Young men and boys fuelled by “strongly misogynistic” online material are hunting for vulnerable women and girls to exploit on websites such as eating disorder and suicide forums, senior officers have said.
The threat from young males wanting to carry out serious harm is so serious that counter-terrorism officers are joining the National Crime Agency (NCA) in the hunt for them, fearing they could go on to attack or kill.
Britain’s head of counter-terrorism, Matt Jukes, told the Guardian that a joint taskforce would be set up between his force and the NCA to tackle those fixated with violence online, in what he called a “decisive moment”.
Jukes, the Metropolitan police force’s assistant commissioner for specialist operations, said the new pairing would look for those consuming online material about killings or sexual abuse. Those who might go on to plot school shootings and other mass attacks, as well as those who encouraged women and girls to harm themselves, would also fall under their remit.
This is why certain people shouldn’t have a platform to speak on. Social media is one of the worst things we’ve invented…
Yes, let’s start with people calling for censorship, like you.
(You certainly have a high opinion of the thing you’re posting on.)
Yes we should have some sort of censorship. The vast, vast majority of people understand and see the bullshit these people are peddling. But some don’t, and that ends up hurting innocent people. Why the fuck would you argue we should facilitate behaviour like this? https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/online-groups-pressuring-youth-self-harm-1.7107885
Giving me that libertarian vibe of wanting to be fiercely independent of the thing they rely on for survival.
To clarify, this comment is agreeing with whom it is a direct reply of and commenting on the poster they are replying to.
What does the word libertarian mean to you?
Are you thinking of right or left libertarian, the most well known is right libertarianism? Or are you thinking of what America means is libertarianism, because that’s something COMPLETELY different than what the rest of the world thinks. We do not have the same cultural inheritance, and what you think of as libertarianism isn’t exactly what others think of it as.
If we have a form of “true-libertarian” it’s basically the idiots driving around claiming to be a sovereign citizen. To me the comment you replied to doesn’t really give that vibe. He seems more of a “Yes, we need government intervention to prevent extreme negative outcome”. That doesn’t really match with a the simplified way you portray “libertarian”.
To clarify I meant schnirittos was giving the libertarian vibes of immediately calling any amount of curation or harm reduction via removal on social media sites a blanket ‘censorship bad slipery slope boogie woogie.’ And was agreeing with whom I directly replied to.
Schnirittos’ (I know I’m getting it wrong but i just can’t be bothered to go check for a third time I’m sorry) comment, I think, exemplifies(in part) the American-bastardized version of libertarianism you describe.
Aaaah, that makes more sense! Thanks for clarifying my guy!
Np, appreciate the acknowledgment.
It’s not censorship, it’s curation.
Now we’ve got rapists, predators and misogynists telling young boys how the world works. Trying to isolate them from society to make money off of them. To make it easier, it’s like gambling: it influences underdeveloped brains much more than developed brains. That’s why there’s an age limit, just like with alcohol.
What the actual fuck.
Many boys are naturally disgusting. Some grow out of it, others double down and drag future generations even further down with them.
Remember anyone can grow up to be the president
Just absolutely insane. Like what the actual fuck.
Fucken internet
Corporate owned, profit driven, algorithm powered social media*
If you think this shit can’t happen here, boy will you be surprised…
It’s happening everywhere. Stop collection, agregation and sale of data and promote the decentralized alternatives. To preserve democracy and stem the spread of dis- and misinformation as well as limit billionares influence on public opinion.
Essentially; make social media not profitable and less useful as propaganda platforms.
As someone who would be without a job without the internet, I truly believe we would be better off if the whole thing went away entirely.
I agree and it sucks. At the start of the internet, I was convinced that it was humanity’s single greatest accomplishment: near instantaneous worldwide communication between every human was possible. Access to all of our collective knowledge and intelligence at everyone’s fingertips.
Then we discovered what that actually meant, practically. Either all of our collective knowledge amounts to💩 or we’ll let the greedy scum just latch onto it like everything else and turn it into shit for their personal profit.
I felt the same way when I first got online in the mid-90s. I thought it was gonna bring all people together. Seems pretty quaint at this point!
Things are obviously pretty bad right now but for me the jury’s still out. It could be really good a hundred years from now!
Same here. My job depends on it, and wikipedia is one of my favorite places.
Yet so much terrible stuff has happened because of it.
I would argue ( happy to be countered argued and if proof can be given who knows you might even change my mind) that conservatism is the reason for the rise toxic masculinity, ergo the right is a toxic thing to embrace? change my mind.
That’s not really something that can be tested with a scientific experiment.
You can prove this with studies. Whether one has been done or not is another case entirely, but I remain steadfast imo that the right is a breeding ground for toxic masculinity.
you don’t test soft sciences that way
The recent TV show Adolescence is a good watch related to this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolescence_(TV_series)
That was a crazy watch. Stephen Graham was incredible as the father.
And the government is just using this as an excuse to slowly expand what falls under the terrorism legislation, until everything’s terrorism and the rule of law is completely undermined.
Like, yea this is a thing to be concerned about in general, but this/here is not it my guy…
I take it you’re not a girl or woman then.
It’s a crime and terrible, but it’s not terrorism (ie. Violence for political ends). Terrorism laws allow the government to do all kinds of stuff like searches without warrants and extended pre-trial detention. It’s good that they’re taking these crimes seriously, but the terrorism units should stay far away from this (and should be abolished entirely, ideally).
And go after the influencers for incitement of crimes. If what Andrew Tate and others are publishing is causing people to do this, they should be locked up.
This falls directly under current UK terrorism laws.
If you have proof otherwise I’d be interested in seeing it.
The Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism, both in and outside of the UK, as the use or threat of one or more of the actions listed below, and where they are designed to influence the government, or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public. The use or threat must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.
The specific actions included are:
- serious violence against a person;
- serious damage to property;
- endangering a person’s life (other than that of the person committing the action);
- creating a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public; and action designed to seriously interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system. Source
What “political, religious, racial or ideological cause” is this advancing?
Ideological … misogynism, girls and women are less valuable than men, men must have power over women, etc etc
Is this the… 764 Cult or another one?
