Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

UK Government Report Recommends Ending Online Anonymity

cowwoc2001 Re:Legitimate concerns (274 comments)

It has not occurred to you that the hate directed towards Israel is a natural result of the actions the Israeli government has taken over the years? The wholesale slaughter, indeed genocide, of the Palestinian people? The high seas piracy they commit frequently with without consequence? The assassinations, the hit jobs, theft of land, war crimes, etc etc.

Don't create your anti-free speech stance entirely on your pro-Israel anti-Islam bigoted belief.

Not when most of the grievances are found to be factually incorrect (videos of deaths from Syria passed off as Jews killing Palestinians) and when "high sea piracy" is actually Israel intercepting ships from Iran to Gaza full of weapons.

Israel has made mistakes, like any other country has, but nothing that would justify terrorism against its civilians. Most of the animosity against it is based on false propaganda.

9 hours ago
top

UK Government Report Recommends Ending Online Anonymity

cowwoc2001 Re:Legitimate concerns (274 comments)

Oh geez.

Shouting "Kill the Jews!": protected speech unless they're seriously inciting imminent murder. Stupid and horrible, yes. Protected speech, yes.

Attacking a nearby synagogue: that would fall under assault and arresting people who are using violence is totally okay.

Speech doesn't hurt people. Violence does. Ban violence, not speech.

By allowing extremists to continue indoctrinating more people you are ensuring a never-ending conflict. You could do that, but it seems to me it would be much more efficient to nip the problem in the bud.

Also, we have a concrete example in Egypt and Jordan that this does not really work. The Egyptian and Jordanian street hates Israel (to the point they want war) yet the leaders do not. Most of this hate comes from indoctrination. The countries are practicing what you preach, which is to say they allow indoctrination to continue and only intervene with police forces in the last second.

The end result is that Egypt, Jordan and Israel has a frosty and every couple of months someone launches an attack from Egypt or Jordan on Israeli citizens. Sometimes they are caught, sometimes they are not ... but they would all be better off if the indoctrination would end and an economic peace would be allowed to begin.

Anyway, I get the feeling this conversation will go on forever if we allow it. I guess we can agree to disagree for now. You brought up good points though. Thank you!

yesterday
top

UK Government Report Recommends Ending Online Anonymity

cowwoc2001 Re:Legitimate concerns (274 comments)

But what happens once we reach the ignorance -> fear -> hate -> violence cycle? What happens if someone taps into people's ignorance by spreading literature that taps into someone's ignorance about an ethnic group, leads to fear, hate and eventually violence?

Jedi you are not. Influence you must.

If we can prove that origin post was factually incorrect, it should be removed (not protected by Freedom of Speech) because it incites violence and is factually incorrect. If the person keeps on spreading this kind of hate speech then the person himself/herself should be penalized.

Some religions are provably incorrect with an uncanny habit of enumerating unsightly medieval barbarism within the pages of their holy texts. Texts having been continually leveraged to incite death, destruction and otherwise extend time honored traditions of barbarism throughout history.

Are you saying religion should be banned?

As big a fan of objective reality as I seem to be.. I still fully support the rights of people to believe things which are factually incorrect and to propagate their silly delusions without fear of persecution.

Do you have any idea what percentage of people who believe 9/11 was an inside job controlled demolition and all? How many think the Jews (e.g. Israel) did it? Are you going to prosecute everyone who posts anti-government "hate" because they happen to believe in a provable delusion?

If someone wants to believe all Asian people are alien grey's in disguises and warn everyone of the dangers... cook books and all... they should absolutely have that right.

There is simply no formulation by which freedom may exist without tolerance of the bullshit and asshattery of others.

If your religious text incites violence, and members of your religion act on those incitements, then yes I believe you need to censor such texts and disarm its followers.

To clarify: I'm not talking about the mainstream members of a given religion. I'm talking about the extremist elements (a subset of the total membership) which exist in every religious group today.

The various extremist sects of Islam are a prime example of this. Mainstream Islam is fine but Al-Qaeda, ISIS and friends are not. Their literature *should* be censored and their members *should* be disarmed. This is no different than the banning neo-nazi and terrorist groups around the world from running for government.

yesterday
top

UK Government Report Recommends Ending Online Anonymity

cowwoc2001 Re:Legitimate concerns (274 comments)

Pro-anonymity advocates have been saying for years that Freedom of Expression will fix all ills but we've seen a substantial rise of bullying, hate speech and terrorism-advocacy in the past decade. Saying that people will find the truth so long as it's out there, somewhere, does not seem to be working. Great in theory but doesn't work in practice.

Spoken like a true information war looser. It isn't working people are not being nice, they soak up conspiracy theories, don't listen to us or come to our conclusions... also everyone is turning into terrorists.. be afraid..... We can't beat them in the market place of ideas so we'll just shut their asses down.

Saying that people will find the truth so long as it's out there, somewhere, does not seem to be working.

What do we call states which leverage their monopoly on violence to control public opinion or otherwise help them to "find the truth"?

The "marketplace of ideas" is driven by popularity and money, not by truth. It's much easier to blame other people for your problems than looking in the mirror and taking personal responsibility for your failures. How do you combat that? Historically speaking, combating it with ideas alone has always failed.

yesterday
top

UK Government Report Recommends Ending Online Anonymity

cowwoc2001 Re:Legitimate concerns (274 comments)

You disregard all the harm that anonymity causes online, from bullying, to hate speech, to terrorism.

No, I don't. Anything could be abused, but it's 100% anti-freedom to say it should be banned merely because of that. These are not legitimate concerns. Freedom is more important than safety.

I never said it should be banned. I saying there are legitimate concerns with the current system and those problems should be tackled.

but the statue quo is not sustainable.

It is and has been sustainable. There is no "middle ground" which doesn't violate people's privacy and speech rights, which makes any such "middle ground" 100% unacceptable. Why not move to North Korea?

Right, so implying the system is not perfect is grounds for shipping me to North Korea? Jumping the gun a little...?

Stop being lazy. The situation is not black or white. There are solutions in the middle.

yesterday
top

UK Government Report Recommends Ending Online Anonymity

cowwoc2001 Re:Legitimate concerns (274 comments)

Words have an impact.

In the case of bullying it has led to multiple deaths. In the case of terrorist advocacy, it has led to repeated violent/racist protests that has led to countless people getting hurt and in some cases dying. No one should have the right to advocate violence against all members of an ethnic group. Just look at what's happening in France.

The thing is that not allowing people to speak their mind leads to everyone living in fear. Bullying will happen to some extent, and I think real life is way way more important than the internet.

There are also loads of things that are worth some deaths. I'm not saying that this is one, but the ability to live free of the government controlling every part of my life is one. A million kids having lots more fun, and one dying, is a good trade off in my opinion.

I think we're talking about different things.

You're talking about people being afraid to criticize their own government. I'm fine with protecting such criticism as Freedom of Speech.

But what happens once we reach the ignorance -> fear -> hate -> violence cycle? What happens if someone taps into people's ignorance by spreading literature that taps into someone's ignorance about an ethnic group, leads to fear, hate and eventually violence?

If we can prove that origin post was factually incorrect, it should be removed (not protected by Freedom of Speech) because it incites violence and is factually incorrect. If the person keeps on spreading this kind of hate speech then the person himself/herself should be penalized.

On a slightly related topic, we should have zero tolerance for online bullying. The sooner we out such posters (remove their anonymity) the sooner this will stop. Right now a lot of online bullying goes unpunished because it's too hard to track people down. If the children posting the malicious content were identifiable they would not do it.

yesterday
top

UK Government Report Recommends Ending Online Anonymity

cowwoc2001 Re:Legitimate concerns (274 comments)

When people attack synagogues.... that's against the law, already. When people actually encourage people to kill Jews, that's already against the law. I'm not sure how them being anonymous or not online would affect the attack on the synagogue.

Very, very few people are actually anonymous online now. It's pretty easy to track most people down.

If what you say is true, then I don't disagree. In my experience, every time I flag an online discussion/video as hate speech nothing gets done. Some of the examples I flagged went along the lines of "Fuck all X. We should bring back the gas chambers." If organizations like Facebook/Youtube actually enforced the law then I would have no problem with it. However, I'm not sure such a law really exists. In any case, they seem to be hiding behind Freedom of Speech and never removing such posts. I've also seen videos that were taken from Syria, posted online as if they were Jews murdering Gazans. I can prove that the video is a fake and that the poster is trying to spread hate against Jews but the service provider refuses to remove it.

So yes, if we could legally enforce the fact that such posts/videos must be legally removed (enforced as stringently as the DCMA) then I'd have no problem with anonymity.

yesterday
top

UK Government Report Recommends Ending Online Anonymity

cowwoc2001 Re:Legitimate concerns (274 comments)

There is far more at work there than words though. If I shout "kill the Jews" where I am, no one is going to go kill Jews. The people that do go attack them are not acting on my words, they are acting on their own hatred. When you make an act of violence towards someone else, you are responsible for that. I don't care if someone tells me to go punch some dude in the face, if I go punch the guy that is on me.

Hitler employed propaganda videos because they worked. Terrorist groups employ propaganda videos because they work. The fact of the matter is that some videos equal indoctrination; people would not have become extremist if they were constantly bombarded by these messages in the media.

By the time someone throws a punch it's too late. Take a look at the kind of violence that took place in France and ask yourself: how many protesters committed violence versus how many were arrested. The fact of the matter is, there are many more people doing the indoctrination and violence attacks than getting arrested. If the police were arresting 100% of people committing violence then it would be a different story. These protests are growing, not shrinking.

yesterday
top

UK Government Report Recommends Ending Online Anonymity

cowwoc2001 Re:Legitimate concerns (274 comments)

For speech to result in physical attacks - a strong causal connection - that's no longer hate speech, that's "incitement to riot". We've had no problem keeping "hate speech" legal but "incitement to riot" illegal in America for centuries now.

Speech should always be protected as speech. But telling your bodyguard to shoot someone is not illegal because of the words you use, but instead because of the immediate desired outcome of that speech. Running on a platform of killing all the Jews is political speech, and should be protected (and for goodness sake, please oh please let the candidate actually say that sort of thing on camera, not keep it as a secret agenda, so that democracy can happen properly there). Saying "hey, lets go attack that guy right there, right now!" has never been protected speech.

"On a computer" changes nothing.

No one is that dumb. You will be hard pressed to find direct/immediate causality between repeated demonization against ethnic groups and the subsequent violence protests that ensue. But there is also no denying that when people post videos that incite hate against ethnic groups, coupled with a caption that says "Fucking Jews!" it tends to have a real effect. I just saw a video spread on Facebook that claimed to show Israeli soldiers burying Palestinian children alive with exactly that caption. Now, the soldiers in question were not Israeli (the Jordanian flag on the uniform kind of gave that away) but most of the viewers did not catch on. The video received over 1,500 shares with 1,200 comments to the effect of "Jewish bloodsuckers, we should end them". So sure, I can't count how many of the people who viewed this video went on to commit violence against Jews. But I can guess many of them were negatively affected and a sizable portion of them went out to protest, and a portion of them turned to violence.

It's no coincidence that Hitler employed a strong propaganda campaign. If this kind of crap didn't work, he wouldn't have bothered. We need to admit that words, photos and videos make a difference and do lead to increased racism and eventually physical violence. We need to find a way to balance these concerns with Freedom of Speech.

yesterday
top

UK Government Report Recommends Ending Online Anonymity

cowwoc2001 Re:Legitimate concerns (274 comments)

The people on the receiving end of said hate speech would disagree

So you claim to speak for all people who are 'victims' of hate speech?

Furthermore, that's nothing more than an ad hominem attack; a fallacy. "You're not a victim of hate speech, so all of your arguments are invalid." Someone's arguments stand on their own merit, and whether or not they've had hate speech directed at them has nothing to do with whether their arguments are valid.

I'm not saying your argument is invalid, nor should you imply mine is. I'm saying that there are legitimate concerns on both sides and it is wrong for pro-Anonymity proponents to dismiss the other point of view out of hand. There are legitimate concerns about how Freedom of Speech is abused to spread hate against a visible ethnic groups which, in some instances, has led to violence.

You might disagree with how we should tackle this problem, but you shouldn't dismiss the problem exists altogether. I look forward to suggestions on how we can tackle these problems.

yesterday
top

UK Government Report Recommends Ending Online Anonymity

cowwoc2001 Re:Legitimate concerns (274 comments)

Hate speech is just that. Speech. It should never be prohibited.

Universities and others that make hate speech a crime are violating the principle of free speech.

The people on the receiving end of said hate speech would disagree, especially when it results in physical attacks on them as has been the case in France recently.

yesterday
top

UK Government Report Recommends Ending Online Anonymity

cowwoc2001 Re:Legitimate concerns (274 comments)

I propose we forbid (attack) violence. Then no-one will be hurt physically, and we can still have anonymous free speech.

In practice, what ends up happening is that police is caught off guard and arrests are made after people have already died. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

yesterday
top

UK Government Report Recommends Ending Online Anonymity

cowwoc2001 Re:Legitimate concerns (274 comments)

The solution to many of these problems consists of having enough self-confidence to shrug off insults.

As I mentioned earlier, I'm not complaining about words that hurt one's fillings. I'm complaining about words that lead to physically violence/death. When protesters yell "Kill the Jews" and proceed to attack a nearby synagogue full of people I think we've reach a point things have gone too far.

yesterday
top

UK Government Report Recommends Ending Online Anonymity

cowwoc2001 Re:Legitimate concerns (274 comments)

Words have an impact.

In the case of bullying it has led to multiple deaths. In the case of terrorist advocacy, it has led to repeated violent/racist protests that has led to countless people getting hurt and in some cases dying. No one should have the right to advocate violence against all members of an ethnic group. Just look at what's happening in France.

What you are proposing abridges freedom of speech. If a person decides to jump off a bridge because someone called them fat, too bad. We should have learned as a society that restrictions on actions do not make us safer unless those particular necessarily lead directly to harm of others. Advocating violence against an ethnic group, while reprehensible, should be protected speech. Shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater necessarily leads directly to the harm of others, so restrictions are acceptable.

What invariably ends up happening is government takes too much control. Just look at what's happening in England (to Tottenham's Yid Army or the ridiculously racist hit job the FA did on Luis Suarez for using the perfectly acceptable by South American standards word negrito). If you give government power, they will abuse it. Every time. The question should be: is the abuse worth it? In this case, definitely not.

When protesters yell "Kill the Jews" and proceed to attack a nearby synagogue full of people I think we've reach the point where it's worse than yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater.

yesterday
top

UK Government Report Recommends Ending Online Anonymity

cowwoc2001 Re:Legitimate concerns (274 comments)

Think of the children?? People will always find ways to be anonymous if they want, even if they have to tunnel connections to outside UK. The Internet is a global village, and the cat is out of the bag. Furthermore, terrorists will always be terrorists, and it is a lame excuse. It is like forbiding guns, and then the only ones having guns are the criminals. It does not work at all. As for dealing with hate speach, grow a pair, and ignore what you dont want to see/read.

Words have an impact.

In the case of bullying it has led to multiple deaths. In the case of terrorist advocacy, it has led to repeated violent/racist protests that has led to countless people getting hurt and in some cases dying. No one should have the right to advocate violence against all members of an ethnic group. Just look at what's happening in France.

I don't care about people's feelings getting hurt. I care about people getting physically hurt. These are legitimate concerns for which you have offered no solutions.

yesterday
top

UK Government Report Recommends Ending Online Anonymity

cowwoc2001 Legitimate concerns (274 comments)

You disregard all the harm that anonymity causes online, from bullying, to hate speech, to terrorism.

I'm not saying the argument for Freedom of Expression is irrelevant, but the other perspective has legitimate concerns as well.

Pro-anonymity advocates have been saying for years that Freedom of Expression will fix all ills but we've seen a substantial rise of bullying, hate speech and terrorism-advocacy in the past decade. Saying that people will find the truth so long as it's out there, somewhere, does not seem to be working. Great in theory but doesn't work in practice.

We need to find a middle ground that will help curtain online abuse with minimal impact on Freedom of Speech, but the statue quo is not sustainable.

yesterday
top

Uber Demonstrations Snarl Traffic In London, Madrid, Berlin

cowwoc2001 Re:Competition Sucks (507 comments)

Sounds like a problem for insurance companies, not the government. What is the difference between the two kinds of insurances except for the price? If you drive someone "occasionally" should your insurance really cost as much as the full commercial insurance does?

about 2 months ago
top

Fixing China's Greenhouse Gas Emissions For Them

cowwoc2001 Re:Who is being taxed, exactly? (322 comments)

I actually think that's a good thing.

The "disposable economy" will currently live in causes a lot of domestic waste, not to mention the havoc it wrecks on domestic employment.

Yes, we'll buy less widgets. But in return employment rates will rise, and we'll shift to higher-quality merchandise.

It's one thing to buy a poor-quality product when the competition is twice the price. It's another thing when the price difference is only 25%.

about 2 months ago
top

The Ethics Cloud Over Ballmer's $2 Billion B-Ball Buy

cowwoc2001 Re:Racism or Thought Police? (398 comments)

I actually sort of agree, in principle, that a private conversation should not be grounds for forcing an owner out of the league. However, this case is more than that. The NBA isn't actually penalising him for his racist views, they're penalising him for being publicly caught and therefore costing them money (if they don't punish him). If they tolerated his racism, they'd possibly face a player and/or fan boycott of the team, and potentially a larger one against the league for tolerating him. To make matters worse he said he didn't want black people in his arena or seeing his team. I suspect if he hadn't said that, and then gone on National TV and attacked one of the most famous basketball players ever instead of apologising and making nice, he would have gotten away with some token sanctions.

But he did what he did, and now the other owners have to choose between their money and a senile old guy they probably never liked in the first place. Is it any surprise they chose public acclaim and money over the angry old senile man? Particularly, when keeping him around would virtually guarantee a repeat performance and more lost money?

Right. So the NBA has the right to ask him to sell the company because regardless of due process the bad publicity will cost them money. What they do not have the right to do is fine him $2.5 million... because legally speaking he did nothing wrong.

Somewhere down the line, someone in the NBA thought they had the right to "fire" Sterling but in actually all they had the right to do is buy him out. That's not the same thing. The way they went about this is all wrong.

about 2 months ago
top

The Ethics Cloud Over Ballmer's $2 Billion B-Ball Buy

cowwoc2001 Re:Racism or Thought Police? (398 comments)

The recording of the phone call was illegal according to California law (which requires both parties to agree to be recorded), it was a private conversation and there is no proof that his beliefs have in any way translated to negative actions.

It wasn't a phone call. He was just yelling at his girlfriend because she was seen in public with her non-white friends.

You're right, but it was illegal nonetheless. If this kind of thing went to court (e.g. police smash down your door, find drugs) the evidence would be inadmissible.

What is said was wrong, but I think it should be emphasized the recording *is* illegal and the man is due no less legal rights/protection than anyone else. For the NBA or anyone else to penalize him based on this thought crime and an illegal recording is wrong in its own right.

about 2 months ago

Submissions

top

Israeli device allows paraplegics to walk again

cowwoc2001 cowwoc2001 writes  |  about 6 years ago

cowwoc2001 writes "An Israeli company has developed a revolutionary quasi-robotic system that will enable wheelchair users to walk again.

Argo Medical Technologies' ReWalk "exoskeleton" was specially designed for individuals with lower-limb disabilities, according to Los Angeles-based Israeli news Web site ISRAEL21c.

See the Haaretz and Israel21c articles for more information."

Link to Original Source

Journals

cowwoc2001 has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>