All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Kirby101]

In UK..a number of Premiership footballers are getting racial abuse online.

In UK..it’s about the only way you can do it (make unpleasant racial remarks) without expecting fairly swift legal consequences...the anonymity of the net effectively shields the criminals.

Should social media platforms insist on identity details...so that abuse like this can be tackled?

Personally I can (easily) understand the many people who want to see trace-ability. But I can’t see it happening anytime soon due partly to practical details. And more importantly..not sure it would be wise... we have to remember the very anonymity of the internet allows free expression to oppressed people all over the world.

Make the sites have trace-ability. But have it available only through court order or law enforcement.

[JackDaw]

Make the sites have trace-ability. But have it available only through court order or law enforcement.

But the net is multi-national...and there’s a fair number of oppressive governments.

I think this will receive a lot of radio discussion in next few weeks, and will be interested how practical “making the sites have trace-ability is”.

Easy to get some one’s name and address from a telephone book (or some such)...so you’d need to have some way of checking claimed id on registration.

I certainly wouldn’t an electronic copy of my passport (or whatever) flying over the internet...and suspect most people feel same way...so it would kill a lot of internet social/ chat sites.

[Kirby101]

But the net is multi-national...and there’s a fair number of oppressive governments.

I think this will receive a lot of radio discussion in next few weeks, and will be interested how practical “making the sites have trace-ability is”.

Easy to get some one’s name and address from a telephone book (or some such)...so you’d need to have some way of checking claimed id on registration.

I certainly wouldn’t an electronic copy of my passport (or whatever) flying over the internet...and suspect most people feel same way...so it would kill a lot of internet social/ chat sites.

Of course. I was thinking in places like the UK, US and Canada.

[Malvolio]

That's both funny, and pathetic and only highlights the stupidity of those knuckledraggers who chose to support Trump.

What's even funnier is that some of these people won't be allowed to vote for awhile if they're convicted felons.

[AnakinFlair]

What's even funnier is that some of these people won't be allowed to vote for awhile if they're convicted felons.

And they'll probably scream about having their right to vote taken away.

[Tami]

Spurred By The Capitol Riot, Thousands Of Republicans Drop Out Of GOP

Lyle Darrah was on a conference call at work in rural Weld County, north of Denver, when the riot at the U.S. Capitol started on Jan. 6. When his boss mentioned what was happening, he turned on news coverage — and immediately felt his last allegiance to the Republican Party slipping away.

"I was completely shocked and ashamed. That's not how I think of the Republicans — who we were, and who we are," he said. "It's something I felt I could no longer be in support of."

That night, he talked with his wife over dinner at their home. Darrah had been a lifelong Republican, while his spouse and children are Democrats — the kind of family that joked about canceling out each other's votes.

Later, Darrah, age 49, sat in his living room and pulled up the state's voter registration website. And then, like thousands of other Coloradans in the wake of the insurrection, he left the Republican Party.

[Tami]

Rep. Kinzinger: They claim 'I'm possessed by the devil'

Rep. Adam Kinzinger on Sunday offered a glimpse of what it’s like being one of the 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach former President Donald Trump: Friends and family turned against him, and he was told he’s “possessed by the devil.”

“Look it’s really difficult. I mean, all of a sudden imagine everybody that supported you, or so it seems that way, your friends, your family, has turned against you. They think you're selling out,” the Illinois congressman said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

[Tami]

‘I Didn’t Vote for President Trump’: Former Lawmaker’s Vote Reveals GOP Divide

Former Republican Rep. Denver Riggleman revealed he did not vote for former President Donald Trump in November in an interview that underscored the deepening fissures within the party after Trump’s presidency.

“I haven’t told many people this, and it will stop me from running in Republican politics for many years, decades, is that I didn’t vote for President Trump,” Riggleman said in an interview on a forthcoming episode of “Course Correction,” a Doha Debates podcast produced by Foreign Policy.

Riggleman is the latest GOP figure to voice concerns about the direction of the party, amid a brewing battle between the more traditional flank of the GOP and the Trumpist acolytes: a battle that has the makings of a fully fledged existential debate about the future of the Republican party.

While foreign policy is playing a part in that debate, it will shape whether the party returns to its traditional outlook on the world or fully embraces the “America First” agenda, with hostility toward free trade and long-standing U.S. alliances.

The former congressman, who was defeated by now-Rep. Bob Good in a primary after facing blowback for officiating a same-sex marriage, also confirmed that he didn’t vote for President Joe Biden either.

But Riggleman, a one-time Air Force officer and National Security Agency contractor, predicted that the Republican candidates would continue to use Trump’s unfounded election integrity claims to try to make gains in the 2022 midterm elections.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Rep. Kinzinger: They claim 'I'm possessed by the devil'

WOMP WOMP! Republicans like Kinzinger could've sent Trump packing a year ago, but voted to keep the monster around until the GOP could no longer control it.

[Tami]

WOMP WOMP! Republicans like Kinzinger could've sent Trump packing a year ago, but voted to keep the monster around until the GOP could no longer control it.

And now he probably regrets it. I bet a number of them do, or are starting to.

[babyblob]

And now he probably regrets it. I bet a number of them do, or are starting to.

Im sure they do. For now. I will wait and see how much they kiss up to Trump and his loonies when they are up for reelection.

What i love is how these people want us to feel sorry for them. They knew for years what Trump and his supporters were like. Yet for years the enables these people and that monster. Now they want us to cry for them?

If it sticks I will cut them some slack. But lets see how anti Trump they are when poll numbers start to drop.

[Mister Mets]

In UK..a number of Premiership footballers are getting racial abuse online.

In UK..it’s about the only way you can do it (make unpleasant racial remarks) without expecting fairly swift legal consequences...the anonymity of the net effectively shields the criminals.

Should social media platforms insist on identity details...so that abuse like this can be tackled?

Personally I can (easily) understand the many people who want to see trace-ability. But I can’t see it happening anytime soon due partly to practical details. And more importantly..not sure it would be wise... we have to remember the very anonymity of the internet allows free expression to oppressed people all over the world.

It's a good question.
A legitimate problem with revealing the names behind anonymous accounts is that social media services are frequently used by activists fighting against totalitarian regimes, so it may be important to protect their identities, while balancing that with restrictions on abuse.

You could have a system where people have to share their personal information with administrators, with the understanding it'll only be revealed if they're being massive douchebags. Even this could have some problems if someone who is flawed according to the social rules in the United States might still be in a position where the exposure of the identity can carry legal consequences (a critic of Putin in Russia may say some misogynstic stuff, a closeted teenager may have strong views against organized religion.)
There are other practical limitations in insisting that everyone reveal their name. How would you verify it? If people have to show ID that weeds out anyone who has a tough time using a digital camera on a Photo ID. You need moderators reviewing the IDs, and they need to get paid, which has some implications.
We would also need paid moderators reviewing statements. That requires selecting people who can make the call between what reasonable people can and cannot say. I'm not sure who can be trusted on that. There was once a CBR poster called "Ban Mister Mets" because they think what I've said on this thread was so disgusting I should be kicked out of this forum. I'd rather not have that individual making that decision about what's acceptable on social media apps.

A few days I mentioned how the San Francisco school board voted to change the names of schools for some dumb reasons. These people should not be in charge of moderating social media (to be fair, neither should many on the right.)
https://twitter.com/HashtagGriswold/...35233851965454

We would need people who can determine various nuances. The artist Pete Woods described how his wife was suspended from Twitter for a statement that was flagged as a threat against Mike Pence. A reasonable person should be able to note that's not what she did (she was calling on Pence to use the 25th amendment against Trump because crazy right-wingers posed a threat) ,but it's still awaiting a verdict.
https://twitter.com/thatpetewoods/st...64128907423744

We need to balance systems where we don't rule things that reasonable people could believe as being beyond the pale and where we don't have egregious abuse and harassment. But how do we handle the situations that are more grey than the nastiest stuff?

[Adam Allen]

Make the sites have trace-ability. But have it available only through court order or law enforcement.

But the net is multi-national...and there’s a fair number of oppressive governments.

I think this will receive a lot of radio discussion in next few weeks, and will be interested how practical “making the sites have trace-ability is”.

Easy to get some one’s name and address from a telephone book (or some such)...so you’d need to have some way of checking claimed id on registration.

I certainly wouldn’t an electronic copy of my passport (or whatever) flying over the internet...and suspect most people feel same way...so it would kill a lot of internet social/ chat sites.

I think any of your sites like Facebook and even (especially) Google do track who is accessing; or at least, what machine is. I guess they can't prove who is using what computer, but they can definitely recognize whose computer is doing what. That's why anything you search for or look at ends up being used to use target marketing of what ads you see.

But yeah, that information is not supposed to be shared with the government without ... nah, let's not kid ourselves, there's no real reason for any of them to not cooperate with the government in giving them any information they ask for. Like, what are you really going to do about it?

[OopsIdiditagain]

Boy who led a neo-Nazi cell from his grandmother's cottage in UK after joining far-right forum age 13 becomes Britain's youngest convicted terrorist

The FKD is a violent, racist anti-Semitic and anti-state ideology.

Despite his young age he was appointed head of the FKD's British cell, setting up wire chats through which he inducted teenage Hitler fanatic Paul Dunleavy.

The prosecutor went on: 'He recruited Paul Dunleavy but it's perhaps helpful if we set out his involvement [with FKD] from the start which began in May 2019.

'In May 2019 the defendant was in contact with an individual who went by the name of Commander. As a result of communications with him he joined FKD and by 11 June 2019 they agreed to set up FKD GB, the UK cell, and this defendant was to be the leader of that cell.

'Notwithstanding his young age - he was just 14 at the time - he was in fact very knowledgable about what he was doing. he told commander the overall leader that he would never split off and become a separate group, I quote "unless FKD got proscribed as a terrorist org or SHTF - sh** hits the fan. He was aware of what he was setting up.

'His role was to vet applicants which he would do by asking a series of questions he had agreed with Commander. He was very mindful... And would ask questions so that I quote "nothing can be traced back to me".

'With Paul Dunleavy he also discussed getting in touch with previous National Action members.

'By the time police intervened in July 2019 some six weeks later, he had gathered just five members. In addition to that and his capacity as leader, he produced propaganda. This includes the 'Nuke London poster' which is count one.

'He spoke about doing a speech on how the far right will continue. He discussed spamming servers with far right memes and images. an example of the types of action he suggested on the chat include doing things to attract those who... Don't stop at words.

'He encouraged members online to be active, and on 23 July 2019 in the wire chat he said: "failure of activity will result in expulsion."

'He was responsible for setting up the group wire chat FKD GB and operated the wire account and email account.

'He set up an account at Proton mail, an anonymous email service which allows users to register without any proof of identification.

'The number of items on the indictment reflect the proportion of what was found on these devices, in particular manifestos from neo-Nazis who have committed mass murder, including Brenton Tarrant and "The Great Replacement."

The state of humanity, teenage edgelords are now indoctrinating neo-nazis.

[OopsIdiditagain]

In UK..a number of Premiership footballers are getting racial abuse online.

In UK..it’s about the only way you can do it (make unpleasant racial remarks) without expecting fairly swift legal consequences...the anonymity of the net effectively shields the criminals.

Should social media platforms insist on identity details...so that abuse like this can be tackled?

Personally I can (easily) understand the many people who want to see trace-ability. But I can’t see it happening anytime soon due partly to practical details. And more importantly..not sure it would be wise... we have to remember the very anonymity of the internet allows free expression to oppressed people all over the world.

I thought the whole point of the EU making all those privacy laws was to stop social media websites from exploiting the information they have on us and protect anonymity. It's better to just censor slurs. Those football fans are probably the same ones throwing bananas at players and making monkey noises.