- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:10000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 1994 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
1104 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 23797
Bozza dead by next week, bet your house on it.
|>>|| No. 25106
Honestly the hardest part of lockdown is realising I'll so easily play bitch to the government.
|>>|| No. 25107
My local supermarket is now open until 10. Hope the ice cream men start driving around soon.
Call the police and offer to wear a wire. Once the lockdown Mafia is lockedup you can then go into witness protection and get new in-laws.
Just think about it. Your new mother-in-law might be a fit mummy type in a messy divorce. One hot night you both share a drink and go too far...but you keep going. In the morning you both promise to never speak of it again, but those embers never die down, you're hanging out the back of her come Sunday giving her something she's not had for 20 years. Eventually it's just rationalised as giving a lonely woman something she needs.
|>>|| No. 25108
>Hope the ice cream men start driving around soon.
They've been going around here for weeks. I think the kid opposite has ADHD or something, he's a right little money spinner for them.
|>>|| No. 25110
And watch how "garden parties" become the new battleground; can't see British people misusing that idea at all oh no.
|>>|| No. 25126
They have had coastguard planes, helicopters, warships and RNLI searching for a young lad who went missing while snorkelling off Weymouth since about 7pm last night. Searching constantly.
People are getting back in the water without enough emergency services cover.
|>>|| No. 25127
This happened in Florida recently as well, Shad Gaspard of WWE Cryme Tyme fame got caught in a riptide and died. Him and his son were in distress before that though and he made them save his son first, as they didn't have a boat on duty it was just a Jet ski, entirely preventable if people only realised services aren't running normally.
|>>|| No. 25128
Remember when I said I reckoned the US was going to go to war with itself and you said that wouldn't happen?
|>>|| No. 25129
It's certainly starting to look a bit sporty.
Not a good look for Trump in an election year.
|>>|| No. 25130
Wildfire and tornado seasons still to come, too. Meanwhile, Trump's focused on spatting with Twitter.
|>>|| No. 25132
Twitter must be pretty close to deleting his account, if he really does manage to make them liable for anything written by users, they'll basically have no choice but to remove him.
With Zuckerberg seemingly on his side of the argument, we might end up getting our presidential updates on there instead. I'm sure there'll be no issues there.
|>>|| No. 25133
I can't help but feel like the news has been trying to keep a lid on what's going on over there. Similar thing happened with the gillet jaune protests in France. Coverage of unrest is being kept very quiet.
This is why I lean towards Trump being a genuine moron, and not a pretend moron with a plan underneath. Why the actual fuck does he think it's a good idea to go after his main source of publicity? Inflammatory tweets are what put him where he is today.
|>>|| No. 25134
How is Zuckerberg 'on his side of the argument'?
>Facebook also put out a statement opposing the order. Liz Bourgeois, a Facebook spokesperson, said Thursday:
>Facebook is a platform for diverse views. We believe in protecting freedom of expression on our services, while protecting our community from harmful content including content designed to stop voters from exercising their right to vote. Those rules apply to everybody. Repealing or limiting section 230 will have the opposite effect. It will restrict more speech online, not less. By exposing companies to potential liability for everything that billions of people around the world say, this would penalize companies that choose to allow controversial speech and encourage platforms to censor anything that might offend anyone.
|>>|| No. 25135
>“I just believe strongly that Facebook shouldn’t be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online,” Zuckerberg told Fox News. “Private companies probably shouldn’t be, especially these platform companies, shouldn’t be in the position of doing that.”
|>>|| No. 25136
He said yesterday that facebook shouldn't fact check posts. Don't know if he's changed his position now.
|>>|| No. 25137
I mean he is right, in principle of course. Look how bad the traditional media is at misrepresenting facts to suit an agenda. Imagine how giddy the Murdochs of the world would be to get their hands on a platform like Facebook where they have the authority to literally decide what is true.
|>>|| No. 25138
OK, but this is very different to what would happen if Trump revokes Section 230. Facebook would go from believing they should not be 'the arbiter of truth', to being legally obliged to be 'the arbiter of truth'.
So it's really a moot point whether Zuck is 'on his side' or not. Either 230 stays and Trump stays on Twitter, or it goes and Trump can't move to any social media platform, let alone Facebook, to spout offensive lies without it banning him to avoid being sued.
|>>|| No. 25139
That's not an unfair point, but Trump frequently makes statements with all the veracity of "the sky is purple" and "my Da' was Emperor Napoleon I". When it comes to that sort of thing it's difficult to make the case against "fact checking". YouTube seem to do something similar whereby they'll stick a link under official news channel's videos to confirm the existence of said news organisation. But arguably that has the effect of undermining legitimate and real news providers who simply lack the clout of the BBC or Sky.
|>>|| No. 25141
I think it would be far easier to promote the idea that not everything you read online is true than it ever would be to police wether private companies are sticking to the actual, real truth and not some sort of slanted agenda.
I have no clue about the whole Trump banning twitter thing, I don't have a horse in that race, and I think anyone who is using Twitter is already far beyond the saviour of a little verification tick. I was just chiming in about something I can only possibly see negatively.
|>>|| No. 25142
> I think it would be far easier to promote the idea that not everything you read online is true than it ever would be to police wether private companies are sticking to the actual, real truth and not some sort of slanted agenda.
Quite, because it's almost impossible to police and "truth" is often somewhat subjective in any case. Unfortunately the average person isn't particularly interested in (and probably doesn't have time for) fact checking what they read or trying to get multiple points of view on an issue and then having a bit of a think to see what their own opinion is on any given matter.
You can't fix the fact that most people are essentially stupid, as anyone who has to deal with IT security will happily tell you.
|>>|| No. 25144
I think it is less a stupidity, and more an arrogance and exceptionalism. "Surely they don't mean x". And the greatest bullshit mills purport to be the ones telling you the truth that others don't. So people believe they are actually more informed and ahead of the game.
Multiple people have tried explaining the premise to people, it evidently didn't work. You can't just tell people to watch out for fake news you have to reprogram their entire way of processing information first so they approach things in a more critical manner so they can identify things as fake news themselves, and most simply wouldn't want that, and it is very low hanging fruit for being attacked as brain washing and thought control by those who would lose from that kind of education being implemented.
|>>|| No. 25145
> I think it is less a stupidity, and more an arrogance and exceptionalism.
That's certainly a part of it, especially (as you point out) given that the fake news sites with the greatest bombast are the ones telling you what "they" don't want you t know, but I'd argue that that's just a manifestation of the dunning kruger effect.
On the flip-side of this are people who actively outsource their opinions to trusted sources because they feel that trying to get to the root of the matter on their own is futile, which while apparently efficient is actually just a special type of laziness / stupidity.
I know these posts probably make me look like an arrogant prick who thinks he's smarter than everyone else but I don't; I'm just an information-obsessed gimp with an over-active curiosity gland.
|>>|| No. 25146
People are definitely thick. My take is that quite a lot of people just expect to be told what to do all of the time and either aren't capable or willing to work it out themselves. A prime example is how many people can't seem to follow very basic signs and arrows in hospitals and airports and so on - a little bit of unfamiliarity or stress and they simply can't cope. This really does seem to be the majority of people.
|>>|| No. 25147
It's a very post-modern kind of problem, and I don't think reducing it to people being stupid even begins to scratch the surface. Obviously I know what you were getting at, but I feel that more than that it's a kind of fear. People don't really care if what they absorb is true, they just want to feel like it's in line with the orthodoxy for whatever tribe they belong to; exposure to conflicting information is distressing. To that particular kind of "Average Joe" neurotypical human, fitting in with your peer group is important, and being expelled from it threatens to break down the very sense of identity itself.
This is why it's only really a problem we're having in the post internet age. Previously, the majority of people were the kind of mainstream Upstanding Citizen who dutifully believed what the 6 o'clock news said, and whatever the editor of your newspaper of choice thought. Your community were broadly likely to share in your views, and at worst you'd have a bit of a debate down the pub about the headlines. A more well rounded chap there might buy both papers and weigh in to play devil's advocate. But nobody had many serious disagreements, because the broad thrust of the message was always similar. When the government needed to, it was very easy to coerce the public to believe what it wanted them to believe; and even for those clever enough to realise it was coercion, it was still readily apparent that it was being done in the national interest.
But today, anything goes. Who knows what the fuck is what any more. And the harder you search for the truth, the further you'll end up down some bonkers rabbit hole about Chinese cyber propaganda. You can no longer safely live within your bubble, because you are constantly exposed to dissenting voices, so the bubble has to become bigger and more vocally entrenched in its views to maintain the feeling of security for those inside it.
Our only option going forward is to actually teach people to think. Sadly that's never been what our education system is about, and our government is too short sighted to see that it is ultimately in their interests too.
|>>|| No. 25148
Is the focus on fake news a bit of a distraction? My dad has turned into a bit of a Brexit loon and his only sources of news are the BBC on the TV or radio and reading the Daily Mail paper on a Saturday. I know the Mail will print absolute bollocks now and then but the main issue isn't that, it's the level of saturation they can achieve with anti-immigrant stories churned out on a regular basis over a number of years. It's the sheer volume of it shaping people's worldview over time and so gradually they don't even notice it.
That said, I do have a work colleague who gets all of her news from Facebook and she's a big Tommy Robinson fan. He's got credibility in her eyes because of the establishment cover-up of Rotherham and things like lefties stopping flights with African refugees on them being deported who later turn out to be rapists.
|>>|| No. 25149
I'm pretty convinced that there isn't a single american that actually understands what free speech actually means in the context of the first amendment.
|>>|| No. 25150
The problem with fake news, not to say that it doesn't exist, because it does, is that people like to class things they disagree with as fake news. They like to dismiss people as stupid for reading it.
Some people just don't like immigration. They're not stupid, they're not subsumed by fake news, they just don't like it.
|>>|| No. 25152
You're right - very few Americans truly understand their own constitution, but to be fair, it isn't the greatest legal document in the world. We take the piss out of our legal structure when you find old laws that are still in place (is it still legal to kill Welsh people in Chester after dark? do cab drivers still have to carry a bale of hay in their boot?) but US law is full of it.
|>>|| No. 25158
I know you're right, but even I know that the first amendment starts "congress shall make no law..." and not "u can tweet wot u want"
|>>|| No. 25210
Oddly I usually encounter the opposite problem where Yanks assume any appeal to freedom of speech is rooted in the first amendment to their crummy constitution instead of being an independent principle.
|>>|| No. 25263
Reminds me of that gun control ad where a guy snaps at work and starts shooting up his office... with a flintlock musket. 'Guns have changed, shouldn't our laws?'
|>>|| No. 25302
So is this about teenagers or what? Why would you live apart from your partner going into a national lockdown?
|>>|| No. 25304
Lesbians may readily move in with one another after the first date but most people don't.
|>>|| No. 25350
So there's definitely going to be a second wave then as we seem to have gone the US route of deciding it's over with because we're bored.
|>>|| No. 25353
Pretty much. Kind of spits in the faces of everyone who's actually suffered through the lockdown, and all the key workers who've been working long hours to keep on top of everything.
You can bet the people who have more or less dropped it already are the same ones who formed the social media lockdown gestapo. It's just like I expected from the start- The lockdown was just a novelty for all the cozy middle class types who could just kick back in their garden and do a bit more jogging and cycling.
We deserve what we get at this point.
|>>|| No. 25356
My leftie friends on social media who were all shouting "STAY THE FUCK HOME WEAR A MASK DON'T KILL GRANDMA YOU COVIDIOTS!" a few weeks ago have seemingly all done a 180 and are rushing out onto the streets to gather in huge numbers at the protests and take a #BlackLivesMatter selfie. They're acting like they never supported the lockdown in the first place, there's a real "EURASIA HAS ALWAYS BEEN AT WAR WITH EASTASIA" vibe about how suddenly the social media hivemind's priorities seem to shift.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]