Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

In wake of riots, British PM proposes social media ban

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 146 posts

Re: In wake of riots, British PM proposes social media ban

#131

Post by aik »

icarus_drowning wrote: post #52
aik wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree it's not a fair comparison, but I think it's an interesting thought experiment nonetheless. How do you think Norway would have reacted if a situation similar to the UK riots occurred in Norway? Implement more laws and add police, or look deeper to the root causes?

How is it at all interesting if it isn't a fair comparison? What you are suggesting isn't what you are defending here: you're suggesting that we compare two entirely different scenarios and then defending it by saying it is worth doing an entirely different thought experiment. (For the record, I'm appalled that anyone would consider anything that could remotely be called "web censorship" as a response, I just don't t…

Sorry let me clarify. What I consider interesting is to ponder how another country (Norway in this case) would handle a situation that arises in another country. Naturally there are many variables to consider, however in general it allows me to look at the situation from a different perspective, or through a different lens. I find that to be a valuable exercise and one I feel isn't exercised often enough.

Does this make more sense? Again I don't agree with the comparison of the two acts.

Re: In wake of riots, British PM proposes social media ban

#132

Post by aik »

fourspace wrote: post #50
aik wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree it's not a fair comparison, but I think it's an interesting thought experiment nonetheless. How do you think Norway would have reacted if a situation similar to the UK riots occurred in Norway? Implement more laws and add police, or look deeper to the root causes?

It really isn't an interesting exercise. It's comparing one bombing by one person to thousands of acts of vandalism and theft by thousands of people. It's fairly self evident that "looking deeper into the root causes" is not going to prevent rioters from destroying private property in the next 24 hours.

Sorry let me clarify -- again I'm not focusing on the comparison of the two acts. What I consider interesting is to ponder how another country (Norway in this case) would handle a situation that arises in another country. Naturally there are many variables to consider, however in general it allows me to look at the situation from a different perspective, or through a different lens. I find that to be a valuable exercise and one I feel isn't exercised often enough.

Does this make more sense?

In addition, clearly "looking deeper" won't resolve anything on its own as I feel you are suggesting -- what counts rather are the actions that could result from gaining better understanding through the act of looking deeper.

Re: In wake of riots, British PM proposes social media ban

#133

Post by andylei »

drieddust wrote: post #128
lwhi wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Use of rubber bullets was authorised after the police finally got their act together. I don't think it was a worthy desire to avoid escalation that prevented their use earlier on .. more lack of organisation. The main question is, how will our government discover whether a citizen is communicating about a forbidden subject? I suppose all communication will need to be explicitly monitored. This is another step closer…

Somebody on bbc question hour was suggesting that police inaction was on purpose.They wanted this to escalate and use this violence as an excuse to make draconian laws.Cameron's action actually agrees with the prediction. I do not want to believe in conspiracy theories but seriously does it take 3 days to decide using baton round/rubber bullets.

if the explanations are either incompetence or malevolence, i'll usually believe incompetence

Re: In wake of riots, British PM proposes social media ban

#134

Post by radu_floricica »

MrScruff wrote: post #74
zeteo wrote: post #2

> when people are using social media for violence, we need to stop them. Is this the same Cameron who criticized Libya when they shut off the Internet against what, in their view, were violent protesters?

Not that I agree with Cameron, but here are some differences. - Protesting is legal in the UK and happens regularly without undue interference by the police. - The riots in the UK mainly consisted of crimes committed against citizens so they were clearly a policing issue. - They're not proposing shutting of the internet, just the principal vectors used to organise riots. - The rioters were not subject to a violent re…

That's a difference of degree, and not even that relevant. Either you have freedom of speech, or you don't.

Let's take your arguments and rephrase them as coming from Libya (or any "less democratic" country):

- Protesting is legal in XXX and happens regularly. You only have to get a permit to insure the safety of the people involved (same as in UK, I'd guess)

- The protesters are clearly destroying public and private property. There have been multiple instances of protesters attacking public buildings, and a (very well filmed) instance of protesters attacking innocent bystanders.

- Of course the internet will not be completely shut down. Only specific vectors, as needed. The police will decide what they are and how many to shut down

- The police only protects public property, and will always use violence as a last resort, and only as a response to violence - and we have clearly documented cases of violence from protesters.

So what's the difference? When it comes to laws meant to limit the power of the government, you can't count on the government applying them "in spirit" or reporting things truthfully and completely. It kindof defeats the purpose, doesn't it? If the people currently in charge would be trustworthy, you wouldn't really need any such laws...

Re: In wake of riots, British PM proposes social media ban

#135

Post by drieddust »

andylei wrote: post #133
drieddust wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somebody on bbc question hour was suggesting that police inaction was on purpose.They wanted this to escalate and use this violence as an excuse to make draconian laws.Cameron's action actually agrees with the prediction. I do not want to believe in conspiracy theories but seriously does it take 3 days to decide using baton round/rubber bullets.

if the explanations are either incompetence or malevolence, i'll usually believe incompetence

I totally agree with you but instead of giving Police better tools they want to monitor social media which is just absurd and can be used against their political enemies which does suggest malice.

I fail to understand how social media monitoring will prevent riots next time if Police chooses to be an spectator.

Re: In wake of riots, British PM proposes social media ban

#136

Post by sliverstorm »

seabee wrote: post #116
arethuza wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What hard evidence is there that the public spending cuts led to the riots?

The best evidence for the reasons I've seen, as gleaned from the rioters themselves, is "fuck the rich" and "fuck the police" respectively.

Those are pretty common refrains. Honestly it means nothing to me that rioters may have said them.

Especially considering as a rioter the police are the guys who want to stop you from rioting & looting, when you want to continue with the rioting & looting.

Re: In wake of riots, British PM proposes social media ban

#137

Post by sliverstorm »

lhnz wrote: post #119
bradgessler wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, wow, I'm dumbfounded. If the British government follows through with this, the rioters will actually have a new reason to riot: freedom of speech.

Yeah, that's what I thought, too. That is the one thing which would make me get off my armchair.

Get off your armchair and burn, loot and pillage in the name of free speech?

Re: In wake of riots, British PM proposes social media ban

#138

Post by jdietrich »

arethuza wrote: post #117
forensic wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lack of mental health is exacerbated by the cuts to social services. If mental health services were provided to the lower classes AT ALL we would not have these issues. As it is the majority of the underclass suffers from multiple mental disorders and they cannot get treatment. Mental health treatment is very expensive and is not covered by the government.

"Mental health treatment is very expensive and is not covered by the government." For people suffering from actual mental health problems I don't see why they can't get treatment from the NHS like everyone else - ability to pay not being a factor. However, if by "mental health" you mean the feeling that people "deserve" new trainers/DVD player/etc. without doing anything to earn them I don't see why that is anything…

Mental health provision on the NHS is shockingly poor. Unless you end up hospitalised (which you really don't want to be), your choice is either pills or a six-month wait for six one-hour sessions of CBT. Community mental health services are massively underfunded and are struggling to keep up with even their highest-priority users - sufferers of schizophrenia and bipolar whose conditions could easily become fatal if mismanaged.

Re: In wake of riots, British PM proposes social media ban

#139

Post by lhnz »

sliverstorm wrote: post #137
lhnz wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that's what I thought, too. That is the one thing which would make me get off my armchair.

Get off your armchair and burn, loot and pillage in the name of free speech?

Well, probably not, but having said that, there is a certain point at which I would use any means necessary.

Re: In wake of riots, British PM proposes social media ban

#140

Post by liedra »

Joakal wrote: post #121
liedra wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a sweeping generalisation. I participated in the big march against cuts and the police were very respectful and only moved to contain those who were participating in violent behaviour (trashing shops, etc.). The vast majority of protesters were peaceful, treated well, and not kettled or horse-charged - a direct response to the previous condemnation of those sorts of tactics used against the students in the pre…

Look up agent provocateurs where both sides can be innocent but played against each other.

I know what they are, but I don't think that any such thing justifies the sweeping generalisation the previous commenter made. The police have been employing a range of tactics, and some have worked better (in terms of public opinion too) than others. Kettling, as far as I have seen since the public outcry over its use in the student situation, has not been used against peaceful protesters since.
Post reply on HN