191–200 of 394 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes it was that. Thank you. I couldn't remember the name as it was an unusual name.
Great. It is very troubling that police raided this journalists house. That is rather less sensational than the 'daily' raids you mentioned though, isn't it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Great. It is very troubling that police raided this journalists house. That is rather less sensational than the 'daily' raids you mentioned though, isn't it?
I never said "daily raids" on journalists. This is the second time you have put words into my mouth and pretended I said something I did not.
> The last time I checked 7 people a day were being prosecuted for speech related offences (I guarantee it is more now).
So the claim is that the UK is prosecuting a minimum of some 2,555 speech offenses a year (or as few as 1,820 if it's 7 a day each day of a five day working week in a year with 52 working weeks).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I never said "daily raids" on journalists. This is the second time you have put words into my mouth and pretended I said something I did not.
To recap, as I understand it your claim is that: > The last time I checked 7 people a day were being prosecuted for speech related offences (I guarantee it is more now). So the claim is that the UK is prosecuting a minimum of some 2,555 speech offenses a year (or as few as 1,820 if it's 7 a day each day of a five day working week in a year with 52 working weeks).
What are these 'illegal harms'? I'm online 10+ hours a day for 10 years straight and never seen one. (not assuming they don't exist, but their prevalence/impact might be inflated).
If you have to go looking for them, isn't this just 'whack a mole' (since 'online harms' will hard to 100% eradicate), but at the expense of destroying parts of the internet run by people who can't afford the time/cost of lawyers in order to comply with and refute claims of breach of this legislation?
Also 'online harms' pertaining to 'eating disorders'. What content promotes eating disorders?! Is there a single site that authors/proponents of this regulation can point to that literally 'promotes eating disorders'? How would a site admin determine what is acceptable and what is not? See: chilling effect [1]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To recap, as I understand it your claim is that: > The last time I checked 7 people a day were being prosecuted for speech related offences (I guarantee it is more now). So the claim is that the UK is prosecuting a minimum of some 2,555 speech offenses a year (or as few as 1,820 if it's 7 a day each day of a five day working week in a year with 52 working weeks).
Yes. I remember seeing the statistic a number of years ago. I cannot find the source easily. The last time I checked was ~2018. I never claimed "daily raids on journalists". I did say "regularly", which is incorrect, I should have said "an alarming number of". But that if people are going to hold me up on that they are nitpicking.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/cps-data-summary-quarter-...
and: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/criminal-court-stat...
In the UK there were 11,767 prosecutions (referred by police, whether or not a conviction was found) in the past year flagged as "Hate Crime" (the category that a speech prosecution would fall under?)
Of those many were robbery, homicide, assault, etc .. not simply "speech".
Here is a link to an online sevice to mount by URL those spreadsheets onine (showing the UK Prosecution Crime Type Data Tables Q4 23-24)
https://products.aspose.app/cells/viewer/view?FolderName=0f8...
"an alarming number of" is entirely relative to the population size and general referral levels, at seems unlikely that just pure "speech" alone and no other action forms 20% of the Hate Crime flagged prosecutions - that would take some legwork to verify I suspect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. I remember seeing the statistic a number of years ago. I cannot find the source easily. The last time I checked was ~2018. I never claimed "daily raids on journalists". I did say "regularly", which is incorrect, I should have said "an alarming number of". But that if people are going to hold me up on that they are nitpicking.
Try: https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/cps-data-summary-quarter-... and: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/criminal-court-stat... In the UK there were 11,767 prosecutions (referred by police, whether or not a conviction was found) in the past year flagged as "Hate Crime" (the category that a speech prosecution would fall under?) Of those many were robbery, homicide, assault, etc .. not simply "speech". Here i…
Non-speech related offences I don’t care about in relation to this topic. I believe the 3000 a year number was banded about for speech offences. I do think it is likely that this number is roughly correct as it matches up with what I previously heard.
I btw believe one person being prosecuted for speech related offences is too many. IMO it shouldn’t happen at all.
Moreover I am quite tired of people telling me it isn’t happening after I can distinctly remember a large number of cases over the years where this does happen.
> People in the UK will be better protected from illegal harms online What are these 'illegal harms'? I'm online 10+ hours a day for 10 years straight and never seen one. (not assuming they don't exist, but their prevalence/impact might be inflated). If you have to go looking for them, isn't this just 'whack a mole' (since 'online harms' will hard to 100% eradicate), but at the expense of destroying parts of the inte…
There are numerous sites and social media pages on all the major platforms that literally promote anorexia. That you’ve never heard of them should perhaps encourage you to take a more curious and less combative approach to this topic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Social media companies don’t want any kind of regulation because it adds cost to them. Their PR bangs the drum of free speech and people economically tied to the industry gobble it up while trying to ignore the self serving nature of their new beliefs.
>Social media companies don’t want any kind of regulation because it adds cost to them. Their PR bangs the drum of free speech and people economically tied to the industry gobble it up while trying to ignore the self serving nature of their new beliefs. Disagree here. If it is legally onerous for me to start a forum, I am more inclined to use a large social media site like Facebook, since they will handle the legal p…
I bet Zuckerberg also wants to pay more taxes too?
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51497961.amp “ Facebook boss 'happy to pay more tax in Europe'” 2020
But I guess the tax avoidance lawyers that he keeps hiring keep on tricking him. Gotta feel bad for the guy, but take everything he says, like “there should be more regulation” seriously and ignore the blatantly self serving nature of his statements.
https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2024/dec/08/facebook-cu...
Facebook reduces tax bill 2024
As a software engineer in the UK (and former schoolteacher) I'm supportive of the Online Safety Act. People prefer to interact with people who are similar to them, so they end up with a belief that most people are like them, but as a teacher, I had to grapple with the full distribution of human intelligence. It's wider than I'm comfortable with. Most people struggle to deal with the complexity of everyday life in the…
His Majesty’s government is struggling to keep its people warm and fed, let alone show any economic growth.[0][1]
The UK needs more foreign investment than ever before.
[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-68625344 [1] https://archive.is/2024.12.15-052556/https://www.ft.com/cont...