Keir Starmer

[Section_31]

1 hour ago, Brownie said:

On the topic of social media, I broadly agree that it can be damaging to mental health.

 

However, is it really that different to logging on here and reading stuff? Or reading an online blog/newspaper? Your mental health is impacted by what you surround yourself with, both physically and electronically.

 

You have the ability to control who you socialise with physically and you also have the ability to do it electronically. If something is getting you down then you need to get rid of it.

 

For others, it may have a positive impact on their mental health because we are all wired differently.

 

Making a blanket statement about how the world would be better without it is a bit, I don't know, excessive I feel.

They're all good points and if people enjoy something and it makes them happy, that's certainly a good thing. 

 

With something like an internet message board though I actually think it's the opposite of Twitter. Posts can (and often are) lengthy and allow people to have proper discussions. It's also moderated,  you'd never see anyone getting away with the shit  that, say, Katy Hopkins gets away with on there, if they did, the board would get a reputation, good people would leave and bad people would join and it'd quickly become something else entirely. 

 

The way people behave is often about perceived norms. Even cunts restrain their worst excesses if it's not socially acceptable, Twitter has made virtually everything acceptable in terms of vile language, just look at its most famous user and the shit he gets away with constantly, it's a permission slip to leave your humanity at the door, and I suspect that's been carried further and further from the virtual world into the real one (I reckon the spike in racist abuse the likes of footballers get in person now probably started with it happening online, for example).  

 

Also, because of its nature Twitter invites short discussions (if you can call them that) soundbite opinions. That's how we ended up with 'Build the Wall' and 'Get Brexit Done' culture. We can train our minds to grasp complex stuff, but we can also train our minds to only grasp simple stuff, lose attentions spans and ability to digest complex information. 

 

Logging onto something like the GF also requires some degree of effort, Twitter is almost passive, you log in and you scroll, or you get notifications. 

 

You yourself are clearly a sensible guy and can maintain a strict set of controls on what you expose yourself to, you're also sharp enough to discount things which are, say, fake news, or might not get the same buzz/feelings of depression if someone does/doesn't like what you've said or posted. But not everyone is like that. 

 

Also, as I said earlier it's not longer simple to avoid these things. Despite following less than a dozen accounts I can still be exposed to bile (I don't even follow the likes of BBC Sport any more for the same reason, don't dare ever look under a Hillsborough themed post, for example). 

 

Likewise even Facebook now. I only use it to talk to family and friends but ads for things like gambling are becoming increasingly intrusive, there's also ads now that you can't hide from your timeline (presumably they cost more money to buy). As someone once said, 'if a product is free - you are the product'. 

[Jairzinho]

1 hour ago, Brownie said:

 

 

You have the ability to control who you socialise with physically and you also have the ability to do it electronically.

Not everyone does, Brownie.

[Brownie]

57 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

Not everyone does, Brownie.

Who are you referring to mate? I'm sure you'll make a fair point, just wondering.

[VladimirIlyich]

1 hour ago, Section_31 said:

They're all good points and if people enjoy something and it makes them happy, that's certainly a good thing. 

 

With something like an internet message board though I actually think it's the opposite of Twitter. Posts can (and often are) lengthy and allow people to have proper discussions. It's also moderated,  you'd never see anyone getting away with the shit  that, say, Katy Hopkins gets away with on there, if they did, the board would get a reputation, good people would leave and bad people would join and it'd quickly become something else entirely. 

 

The way people behave is often about perceived norms. Even cunts restrain their worst excesses if it's not socially acceptable, Twitter has made virtually everything acceptable in terms of vile language, just look at its most famous user and the shit he gets away with constantly, it's a permission slip to leave your humanity at the door, and I suspect that's been carried further and further from the virtual world into the real one (I reckon the spike in racist abuse the likes of footballers get in person now probably started with it happening online, for example).  

 

Also, because of its nature Twitter invites short discussions (if you can call them that) soundbite opinions. That's how we ended up with 'Build the Wall' and 'Get Brexit Done' culture. We can train our minds to grasp complex stuff, but we can also train our minds to only grasp simple stuff, lose attentions spans and ability to digest complex information. 

 

Logging onto something like the GF also requires some degree of effort, Twitter is almost passive, you log in and you scroll, or you get notifications. 

 

You yourself are clearly a sensible guy and can maintain a strict set of controls on what you expose yourself to, you're also sharp enough to discount things which are, say, fake news, or might not get the same buzz/feelings of depression if someone does/doesn't like what you've said or posted. But not everyone is like that. 

 

Also, as I said earlier it's not longer simple to avoid these things. Despite following less than a dozen accounts I can still be exposed to bile (I don't even follow the likes of BBC Sport any more for the same reason, don't dare ever look under a Hillsborough themed post, for example). 

 

Likewise even Facebook now. I only use it to talk to family and friends but ads for things like gambling are becoming increasingly intrusive, there's also ads now that you can't hide from your timeline (presumably they cost more money to buy). As someone once said, 'if a product is free - you are the product'. 

There are adblockers and I have lots of them that I use for Facebook. They work very well.

[Brownie]

1 hour ago, Section_31 said:

They're all good points and if people enjoy something and it makes them happy, that's certainly a good thing. 

 

With something like an internet message board though I actually think it's the opposite of Twitter. Posts can (and often are) lengthy and allow people to have proper discussions. It's also moderated,  you'd never see anyone getting away with the shit  that, say, Katy Hopkins gets away with on there, if they did, the board would get a reputation, good people would leave and bad people would join and it'd quickly become something else entirely. 

 

The way people behave is often about perceived norms. Even cunts restrain their worst excesses if it's not socially acceptable, Twitter has made virtually everything acceptable in terms of vile language, just look at its most famous user and the shit he gets away with constantly, it's a permission slip to leave your humanity at the door, and I suspect that's been carried further and further from the virtual world into the real one (I reckon the spike in racist abuse the likes of footballers get in person now probably started with it happening online, for example).  

 

Also, because of its nature Twitter invites short discussions (if you can call them that) soundbite opinions. That's how we ended up with 'Build the Wall' and 'Get Brexit Done' culture. We can train our minds to grasp complex stuff, but we can also train our minds to only grasp simple stuff, lose attentions spans and ability to digest complex information. 

 

Logging onto something like the GF also requires some degree of effort, Twitter is almost passive, you log in and you scroll, or you get notifications. 

 

You yourself are clearly a sensible guy and can maintain a strict set of controls on what you expose yourself to, you're also sharp enough to discount things which are, say, fake news, or might not get the same buzz/feelings of depression if someone does/doesn't like what you've said or posted. But not everyone is like that. 

 

Also, as I said earlier it's not longer simple to avoid these things. Despite following less than a dozen accounts I can still be exposed to bile (I don't even follow the likes of BBC Sport any more for the same reason, don't dare ever look under a Hillsborough themed post, for example). 

 

Likewise even Facebook now. I only use it to talk to family and friends but ads for things like gambling are becoming increasingly intrusive, there's also ads now that you can't hide from your timeline (presumably they cost more money to buy). As someone once said, 'if a product is free - you are the product'. 

I hear you mate.

 

It's a bit like alcohol in the sense that it's something you can consume which provides enjoyment but too much or the wrong kind can have negative consequences for yourself and those around you.

 

That's why I think it should be regulated so that governments can shield people from the negative aspects as much as possible and also be able to control it to a degree, although not to the point where it starts to potentially impinge human rights etc.

 

We don't want to be in slipping into the territory of censorship.

 

We could all argue in some way that the world would be better off without alcohol on balance but that wouldn't be fair to those who enjoy it responsibly.

[Jairzinho]

16 minutes ago, Brownie said:

Who are you referring to mate? I'm sure you'll make a fair point, just wondering.

No-one in particular, no particular section of society. Just that some people are more conscious of the detrimental effects of social media than others. Some people get properly lost in it. 

 

The depth of information and misinformation, the anonymity, ironically (because for many people it has the opposite effect) the ability to filter views, makes social media a sort of semi reality. 

 

For some people it's never a problem. They see stuff that is clearly bullshit and ignore/block it, they remove/block people that are in whatever way a negative, they use it sparingly or at least under a modicum of control.

 

For others they don't quite have that level of control or awareness but maybe they have some boundaries. Some things that sharpen the awareness. "Oh, I've spent four hours here arguing with Steve from Rotherham who has a picture of a gun as his profile picture. Maybe I need to fuck this off for the rest of the day". Or, maybe they get pulled up about something by a slightly more sensible mate. Told that some of the stuff they're posting is actually a bit racist or whatever. And perhaps that works.

 

Then there are those who are just gone. They've jumped in head first and landed in some conspiracy circle. They block everything that isn't verified by David Icke's dog. Or they've decided that Britain First are a top bunch of lads. 

 

Worse still, maybe they're not even an adult. Maybe they're getting bullied relentlessly for taking photos from the wrong angle. Fuck knows.

 

 

It's not like being in the pub. It's not even like being on a self policed forum like this. 

[Brownie]

9 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

No-one in particular, no particular section of society. Just that some people are more conscious of the detrimental effects of social media than others. Some people get properly lost in it. 

 

The depth of information and misinformation, the anonymity, ironically (because for many people it has the opposite effect) the ability to filter views, makes social media a sort of semi reality. 

 

For some people it's never a problem. They see stuff that is clearly bullshit and ignore/block it, they remove/block people that are in whatever way a negative, they use it sparingly or at least under a modicum of control.

 

For others they don't quite have that level of control or awareness but maybe they have some boundaries. Some things that sharpen the awareness. "Oh, I've spent four hours here arguing with Steve from Rotherham who has a picture of a gun as his profile picture. Maybe I need to fuck this off for the rest of the day". Or, maybe they get pulled up about something by a slightly more sensible mate. Told that some of the stuff they're posting is actually a bit racist or whatever. And perhaps that works.

 

Then there are those who are just gone. They've jumped in head first and landed in some conspiracy circle. They block everything that isn't verified by David Icke's dog. Or they've decided that Britain First are a top bunch of lads. 

 

Worse still, maybe they're not even an adult. Maybe they're getting bullied relentlessly for taking photos from the wrong angle. Fuck knows.

 

 

It's not like being in the pub. It's not even like being on a self policed forum like this. 

I agree with all of that but my point was that everyone has the opportunity to filter stuff, not necessarily the ability to do it.

 

I'm not sure you can make decisions based solely on either group of people to be honest, not when it comes to deciding if something should exist or not.

 

Pretty much everything available to us has a positive and a negative slant.

 

That's where regulation should come in. I'm fully aware that governments are basically run by big business so regulation is not as effective as it should be but that should at least be the idea.

 

I'm not a fan of censorship to be honest, I value my liberty.

 

Going back to the alcohol analogy, I agree that it's not like sitting in a pub but it is like sitting at home and drinking on your own.

[VladimirIlyich]

15 hours ago, Jairzinho said:

No-one in particular, no particular section of society. Just that some people are more conscious of the detrimental effects of social media than others. Some people get properly lost in it. 

 

The depth of information and misinformation, the anonymity, ironically (because for many people it has the opposite effect) the ability to filter views, makes social media a sort of semi reality. 

 

For some people it's never a problem. They see stuff that is clearly bullshit and ignore/block it, they remove/block people that are in whatever way a negative, they use it sparingly or at least under a modicum of control.

 

For others they don't quite have that level of control or awareness but maybe they have some boundaries. Some things that sharpen the awareness. "Oh, I've spent four hours here arguing with Steve from Rotherham who has a picture of a gun as his profile picture. Maybe I need to fuck this off for the rest of the day". Or, maybe they get pulled up about something by a slightly more sensible mate. Told that some of the stuff they're posting is actually a bit racist or whatever. And perhaps that works.

 

Then there are those who are just gone. They've jumped in head first and landed in some conspiracy circle. They block everything that isn't verified by David Icke's dog. Or they've decided that Britain First are a top bunch of lads. 

 

Worse still, maybe they're not even an adult. Maybe they're getting bullied relentlessly for taking photos from the wrong angle. Fuck knows.

 

 

It's not like being in the pub. It's not even like being on a self policed forum like this. 

I suppose your point hits home particularly with younger people and kids and while it also pertains to adults they really should know better,even if they dont in some cases.

[Section_31]

52 minutes ago, VladimirIlyich said:

I suppose your point hits home particularly with younger people and kids and while it also pertains to adults they really should know better,even if they dont in some cases.

I think the 'adults knowing better' though doesn't take into account the science that goes behind social media. It's not a benign thing which can be picked up and put down easily, there's lots of stuff out there online about the efforts which have gone into making it addictive, not to mention the third party industries which have built up around it to harvest data and engage in what is, in some case, borderline psychological operations. The Cambridge Analytica film on Netflix for example, is absolutely Orwellian shit. There was some stuff online a while back about the teams who worked on Facebook's moderation of videos and images and how some of them had become far right nutters due to the stuff they were looking at.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/sep/17/revealed-catastrophic-effects-working-facebook-moderator

 

These were educated people who understood social media. The power of constantly being exposed to messages over and over again, with algorithms selecting how, when and why you're exposed to something can't be overstated. 

[Rotpeter]

Poor old Ikea.  Can't even boss his own thread.

[Brownie]

All of this relates to information in general though doesn’t it? It doesn’t matter what the platform is, the issue is with the messaging?

 

If media was delivering incessant positive messaging (you can debate what those would be depending on your own beliefs) then the world would probably be a better place.

 

That’s not the world though. There are various geo-political and economic agendas that are pushed via the platforms available. Social Media is just a new/modern, developing platform.

 

The type of issue we’re discussing here exist in other forms of media.

 

The key is to implement effective regulation of it.

[VladimirIlyich]

41 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

I think the 'adults knowing better' though doesn't take into account the science that goes behind social media. It's not a benign thing which can be picked up and put down easily, there's lots of stuff out there online about the efforts which have gone into making it addictive, not to mention the third party industries which have built up around it to harvest data and engage in what is, in some case, borderline psychological operations. The Cambridge Analytica film on Netflix for example, is absolutely Orwellian shit. There was some stuff online a while back about the teams who worked on Facebook's moderation of videos and images and how some of them had become far right nutters due to the stuff they were looking at.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/sep/17/revealed-catastrophic-effects-working-facebook-moderator

 

These were educated people who understood social media. The power of constantly being exposed to messages over and over again, with algorithms selecting how, when and why you're exposed to something can't be overstated. 

I do agree and do see the power of targeted headlines,adverts and topics which steer people in certain ways. Those algorithms are very powerful tools but generally because of the information that has been compiled during the computer age. How do you stop or change that availability now that the genie is out of the bottle,or can you?

[Brownie]

19 minutes ago, VladimirIlyich said:

I do agree and do see the power of targeted headlines,adverts and topics which steer people in certain ways. Those algorithms are very powerful tools but generally because of the information that has been compiled during the computer age. How do you stop or change that availability now that the genie is out of the bottle,or can you?

At what point does stopping it become censorship?

[VladimirIlyich]

8 minutes ago, Brownie said:

At what point does stopping it become censorship?

Depends if you can opt in and out of the information you give. You cannot use most sites if you dont give your permission for a shit load of information. You dont really get much of a choice about how much data is mined from you.

[Brownie]

19 minutes ago, VladimirIlyich said:

Depends if you can opt in and out of the information you give. You cannot use most sites if you dont give your permission for a shit load of information. You dont really get much of a choice about how much data is mined from you.

Sorry I think I misinterpreted your previous post. I completely agree when it comes to targeted advertising, I absolutely despise it, personally.

 

If I browse certain products my missus starts getting adverts for them on her social media due to us using the same IP. That’s absolutely nuts and shouldn’t be allowed in my opinion as it’s a privacy breach.

 

Someone will probably be along in a second to tell me that I can stop that bu using VPN’s etc (I hope they do tbh).

 

My previous point was more about general messaging not targeted stuff. The mining of people’s data to then tailor fake messages is obviously wrong and needs to be sorted.

[Megadrive Man]

On 14/05/2020 at 08:52, Bjornebye said:

Where will the majority of their vote go? 

Green party or not vote at all?

[Bjornebye]

39 minutes ago, MegadriveMan said:

Green party or not vote at all?

vast majority will still vote Labour I expect 

[Brownie]

7 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

vast majority will still vote Labour I expect 

If they go down the route of the likes of Blunkett and Adonis today then they'll lose more than you think.

[sir roger]

1 hour ago, Brownie said:

If they go down the route of the likes of Blunkett and Adonis today then they'll lose more than you think.

I expect shit like this from right-wing cuckoos like those two, but am expecting better from Starmer. Hopefully I will be reassured , although the noises aren't good.

 

https://skwawkbox.org/2020/05/11/video-starmer-is-asked-if-he-will-back-unions-protecting-workers-against-being-forced-back-to-unsafe-work-the-answer-is-yes-keir-not-wed-have-to-look-at-it/

 

[Brownie]

4 minutes ago, sir roger said:

I expect shit like this from right-wing cuckoos like those two, but am expecting better from Starmer. Hopefully I will be reassured , although the noises aren't good.

 

https://skwawkbox.org/2020/05/11/video-starmer-is-asked-if-he-will-back-unions-protecting-workers-against-being-forced-back-to-unsafe-work-the-answer-is-yes-keir-not-wed-have-to-look-at-it/

 

And so it starts, by the looks of it.

[Grinch]

Anyone sucking his cock just cause he's not a tory is in for awfully salty load. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

Can’t understand why Corbynite wouldn’t vote for Corbyn’s agenda. 

[Gnasher]

On 14/05/2020 at 09:07, Numero Veinticinco said:

I think they both have their uses, mate. The issue is that they suffer from the same underlying condition; humans. 

Twitter has a massive advantage over Facebook, Facebook has Nick Clegg, Twitter has probably got someone just as horrendous as Nick Clegg but they havnt got Nick Clegg.

 

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/25/facebook-wont-fact-check-politicians-nick-clegg-announces/

[Numero Veinticinco]

2 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Twitter has a massive advantage over Facebook, Facebook has Nick Clegg, Twitter has probably got someone just as horrendous as Nick Clegg but they havnt got Nick Clegg.

So, what you're saying is, that Twitter doesn't have a Clegg to stand on? 

[Gnasher]

1 minute ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

So, what you're saying is, that Twitter doesn't have a Clegg to stand on? 

Gnasher likes this