I absolutely agree that the modern internet has been turned into a corporate rage-bait hellscape, but do keep in mind that every generation that’s ever lived feels that their childhood was better and safer than what exists today. It’s human nature to prefer our fondest memories at our most carefree point in life - but although ipad babies are a scourge that terrify me, it’s important to remember that children aren’t all drooling fortnight zombies these days either.
The networks that do the most damage were specifically engineered that way due to the profit motive rewarding engagement of all sorts above positive connection. Social media is the problem, but it’s only that way because of the economic and commercial factors involved. Individuals can always be assholes, but nobody has miserable memories of myspace and MSN online as genocide-facilitating false news propagators, because they weren’t specifically designed to make people angry and breathlessly message everyone they know about a perceived problem.
Social media has the capacity to connect disparate groups of people, become a forum for interests, and open the world up to new perspectives and information - the intentional monopolisation of that promise by frankly, evil, multinationals is the root cause of the issue - not the technology itself.
Australia’s new law will do fucking nothing, and as many experts have suggested, will probably make the issues worse. Bullying isn’t limited to social media, so a child that previously found refuge by connecting with like-minded friends elsewhere or staying in touch when living remote, now gets to be ‘saved’ by being kicked off the platform and left with only the real-life bullying they endure at school. Counterproductive.
Additionally, if the platforms are such violent cesspools for children, why is it then acceptable for them to continue with their perverse rage-bait designs, so long as the user is over 16? The government should instead be regulating the mechanics and algorithms of the sites to make them safer, more reasonable and positive entities - rather than just giving up on any meaningful regulation and saying that meta is fine, because a 17 year old can get bullied in person instead of a 35 year old having revenge porn posted of them, or a 72 year old falling down a facebook conspiracy rabbit hole is a-ok.
This legislation was half-baked, forced through with little-to-no debate, stands to worsen the stranglehold of monopolised tech. It places the responsibility of parenting onto facebook, twitter, etc. which are the last entities in the damn world that should get to define ‘safety’ or police responsible usage. It does absolutely nothing to address the serious fundamental problems that pervade our modern, highly concentrated technology ecosystems, and actually gives them a free pass to allow the sites to fester even more (bringing in more profit as people doom-scroll longer, viewing more ads, when their specific fears and annoyances are deliberately tabulated and curated to make them as angry, paranoid, isolated, unhappy, and antagonistic as possible) by saying that it’s a foregone conclusion that social media is evil, and we can’t fix that, so why even try? /s
If they actually wanted to fix this problem, investing in education and help resources, probing into the design and function of these sites would be the way to do it. We’ve just scored a massive own goal at Zuckerberg, et. al’s benefit, by asking them to police themselves and sacrificing everyone over the age of 16 to the hellscape of media as it is, instead of as it could be.
96% of perpetrators are men. It’s a statistic that goes against their “women are abusers too!” defense they have to protect their own egos from the reality that one of their friends is likely an abuser.
literally rape apology from you here.
The provocative and stupid sign in the article has completely derailed a potential discussion about fixing this problem and the exact nature of the problem - because it says something that denies anybody experiencing something outside it’s narrow statement their lived experience. It’s also not a men vs women issue - there are women that are assaulted by other women, who are equally silenced by this stupid sign. If you believe that a single rape is one too many (as any person on the fucking planet should), then explain to me how 4% of all rapes simply don’t matter - and how it isn’t offensive at a movement which is borne of abuse victims fighting against the system that facilitates it, and silences victims - to not only completely disregard men that have been victims of women (or women which have), but to then say that anybody who highlights the fact that rape can be perpetrated by a woman, even if it isn’t the majority of the time - must therefore be a rapist or friend of one. Fuck that noise.
stop making dumbass generalisations that paint those of us who make active choices to support women and act decently, being an ally as “probably having rapist friends” because of our gender - like seriously what the actual fuck is wrong with you?
Nobody is denying that the majority of rapes are men against women, but the disgusting attitude you have here that all men are automatically rapists, when there are people that want to fix this culture and stop the problem - but stupid nonsense like this pushes so many people down the alt-right pipeline and sets the entire movement back decades. Literally all you have to do to defuse this entire fucking issue is acknowledge male victims instead of pretending they don’t exist, and then link arms with them when they support the same reflections and changes to society and behaviour - instead it’s been turned into a stupid ‘men vs women’ fight by people that assume all people of one gender are perpetrators and all of another are victims, instead of the much more simple universal truth that rape is evil and you should just be able to accept that without adding qualifiers.
Whether they were condescending or not “militant athiesm” is a ridiculous hyperbole - people are free to believe whatever they want, just as anybody else is free to comment on that belief system when theyre not a part of it.
I don’t think anybody is expecting Wikipedia admins and contributors to directly affect the outcome of conflict in the middle east, but deliberative discussions of how the events are documented can only be a good thing.
The site acts as much of our ‘record’ in the modern age - and is ideally less eager to throw out hyperbole or speculate too readily.
Arriving at that title and nomenclature needs to be seen as a reasoned approach, and not “crying wolf” so that the impartiality of the articles can be upheld - by being careful about their decision, it is a better outcome for everyone.
do you need to condescendingly question other people’s freedom of expression? if you pearl clutch over seeing a comment which says ‘fuck’, maybe the internet is a little much for you to handle.
dude what are you even talking about - corporate meddling and billionaires aren’t the topic of discussion here - you seem to want competency in leadership and that’s absolutely a good quality, but its genuinely confusing how competent leadership which also better reflects the demographics of the population isn’t in the interests of a better democracy? more representative politicians aren’t mutually exclusive from competent ones
To be clear, I think Assange definitely behaves as a russian asset - but democrats will do anything except admit that their candidates are awful. Leaks as mundane as the 2016 ones were capitalised on by Trump, of course - but it still shouldn’t have made a difference, and the race wasn’t as close as it was due to wikileaks.
Trying to motivate an increasingly disengaged and disappointed electorate by being the lesser of two evils simply isn’t good enough - and ‘useful idiots’ like Assange (although acting recklessly and causing damage) aren’t the reason Hillary lost, or that Trump has support.
France and colonialism need to be studied and their past mistakes interrogated, but being a dipshit apologist for fundamentalist extremist subhumans is substantially worse, because its happening now, and you actually know better.
Any comments on the kefalah system or insight into how Islam spread around the middle east? (hint: it was also colonialism dummy, just a kind you seem to think is acceptable as opposed to France’s) Interestingly the racist colonisers stopped using capital punishment, albeit way too recently still, but they’re not still fucking crucifying people like fucking savages for aposty.
Supporters of ignorant turds that can’t handle a secular state’s media’s fundamental right to satirise a pedophile cult leader from 500 years ago should go retreat to the shadows from where they came. You might believe immensely in your god or prophet, but they dont exist in the reality of other people better educated, more inquisitive, or more fortunate not to be brainwashed into that belief by birth or oppression. Killing people who dont share your favourite religious text is stone age behaviour and the mark of an animal, not a human being.
Dont you dare pollute the legitimately necessary discourse about historical wrongdoings in the world with justifications of terrorism because you never opened more than one book before.
Celebrating people that reduced themselves and their community to barbarism because they couldn’t mind their own fucking business in a multicultural society is pathetic and you should aspire to be better than that before someone tricks you into doing something stupid and dangerous.