Who knew in 2018 we would be lead by unelected tech giants?

[therealposieparker]

Banned from twitter. Not sure why, I suspect it was telling the truth. I will not stop.

It will probably save time laughing at profile pictures of pretty laydeeees.

Way back in the 90s when Google first appeared, many techies were sounding warnings about them and their cartel-like behaviour. Trouble is there was no one in positions of power and influence in governance or law enforcement who had the skills to understand the threat - we are living with that deficiency of skills and systems thinking still today in those same institutions.

The algorithms that determine censure are like the cops who go to a DV incident and arrest the woman - designed by men to protect men and don't understand the nuances of the complex dynamics at play.

The fault is not the tech but the limited thinking and/or misogyny of its implementers

The algorithms are easily weaponised by those with malevolent intent exactly parallel with the abuse by proxy using the police - as Posie has experienced as well.

Sucks to be repeatedly targeted but hey - you must be the prize Posie :)

Way back in the 90s when Google first appeared, many techies were sounding warnings about them and their cartel-like behaviour.

I'll hold my hands up to hearing and promptly ignoring those warnings. I shrugged and muttered "yeah, but fuzzy logic and it's so much better than Altavista".

When we get time machines I'll go back and kick my earlier self for that.

The algorithms are easily weaponised by those with malevolent intent exactly parallel with the abuse by proxy using the police - as Posie has experienced as well.

Indeed.

Meet, normally I try not to engage with extremists like you, but in this case I think it is important to spell out to any lurkers exactly the rhetorical tactics you are engaged in. Let me take just two of your examples:

1 domestic terrorist sits down at a table and lays out their plan to murder a serving soldier. 10 people sit down and have a civil discussion with the terrorist about it. 11 domestic terrorists are sat at that table.

1 person starts going on about how a minority group should be mass murdered. 10 people give him a platform to do so, even knowing the content of what has been said before. And then one of the people targeted by the hate is murdered. Guess what the 11 are culpable for.

Are you familiar with the phrase "dog whistle politics"? Because that is what you are doing here. By relentlessly likening us to Nazis, jihadis, racist mass murders because we have said we think free speech is vital to democracy, you are in fact engaging in the crudest imaginable attempt to close down discussion.

Everyone on this thread has repeatedly said they are completely in favour of legislation which allows people to be prosecuted for incitement to commit violence or murder, and for people to be prosecuted for conspiracy to commit violence and murder. Everyone.

And yet you keep returning to these entirely bogus examples.

While simultaneously ignoring the fact that no gender critical feminist has ever threatened violence or murder towards her opponents.

And while simultaneously ignoring the fact that TRAs frequently threaten extreme violence (curb stomping, "fucking up", bricks to the face) and rape towards women who disagree with them.

Gender critical femists say things like "I do not think it is right that vulnerable female prisoners should be incarcerated with, and have to share showers, sleeping space, etc., with sex offenders who have used their penises to rape women and children". You are using your dog-whistle arguments to try to make people believe that defending women's right to say this is in some way analogous to these women taking the side of people who set up death camps with the intention of murdering five million people. You think you're being terribly clever by merely implying it in a round about sort of way rather than saying it directly, but it's straight out of the Donald Trump playbook of how to cosy up to the Ku Klux Klan while allowing yourself a wafer thin layer of deniability.

That you should engage in dog whistle politics that tries to make that analogy is beyond disgraceful.

This is the last time I will engage on you on any thread. I may offer factual corrections if you post anything innacurate, but I will not name check you or engage with your disgusting apologies for "arguments."

Great post Fermat. You've got their number.

If we are throwing terms like nazi around

I bet hitler wasnt keen on free speech...bet he closed that right down!

The algorithms that determine censure

Should now be illegal in the EU under GDPR. This sorely needs testing in court.

This is the last time I will engage on you on any thread. I may offer factual corrections if you post anything innacurate, but I will not name check you or engage with your disgusting apologies for "arguments."

Hear, hear to your whole post, my friend.

But I'd just like to second this bit.

Should now be illegal in the EU under GDPR. This sorely needs testing in court.

Yes. As to things like public Twitter block lists.

I've realised TRAs are like flies....just when you think they've all been swatted, another one appears!

That's a brilliant takedown Fermats! 😀👍🏻

“Big data challenges purpose limitation, data minimization and data retention–most people never get rid of it with big data,” said Edwards.

“It challenges transparency and the notion of consent, since you can’t consent lawfully without knowing to what purposes you’re consenting… Algorithmic transparency means you can see how the decision is reached, but you can’t with [machine-learning] systems because it’s not rule-based software."

According to the professor, the issue becomes even more fraught where companies use people’s data to infer things about them—sensitive personal data, which includes things like sexuality and political and religious beliefs, gets even stronger protections under the GDPR."

To paraphrase the words of Donna Noble when the Doctor fought off a bad guy with a water pistol, Fermats, I bloody love you.

Nazis, and all the other like-minded nastiness out there who call for the mass harassment, mass abuse, or mass murder of any minority do not belong in a decent or civilised society.

The problem with describing people as Nazis is that this neglects the issue of authoritarianism to silence people from the left. When we use Nazi as a blanket term it gifts left wing types a very simple and easy defence.

The problem at the moment is we have a rise of extremism of multiple types; right wing Christians, Nazi white supremacist types, Muslim extremists and left wing types.

All of these groups have certain things in common; how they dehumanise individuals and groups, how they advocate the 'extermination' of them by violent means and how they want to shut down civilised and moderate discussion by always reducing things to a black and white narrative of them versus us.

We need platforms to boost modern voices and promote them. Instead we have a pattern where traditional media seeking profit understands that they will generate more internet traffic with shock and outrage so moderates are marginalised as 'boring' or too complicated in favour of more simplistic and sensationalism. Why does C4 have programs about the Jihadi next door and why does Newsnight insist on putting on Steve Bannon and why does the Guardian pander to a stream of transactivists.

There is no robust challenging of whats said. Nor representation of more moderate positions. Instead they swallow whole whats said and its presented in a way that normalises it.

Freedom of speech should mean that these voices are there but are marginalised and there is no distortion of how representative these positions are because it assumes in theory that everyone has equal influence and power. In reality the power of the click rules.

So if you want to do something in this tide of shit, if you see something sensationalist the very best thing you can do is to turn off, turn over and refuse to click. Also with twitter don't retweet in disgust, screen shot and tweet that instead so it does show on twitter analytics.

I just received a suspension for writing a thread about violent misogynistic content hosted on Twitter.

This is deemed as harassment against a protected category.

This thread was up for 30 minutes before I was suspended.

What is wrong with Twitter? It's NOT a violation of Twitter rules to post woman hating sissy porn but critiquing said content IS wrong?

RedToothBrush

You just turned me into the human equivalent of a nodding doggy. I can't even pick out one bit to quote that I agree with more than the rest.

Screenshotting that post for re-reading at leisure. Got my fingers burned a few days ago with the thread zapping of posts I wanted the chance to look at again, so taking no chances this time.

DJLippy

I think its mass reports which identify an already established criteria.

It may well not be seen by a human.

It just seems in insane to me that people who continually harass people (and are also mass reported) continue to post whilst the slightest infraction can result in suspensions for others.

Well, I don’t know Posie...when even wpuk finally decide they can’t promote you on their platforms after all...and you wonder why cis socialist feminists like me find your attacks on how women dress, and on trans women, intolerable?

Thank you Meetthenewaccount. Quite extraordinary the hills on which these people choose to die. Defending Infowars! And then they go all coy when women point out the links between ‘gcs’ and the right/far right...

Meet I salute your resilience and your bravery. Back in the real world people like you are fighting the real fascists, the book burners, the Bookmarks trashers. Here people who claim to be women are defending far right hate speech and attacks on trans women and on the rights of Muslim schoolgirls. Thank you for bringing the fresh air of reality onto mumsnet.

cis socialist feminists like me

LOL

Normally this lot make me angry. Today I'm just amused at the pomposity.

When MRAs operate inside a bubble they often fail to realize that when they say "nazi" the image that comes to mind for the vast majority of people is abusive white males, not the women who say no to them.

It is true that many people think that women objecting to harassment is as bad or worse than the male harassment itself, but that ends when you say "nazi" people think:
nazi.jfif

I’m still baffled about what isomers have to do with socialism...