also likely a cause of some of the incel culture in that you've now raised self-hating men.
As for equality, it is generally easier to pull everyone down than to raise some up.
"The big problem is that every time a woman lies it hurts not only the man/men directly involved but it hurts women in general."
This, above all.
It means the genuine cases are apt to be severely cross-examined in court. It's far from misogynistic to believe it wrong that so few cases get to court. Not only do investigators want to avoid miscarriages of justice, they want to avoid making things worse for the genuine cases when they do get to court. Setting quotas for prosecutions, let alone convictions helps nobody.
"A good number of these women are suffering from some personality disorder and think they are the centre of the universe and nothing else matters."
Maybe mores have changed since I was professionally involved* - '70s & early '80s - but experience of reading a lot of statements suggested that personality disorder very rarely came into it. Complainants mostly fell into two groups:
1. Those who woke up realising it might not have been the good idea it had seemed at the time and were probably worried about being pregnant. The police surgeon provided them with a morning-after pill.
2. Those who wanted an excuse for daddy who had been waiting up for them. I'm pleased to say that my own daughter never gave me any problems in this regard and I'd have tried to avoid putting her in that position if I thought there was a possibility. I did have one variant of this go to court; the DPP for some reason insisted but eyewitness evidence totally demolished the claim, embarrassed the complainant and left her family looking rather angry with her.
I have to add that my personal view was that if under-age drinking had been heavily stamped on there would have been a much lighter caseload. Certainly one or both parties in many cases were under pub-age but had drink taken.
There were, of course, a number of cases which were taken very seriously by everyone and, if at all possible, brought to court.
* Alleged sexual offences are a large part of the forensic biologist's workload.
The big problem is that every time a woman lies it hurts not only the man/men directly involved but it hurts women in general. A good number of these women are suffering from some personality disorder and think they are the centre of the universe and nothing else matters.
There's a book about that-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf
Complete with a warning-
However, when dealing with the moral behaviour of adults, Samuel Croxall asks, referencing political alarmism, "when we are alarmed with imaginary dangers in respect of the public, till the cry grows quite stale and threadbare, how can it be expected we should know when to guard ourselves against real ones?"
Which also applies to moral panics, mass hysteria, or just politics. See also the UK's test of it's emergency broadcast network due this Sunday. Complete with news articles about how to disable this feature. Fewer about what happens with people who don't have a compatible 'smart' phone.
But back to vcels.. Sure, they may get accused of rape. They may also get hit by a bus crossing the road, a meteorite, or eaten by a velociraptor whilst discovering a bird in the bush can be quite fun. But life is about risks. I think people are still more confused, insecure, afraid of rejection or just haven't been well socialised. Same thing happens with women given the number of articles about women finding it hard to get a relationship, and wondering where all the 'real' men are.
I'd be interested to know what the researchers define as 'misogynistic attitudes'.
When I see these kinds of terms being tossed about my skeptic hat goes on and I look further down for accusations about masculinity being "toxic" [an instant hit from my B.S. detector]. Then when it becomes obvious it was written from a ridiculous position of bias against masculinity I can either lampoon it or ignore it entirely.
I downvoted because the article makes no mention of how they intend to deal with the issue other than vague hand waving about "education", the same as any other such "study group" always falls back on as the "fix" for a problem with society. Simply saying people are uneducated and as a result, ignorant, does not actually address the problem we have with current society. It may help in the future, or it might not, depending on how it is handled. Certainly there has been a knee-jerk reaction from "parents rights" groups out there over trying to educate children not to be bigoted about LGBTQ issues. so even though society is trying to educate its way out of the problem, there are the truly ignorant who fight having ANYONE educated, because that means THEY'RE wrong, and they refuse to accept that.
Haters gonna hate.
Perhaps the problem is the normalisation of hatred. It seems that hatred - misogyny, racism, creedism (by that I mean religious hatred) and political hatred - is on the rise. Twenty years ago it wasn’t as prevalent, and it was on the decline. Now it seems to be a growth industry.
Why? Iconoclasts like Farage, Trump, Johnson, Mogg, MTG, and their ilk have been given a platform by the likes of Rupert Murdoch, Rothermere, The Barclays et al. And they’re using using it to be utterly toxic. Suddenly it’s socially acceptable to be prejudiced, not to think critically, to lie and to cheat and to be utterly partisan about everything that you do.
So if these firebrands are allowed to do it, why not everyone else? And suddenly the crackpot prejudices and nastinesses that had lain dormant or were limited to small pockets of the internet are now oozing out and infecting everyday life.
Unless we tackle the traditional media, TV, Newspapers etc we can’t hope to get a handle on social media. And it seems to me that the traditional media is the easiest to control - not headquartered and paying taxes in the country that you publish in? Then you may not publish. And if you’re headquartered in that country then it’s easier to take legal action if you lie.
And if you think that I’m picking on the ‘right’ wing then yes, to a certain extent you’re right. This is largely a right wing problem - hatred is still only a minority problem for left and centrist political groupings whose woolly, woke, ideology is more interested in helping people than suppressing them.
"This is largely a right wing problem"
Nope, it is far from. The extreme left is driven entirely by hatred. This is why we see people being attacked for having the 'wrong opinion'. Women being punched, shops looted, cars set on fire, buildings burnt down, people dragged from their cars and beaten close to death, people executed in the street... And this is being done with the full support of the media and state.
Attacked is a strong word, and incorrect. If you mean “told that you’re wrong” then yes, I agree - and not just by the extreme left. If you hold racist views, if you think that women are in some way inferior, if you think that you should be able to dictate what sexuality individuals have, if you think that it’s acceptable for private individuals to own semi-automatic weapons, then you are wrong. I haven’t attacked you for holding that opinion, I’ve just stated what I believe to be true - and no one should have a problem with that.
As to “women being punched, shops looted, cars set on fire, buildings burnt down, people dragged from their cars and beaten close to death, people executed in the street”, you’re just making stuff up. Just because you’ve read about it on Parler or Truth Social, or heard about it on Fox News, doesn’t mean that it happened. In fact, it probably means that it didn’t happen.
Having someone scream in your face and physically assault you is not being 'told that you are wrong'.
"If you hold racist views"
Does anti-white count? Or anti-asian?
"if you think that women are in some way inferior"
Surely you mean 'birthing people'? Nothing says inferior than reducing someone to a bodily function.
"if you think that you should be able to dictate what sexuality individuals have"
Teachers telling children that they are <insert latest thing> and to hide it from their parents?
"you’re just making stuff up"
I wish I was.
Why waste the effort? You've convinced yourself that you are the arbiter of the truth and that you are morally and intellectually superior. I will be accused of 'cherry picking', 'quoting out of context', using unreliable sources or you will victim blame saying that the person should not have been there.
You will make a very good party member, there are five lights.
"I will be accused of 'cherry picking', 'quoting out of context', using unreliable sources" - That's a risk, true. I certainly will accuse you of that if you do.
"you will victim blame saying that the person should not have been there" - I believe that's what's known as projection. You might do that. I won't.
"You've convinced yourself that you are the arbiter of the truth" - Nope. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it. If I claim something then I'll be prepared to back it up with verifiable sources. I'm not always right but, in this conversation, the evidence (which I have provided) suggests that my side of the argument is more trustworthy than yours. So prove me wrong.
"you are morally and intellectually superior" - I don't know about that. But if you've ever thought that immigrants are all 'illegal', 'criminal', 'should be kept out', or that different sexualities are somehow morally abhorrent, or that different genders / races to yours are inferior (note the if at the beginning of the sentence by the way), etc., etc., then yes I probably am. Similarly, if you make up facts to support your argument, then that probably supports your suggestion that I am morally and intellectually superior too.
I am a very good party member aren't I? The trouble is that I'm a member of three different parties, sometimes with opposing views, because I want to be able to influence their decision making process. I'd quite like them to be able to work together as well, and drop all this 'poor me' partisan bullshit.
Yes, one or two people got punched in the face on camera, mostly during protests that devolved into a riot due to the combination of hostile attempts by law enforcement to shutdown lawful protests, hostile hard right counter-protesters(often armed with knives, guns, and bear spray), and people impersonating the other side to feed the delusions of people like you that are in denial of your heavily biased views and beliefs.
The handful of cases you can actually verify are a spoonful of sand poured into an ocean of cases where people in the hard-right attacked people. I say that as one of local conservatives here that didn't catch a bad case of brain worms in the last few years.
The obvious empty attempts to crutch on TV conservative talking points like wokeness, race baiting white victimhood, and save the children from <insert whatever you don't like> undermine any arguement you tried to make. You may not be able to comprehend a rational argument, or what evidence is, but that doesn't mean you are right in any way. Just another parrort repeating a invalid argument you heard often enough to repeat it.
Our side is so far in the wrong on these issues it's not even a side anymore, it's a hole in the ground. And if we can't get our collective act together that hole will be the grave of conservative politics.
Which is to say, stop making the rest of us look bad and get your act together, or get used to people rubbing your nose in the mess your making.
> Just because you’ve read about it on Parler or Truth Social, or heard about it on Fox News, doesn’t mean that it happened. In fact, it probably means that it didn’t happen.
Just as Jim Hacker said that he didn't believe anything until it had been officially denied I think it's not unreasonable to hold off disbelieving something until Fox News et al have confirmed it to be true.
You aren’t joking are you? You actually believe that. You might just as well wear a t-shirt saying “I’m with Stupid” and have the arrow pointing at your own face.
Antifa just means “Anti-Facist” and if you have a problem with that view point then you are quite literally a facist. Anti-facist is something we should all be. BLM isn’t an organisation either - it may be a movement, but a movement and an organisation are two separate things. And Black Lives do Matter - and please don’t be thick enough to come back with any of that all lives matter crap. White lives are already valued very highly - check the average response times by the police to a white caller, for example. Check the reference materials that doctors are usually trained with. Witness the models that AIs are trained with for the archetypal human. Usually white, with all the biases that that entails. We know white lives matter. Societally, we need a reminder that Black Lives Matter too.
That having been said, shall we take a little look at the actual facts? You might want to read these articles…
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2122593119
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35858413/
https://www.adl.org/resources/report/murder-and-extremism-united-states-2022
My apologies - and my fault. I took Wikipedia at its word "It's a movement", but you're right on this. It is an organisation too, albeit a decentralised one. But…
So what? It's not a terrorist organisation. They've raised money for outreach. And their stated aims are "to eradicate white supremacy and build local power to intervene in violence inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes. By combating and countering acts of violence, creating space for Black imagination and innovation, and centering Black joy, we are winning immediate improvements in our lives."
Which seems fair enough to me. Unless you're going cherry pick words like 'combating' and claim some spurious link to violence, when (as a verb) it means 'take action to reduce or prevent (something bad or undesirable)'.
But thank you for the heads up about this organisation. I think I'll make a donation, because they seem alright to me.
"Antifa just means “Anti-Facist”"
After all, as we all know, violent extremists that go around beating people always tell the truth, so if they say they are anti facist, then they are.
It so easy, you just have to use the right definitions:
Facist: adj, anyone who dares to disagree with me about anything.
See? Case closed.
Or,
'mostly peaceful demostration': expresion to use while a building burns in the background.
Of course they were far right, they didn't want their property burned, that disagreement clearly show they were nothing but facists whose property deserved to be burned.
Oh, and I didn't mention who was responsible for burning anyhting, I was just explaining the real meaning of words, you see, I am sick and tired of seeing normies saying that political fans like you do nothing but lie.
Of course, you don't, definitions matter.
You are just parroting the {False} notion that everyone who wears black to protest against your side is a member of "Antifa", which does not exist as you think of it. The people pulling your strings combined the idea of groups that do exist (actual anti-facist groups, many of witch operate online, not at protests, and many of which work directly with law enforcement) and created a boogey man to scare you then branded everyone who disagrees with you as "Antifa"
And yeah, we have seen the little game where you blame the other side for doing the thing your side is the one doing. The actual anti-facists are going after actual fascists, not imaginary ones. You know, like the ones obsessed with the ethnostate. So don't think that's scoring any points claiming that your opposition is blaming whoever they want. That's your play from your playbook. And you are the one having trouble counting the lights.
If you can't grasp that you are too ill informed to have a opinion that carries any weight. Worse, it is in a transparent attempt to get people like you to normalize fascism and authoritarian ideology and policies by conservative groups in governments around the world. Sell it somewhere else.
Hello. Yep, hate and tribalism are bad and proving incredibly difficult for society to get rid of Just wanted to point out a possible counter-example to law enforcement valuing white lives more than non-white lives
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grooming-gangs-iicsa-racist-fears-b2007649.html
AC because, well, cowardice.
The right to fee speech does not include the right to threaten others and never has.
Swatting should be illegal if isn't already, and the consequence should be hard time for the scum responsible. I fail to see what new law is needed to make that happen, I'm sure there are enough existing laws for that.
Online threats should bring legal action, with subpoena to the provider to reveal the origin. And death threats should be acted upon by the FBI or corresponding law enforcement without fail and without mercy.
Free speech is not an excuse. You can hate anyone you want, you have no right to threaten them.
Agreed, and it must work in both directions.
Currently you can get arrested and have the FBI raid your home for standing near an abortion clinic but if you smash up a church and assault people who go to that church you get let off with barely a slap to the wrist.
Deplatforming site like Kiwi farms off the open internet onto the darkweb has surely got to be better than doing nothing, as sure the most harden trolls might be willing to install and configure tor to get to the darkweb site. But your general idiot troll who was going onto Kiwi farms from their phone probably from an internet connection registered in their own name at their real address will probably not go down that route. And less overall trolls has got to be better than letting the site grow more and more on the open internet, attracting even more people who then become more radicalised by the BS they read on these hate sites?
> The researchers focus on the deplatforming of Kiwi Farms, an online forum where users participate in efforts to harass prominent online figures.
No one outside of Kiwi Farms would know about Kiwi Farms except for the effort to shut it down. “Prominent online figures”, you have got to the spoofing me. ‘Keffals’ and someone who is eating himself to death, all with the encouragement of his online fanbase.
We're all grown-ups, we can decide for ourselves to not go to these sites.
Kiwi Farms gained visibility due to it's members actions, not the attempts to ban it. Those came as a consequence of the site, which had operated under the public radar untill the attacks the spawned made the international new.
People didn't start aggressively pushing to shut it down until they were already on the front page.
You can try to reverse the order to build another false argument, but that's not what the historical record shows. They were already infamous before the takedowns got rolling, and honestly, they had plenty of first, second, and third chances to get their shit together. They refused, and their providers started pulling the rip cord.
Cause, effect, and consequence. They abetted criminal conduct and got shut down months after the incidents that triggered it. Yeah, they are now in a case of internet whack-a-troll, but that was after plenty of chances to clean up their operation, and plenty of public debate over shutting them down.
Your last line is also bullshit, the Mafia may all agree to hang out in a warehouse full of stolen goods planning their next crime, that doesn't mean the FBI shouldn't bust them. Kiwi got shut down for enabling and encouraging criminal content and activity. That's not the same as a choice of looking or not looking at controversial content, which is why their admins are becoming fugitives and there is plenty of other edgelord content still up on other sites. Also it's a trash site full of losers, but that's a matter of me having a shred of taste, so it shouldn't be a sole determinant of policy, as opposed to your positiion which seems to be "I love this site full of harrasment, stalking, and manifestos of mass shooting incels, leave us alone so we can keep killing people"
...which seems to be "I love this site full of harrasment, stalking, and manifestos of mass shooting incels, leave us alone so we can keep killing people"
ISTR another mass shooting in Nashville recently.. Didn't that nutjob use Instagram? Should that be cancelled, along with that other popular cesspit, Facebook?
do you ever get tired of posting your stupidity?
Nope. Attracting rants like yours, especially from AC trolls brings a warm glow to my heart.
I have possibly a bad habit of playing devil's advocaat. We sadly live in an extremely polarised society, where people live in their own echo chambers and believe the right is wrong and the left is right. Yet there's ample evidence that there is extremism on both sides. Sometimes extreme extremism, as in the tragic events in Nashville. Which lead to 'Antifa' cancelling their Washington 'Day of Rage'-
https://nypost.com/2023/03/31/trans-day-of-vengeance-rally-in-dc-canceled-over-credible-threat-to-life-after-nashville-school-shooting/
That shooter even left a manifesto. I wonder what it'll say? The FBI has said they'll release it.. But the problem is people will seize on it's content, and may decide to retaliate. Plus it will probably challenge some narratives. So politicians immediately politicised the event by calling for tighter gun control. Yet apparently, the nutjob specifically chose the school as their target because they didn't have armed staff. Which is also the part I'm especially curious about, ie whether it was a religiously motivate attack, or just convenient given the nutjob was also already familiar with that location.
So, as I've long suspected you're nothing more than a drunken two-bit troll.
Nope. Taking a dissenting position has long been part of debating. Or just the Supreme Court. I realise that the left has no sense of humor, does not tolerate dissent, is not at all authoritarian.. Or that the incessant demands to de-platform and censor aren't potentially extremely dangerous.
So Nashville happened. We don't know why. We know a little bit about how, and various reactions to that tragedy. The perpetrator used 'social' media for publicity. They left a 'manifesto', which seems to have become a thing with spree killers lately. We had people calling for collective punishment because they were trans, or suggesting they were a martyr and forced to act because they were trans. It may have been a religiously motivated attack, it may not. Both religious and gender characteristics are protected in law. If a person criticises gender politics because of their religious beliefs, they're often attacked verbally or sometimes physically. Same can happen for trans or atypically gendered people thanks to religious extremists like the Westboro Baptists.
This is not good for anyone
There was also political opportunism to exploit the tragedy, eg calls to ban firearms, yet firearms resolved the incident. The firearms were legally purchased, and there were no 'red flags' during the purchases, or background checks. Based on statements from the parents of the murderer, there perhaps should have been. This is also an issue for why people snap and committ these spree killings, especially as the quote I cited early says they're more likely, as people feel more oppressed or marginalised.. yet there are frequent demands to do exactly this to people's political opponents. There are also other important questions and issues. One problem with these types of crimes is the perpetrators rarely survive. They're also rarely carried out by women. One exception was Norway's Anders Breivik, who's currently contributing to society by being a lab rat. He's been diagnosed with NPD and APD. If those are risk factors, perhaps those could be better 'red flags' than the stereotypical 'loner'. Or Trump voter. Or, if you've got someone with NPD or APD and 'deplatform' them, could that be a triggering factor? Or could it be a combination of factors. Spree killing is rare amongst femals, could there be some connection with testosterone levels? Which also has me wondering about other drug related aggression promoters, eg do women who use PEDs display symptoms like 'roid rage as frequently as men?
Of course it could just be a lot simpler to break a whole slew of complex and socially significant issues into left is right and right is wrong. Oh, and defund the police because slowing repsonse times to time-sensitive events like Nashville is obviously going to make the world a safer place for everyone.
I remember when they deplatformed & debanked the neo-nazi site "The Daily Stormer" and left cryptocurrency as the only way to donate to the sites owners. That was when Bitcoin was at a few hundred dollars. They got quite the payout in 2021. Not only does deplatforming not work, it also makes neo-nazis rich.
comparison of criminal trolling/harassing with spamming, if you shut down a spam-scam site it quickly pops back up somewhere else. Infamous rolex watch and fashion purse fake goods sites come to mind.
(of course you still take down criminal sites, and prosecute when possible)
Only three decades ago, the Soviet Union came out with this:-
KGB General Aleksandr Sakharovsky said: "In today’s world, when nuclear arms have made military force obsolete, terrorism should become our main weapon."
That was his analysis as of whenever he said that; which during the cold war would have been pre internet. What would he have been suggesting today?
Simply put, an open and democratic society is obviously much better to live in than a dictatorship and almost nobody denies it. As seen in Ukraine, people are in fact quite keen not to live under a dictatorship and are willing to die rather than submit to this. There are two approaches to dealing with such a problem if your a very closed authoritarian dictatorship.
First is to compete openly at seeing who can do better at certain things, such as quality of life in a manner such as a race (ie like Formula one). The problems are fairly obvious; centralised autocratic dictatorships don't do building things (or accepting feedback) well so they tend to "win" production races over democracies by doing things like eliminating quality control because checks to make sure that the output works hurts the recordable output.
The second option is more akin to a demolition derby, to win by smashing all of the competitors off the track or crippling them so badly that they have to slow down. Autocratic dictatorships tend to do better at these sort of things.
We've seen democracies destruct before in the Weimar Republic at the least, and somebody probably sees that as an ideal aim to head towards because as the quote above, it's not possible to beat us via marching troops through our capitals because we'd get twitchy with the nuclear trigger long before that point.
If you accept the hypothetical than certain nations do not wish us well, how would you go around causing trouble today?
I (personally) wouldn't go funding terrorists these days.
One could add a small number of agent provocateurs to peaceful protests to throw bricks and petrol bombs over the heads of peaceful protesters, in the hope that they wouldn't be so peaceful when the police officers on the receiving end of brickbats decides to break up what they not unfairly consider to be a less than entirely peaceful protest. That'll reduce public support for those sort of protests sharply, while further increasing tensions at the contact points. I'd aim to multiply contact points like this to the point of infinity until things come apart.
I'd fund political extremists on both the far left and far right, on the basis that they both need each other to survive. I'd try and stir up trouble by lavishly funding any group of extremists. I wouldn't do it via handing them a few million from KGB inc; even extremists might have second thoughts under those circumstances about if they are doing the right thing. Nope, i'd employ astrotuf (fake grass roots) by making the handful of extremists think that they aren't a single lunatic in their bedroom, they are part of a worldwide movement and look at the thousands of people willing to donate money via crowdfunding to do X. Easily done via mules in money laundering. Push the extremists steadily further towards the extremes at both ends (left and right), while having both target each other and the middle. Sooner or later it'll cause problems for the majority, who'd be willing to make things less open and democratic to deal with the problems and beyond a certain point both sets of extremists will end up creating more recruitment for each other.
We're probably at about this point at the moment.
The "problem" is that while they are useful idiots for foreign interests, that's not actually criminal, and nor is spreading foreign propaganda from their sponsors. Pointing out that they are being useful idiots of foreign powers probably won't help; not least because there will be a game plan somewhere for using the realisation that people are being played like this to further reduce trust in our societies. (you can just see "Your a foreign funded agent!"; "no YOU are".)
The "best" way of dealing with this presumably would be to very openly pull out financial records of what sort of money laundering is being done by our "friendly" adversaries and go after the money and hope that the recipient's of that funding would go off in different directions if they realise that they are simply considered to be useful idiots by their sponsors, but how would you go about doing that?
I've interacted with these trolls before and it was horrible! They use weird terms like "bugman", "dogpill", or "TND" and each time they say these stupid things I have to look it up. Thankfully, my wife's polycule has always been there to help me report them for harassment! I agree with the science in that we should throw them in reeducation camps, as it's the only way to make sure no one gets further radicalized and joins actual terror groups. It's harsh, but a small price to pay in order to make sure transwomen are safe from stochastic violence!
While the exact definition has morphed over time, it has commonly come to refer to a concept whereby consistently demonizing or dehumanizing a targeted group or individual results in violence that is statistically likeI agree with the science in that we should throw them in reeducation camps
I.. don't think that science means what you think it means. There is however science that suggests interment for wrong-think increases radicalisation. There's also not a lot of evidence that 're-education' actually works, or is easily achieved. Learn about cult de-programming as an example of 're-educating' someone who's already been radicalised.
..as it's the only way to make sure no one gets further radicalized and joins actual terror groups. It's harsh, but a small price to pay in order to make sure transwomen are safe from stochastic violence!ly, but cannot be easily accurately predicted
Actually.. some of the effects of your proposed policies can be easily predicted. It may just be another one of those words that doesn't mean what you think it means-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_wolf_attack#Stochastic_terrorism
Since 2018, the term "stochastic terrorism" has become a popular term used when discussing lone wolf attacks. While the exact definition has morphed over time, it has commonly come to refer to a concept whereby consistently demonizing or dehumanizing a targeted group or individual results in violence that is statistically likely, but cannot be easily accurately predicted.
So we know that the more we try crack down, suppress and oppress groups, the more likely it is that some will snap and push back. That may be a Tennessee school shooter, or it may be some Kid shooting beer cans. The prediction part is the problem of predicting who'll be next. I'd suggest it might be someone who finds out they're about to be detained for brainwashing and re-education.. But that'll be fine, because it just allows a fascist/authoritarian group to claim they were right about that person being dangerous, so we just need to lock up everyone sooner!
"to deprogram hate among participants in such forums."
Submit to deprogramming citizen. Starting to sound like a move toward re-education camps against wrong-think. Pushing people with extreme views away from discussing with the 'normal' public removes the sharing of perspective which by itself dampens the extremism. When the only voices being heard are only the 'right' ones others will still talk. This doesnt even limit to extremism but even just any perspective pushed out of acceptable discussion.
This isnt limited to incel or right wing. For how long was it wrong-think to criticize grooming gangs based on their race? And that was an infection in the ranks of those who claim to serve us. Cancel culture is a very public display of banning discussion and only became so visible due to the people and outlandish attacks against them.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
