UK Politics: No Bully XL for you

[Heartofice]

Just now, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Literally anyone in the world can post links from Twitter. Someone as media savvy as yourself should know this.

Why act like you don’t use Twitter when you continually post links from there? Just bizarre. Own up to it mate. 

 

1 minute ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Yeah, you keep saying that. 

Not just me is it. You aren’t even from the UK, have no idea who British celebs are, and you are telling us who is famous ??  
 

You have to laugh really. It’s that silly. 

[polishgenius]

33 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

The UK press have certainly gone after more obscure personalities with more vigor. 

I mean, it's possible, but if you're gonna make that claim: who?

 

33 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

 

Regarding those other guys, I’m not commenting on whether or not the level of coverage or even the type of coverage was appropriate. I’m disputing the claim that Wooton is too low-interest to warrant greater interest. 

 

The claim, from Spocky, was that the lack of continued coverage must be because of some deeper reason, blackmail materials etc. The counter-claim was that he's just not famous enough to warrant continued coverage with no new developments, with the other, much more famous, names raised as support for that. You tried to make out that it's not a valid counter because he's more famous than them, and that just isn't remotely close to true.

 

The thing is, whether it warrants greater interest (in the sense of should the media morally do more) is mostly beside the point of the argument. We can wish that they did (although tbh I also don't see what use just constantly pounding on the same point would be) but they don't. They push what gets attention. It doesn't require a conspiracy that Wootton's case is not currently being reported upon - it just requires that nothing is happening and he's not famous enough that non-details will sell papers or grab views. Which is the case. 

 

I mean, I do think it actually quite plausible that he has some blackmail material on some in the media - that was like the whole point of his behaviour. I just don't believe that he has enough of it on enough people to muzzle every single outlet, especially once the secret is already out. It's just not plausible. He's not being covered because nothing is happening in relation to the case. There might be some investigations going on behind the scenes, for all we know. But no police movement that we know of on the cases raised, nothing from him on it, no new allegations. What would be the point of coverage?

[DaveSumm]

I’ve just barely heard of GB News let alone anyone on it.

[BigFatCoward]

8 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

I’ve just barely heard of GB News let alone anyone on it.

I've only heard of it because of this thread. 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Why act like you don’t use Twitter when you continually post links from there? Just bizarre. Own up to it mate. 

Fine. Since you have it all figured out and have twice now called me a liar, show me one example of me posting something on this thread that came from my Twitter account, Genius.

Quote

Not just me is it. You aren’t even from the UK, have no idea who British celebs are, and you are telling us who is famous ??  

Once again you get it wrong. Color me surprised. 

Edited September 18, 2023 by Deadlines? What Deadlines?

[Heartofice]

11 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Fine. Since you have it all figured out and have twice now called me a liar, show me one example of me posting something on this thread that came from my Twitter account. Genius.

https://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/163223-resistance-is-futile-hm-part-5/&do=findComment&comment=8977548

https://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/163223-resistance-is-futile-hm-part-5/&do=findComment&comment=8972267
 

https://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/163223-resistance-is-futile-hm-part-5/&do=findComment&comment=8972284

https://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/163223-resistance-is-futile-hm-part-5/&do=findComment&comment=8976656

Sure, I mean this is just from the same thread, now tell me that you don't use twitter. 

[mormont]

I think there are a number of factors that explain why the Wootton stuff hasn't had the same traction in the media. For a start, the media are markedly reluctant to go after one of their own, even if that person is odious and disliked by his colleagues. For another thing, Wootton is, no doubt about it, less famous than Brand. For a third, yes, he may have blackmail material. For a fourth, the allegations involve misuse of News International resources and that will be embarrassing for NI so that will naturally make NI outlets want to minimise the story. For a fifth, the sheer scale of what Wootton was doing is hard to wrap your head around. For a sixth, a story where the victims are teenage girls elicits more sympathy and interest from the public than one where the victims are adult men.

Arguing about which singular reason explains this is the sort of pointless waste of time that personally, makes me just skip entire pages at a time.

ETA - please take the personal argument about who does/doesn't use Twitter to a personal message where it belongs.

Edited September 18, 2023 by mormont

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

https://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/163223-resistance-is-futile-hm-part-5/&do=findComment&comment=8977548

https://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/163223-resistance-is-futile-hm-part-5/&do=findComment&comment=8972267
 

https://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/163223-resistance-is-futile-hm-part-5/&do=findComment&comment=8972284

https://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/163223-resistance-is-futile-hm-part-5/&do=findComment&comment=8976656

Sure, I mean this is just from the same thread, now tell me that you don't use twitter. 

I said from *my* Twitter account. You can’t because there isn’t one.

You seem sure that I’m a Twitter user because you apparently don’t understand how embedded links work. I also post links from YouTube as well. Guess what? No YouTube channel.  

Another observation: you seem fond of a form of argumentation that boils down to, “Gee, you sure like to ‘X’ a lot”. I got news for you; that’s not the own you think it is. 

[Pebble thats Stubby]

I Think I can settle this cos really its getting very boring.

 

1.  Deadlines  You do seem to use Twitter a lot or at least a lot of Twitter sources.  This does not mean you have an account but you do read and share tweets.

2.  using links from twitter is irrelevant to the quality of the information contained.  that depends on who orrigonally created the tweet.  and really irrelevent to whatever conversation we were having when this pointless side track happened.

 

3  HOI and Deadline   Please just drop this twitter thing.  you are both straining my will to live.  Thanks

[mormont]

Don't make me repeat myself, folks.

[Pebble thats Stubby]

Is anyone planning on attending the rejoin March in London this Saturday.

 

I'm thinking of going myself but also concerned about Covid being on the rise and not sure I want to be with that many people even if it is outside.

[Heartofice]

7 minutes ago, Pebble thats Stubby said:

Is anyone planning on attending the rejoin March in London this Saturday.

 

I'm thinking of going myself but also concerned about Covid being on the rise and not sure I want to be with that many people even if it is outside.

Maybe the most FBPE post of all time. 

Anyway, in other news Truss has been doing some sort of face saving tour trying to rewrite history to make it seem like it wasn't her fault that she had no idea what she was doing and crashed the economy. 
https://news.sky.com/story/unrepentant-liz-truss-lays-blame-for-economic-woes-elsewhere-but-admits-going-too-far-too-fast-12964261

I feel a little sorry for her, she will be tarred forever, far worse even than Theresa May and Boris, but the shameless balls of her to try and pass the buck is jaw dropping really.

[Derfel Cadarn]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Maybe the most FBPE post of all time. 

Anyway, in other news Truss has been doing some sort of face saving tour trying to rewrite history to make it seem like it wasn't her fault that she had no idea what she was doing and crashed the economy. 
https://news.sky.com/story/unrepentant-liz-truss-lays-blame-for-economic-woes-elsewhere-but-admits-going-too-far-too-fast-12964261

I feel a little sorry for her, she will be tarred forever, far worse even than Theresa May and Boris, but the shameless balls of her to try and pass the buck is jaw dropping really.

She spent time in the US after she quit, and the far right there and here keep telling her how right she was. 

[Pebble thats Stubby]

Due to me working in the indusrty I have to be slightly careful to what I say here on this subject, I will therefore NOT reveal which company I work for.  Some of you may allready know.

Delaying the ban on new Petrol and Deisal only cars from 2030 at this stage is very problematic to say the least.  Both the Torries and Labour where commited to the date so the company I work for (and I guess the others) took this date to plan for their future, Stopped investing in their Petrol and Desiel engines (to make them cleaner and greener and thus meet future targets) and poured all that money into developing Electircs.   This will result in us not being able to make Petrol and Desiel engines to the relevent future EU# standard (assuming that also increases).   It will also result in imported cars from regions of the world (including the EU which has been 2035 about as long as we have been 2030) on a later 0 emmision timescale.

the invstments we have made in this country to produce batteires and electric cars if we can't sell them to the UK market at the rate we expected will cause the close of those factories or less jobs.  And we won't have such a head start on making electic vehicals which would really help us compeate with Europe in the future when they switch.  we still loose the jobs for the petrol and deisil engines currently built in this country as we won't be able to make them to future EU standards.  

all this because the govenment does not want to invest in charging infrasturure and make public charging affordable and accessable to those who can't charge at their home.

 

Plus everyone now has to guess to see if Labour will keep the new date or bring back 2030 after the next election.  this is not the stability companies need to make their future plans.

[mormont]

Yeah, but against all that, there’s a minuscule chance Sunak might get to be Prime Minister for a bit longer. So really you have to consider both sides. 

there literally is nobody and nothing Rishi won’t chuck under a bus, including the economy and the planet.

[The Anti-Targ]

@mormont's post is a good example of why we need to be able to choose more than one reaction.

[Heartofice]

Seems a fair comment. As much as I think Brand is a shit, that he was a creepy sex pest is probably not even debatable, having Caroline Dinenage write from the HoC media committee to a streaming platform telling them to demonetise someone, before due process has even been served, is pretty dodgy. It's on the back of a number of moral judgements handed down by big tech agencies and it's something to watch out for. 

 

[mormont]

All true, except:

- Dinenage did not tell anyone to do anything. She noted that YouTube had demonetised Brand and asked other streaming platforms if they would be doing the same, fair enough with an implication that they should, but it was not 'telling' them to.

- due process doesn't actually have to be served first. That's a legal process, and entirely separate.

- it's not really a moral judgement, it's a PR and financial decision.

- tech companies are perfectly entitled to take moral judgements anyway and indeed we often exhort them to when it suits us.

 

I think it was a bit of bandwagon jumping and Dinenage shouldn't have done it, but it's a silly, inconsequential side story to this affair and not a harbinger of sinister things to come.

I would regard the characterisation of the allegations about Brand as 'antics' as being the more worrying part of that clip tbqh. It's not great when we downplay this sort of behaviour as if he'd been popping balloons behind someone.

 

ETA - 'more worrying' probably sounds stronger than I mean. But the point is, if you're a person who's been sexually assaulted, seeing it described in those terms is not going to be pleasant.

Edited September 22, 2023 by mormont

[Heartofice]

9 minutes ago, mormont said:

- Dinenage did not tell anyone to do anything. She noted that YouTube had demonetised Brand and asked other streaming platforms if they would be doing the same, fair enough with an implication that they should, but it was not 'telling' them to.

I that is either deliberately or non deliberately naive. A government department ‘just asking questions’ should be taken as an implicit threat, otherwise why even ask the question. 
 

Im not sure I agree that tech companies should be able to make those sort of moral judgments actually and it speaks the level of power that has been entrusted to these platforms that they can arbitrarily make these decisions.

Had Brand broken terms of service then it would seem perfectly legitimate to take down his content. But simply being accused of something shouldn’t be enough for a company to refuse a service to someone. They are making the judgment as to someone’s guilt, not a court.

[mormont]

Again, tech companies (like all companies) make moral judgements all the time and we mostly applaud or don't care. Asking companies not to make moral judgements at all isn't practical or desirable.

Their relative level of power is only an issue to the extent that they aren't accountable, and that's a whole different problem.

YouTube suspended Brand's monetisation because he did break the terms of service for creators. And I hate to say this, but your employer, your university (if you're a student), your suppliers, any company you associate with are entitled to reach conclusions about whether they want to associate with you in the absence of a court decision about your guilt: and they'll usually do so on a lower standard of proof than a court would, and considering things that aren't relevant in court. This is all perfectly legal and normal. it happens every day, in fact.