hypochondriac

I didn't mention your personality.

You sound unhinged.

No Broja? I'd have had him in if no Adams. I suppose Redmond has been training all week so the logic is maybe he is fresher and knows what's required.

Personally I think that slogan was idiotic and as you correctly state it was a gross figure anyway. It didn't influence my vote in the slightest though.

I think some of the issue I have personally is that some symbols like certain versions of the rainbow flag are actually quite controversial and political. That means it's not just a case of waving everything through for the sake of diversity, plenty of people are 100% on board with acceptance for people and freedom to live without abuse but are vehemently opposed to the other bits that go with some of it. Stonewall for example are now opposed by their founder and their insidious nature for some of their modern activities have been revealed as their champions program is falling apart.

I have mixed feelings about this sort of thing and it depends what was actually done. I want politicians to react in the early stages of a totally unprecedented situation in the way they think is best and I accept that mistakes may occur. The suspicion I had as this situation unfolded was that politicians started acting with one eye on the inevitable investigation at the conclusion. That seems like a bad thing to me.

OK so a separate point to the one I was making then? Sure I agree with you, lots of weird anti vax people spreading stupid rumours about covid. I got my jab the second it was available and moved on with my life. Everyone should use their brains and do the same thing.

I'm a bit confused. Why are you mentioning anti vac djs dying?

I hope not considering we didn't win anything.

It was fake news.

Her career was ruined by injuries and she retired for the first time at 22.

Last final with two teenagers was Williams against Hingis...

Maybe but I didn't like the lack of balance from the evidence that I saw. It was just a load of people on one side of an issue hammering social media and demanding regulation of things even if they weren't illegal. This bill is an absolute nightmare for freedom of expression and more needs to be made of the implications of just allowing social media companies to decide what is acceptable and unacceptable to discuss online. I expect if there really is this heavy censorship in the UK that what will happen is that there will either be a load of smaller social media companies that pop up for uncensored speech or vpn use will just go way up. Some may argue that that's good enough because it will present enough of an obstacle to stop the worst offenders but I would say its a slippery slope. You'll be getting digital rights holders demanding the removal or media from search engines next and then the end of fair use. What this leads to is control of the majority of Internet to a tiny number of largely "woke" and companies who will decide for everyone else what is acceptable to do online and I don't think that's a good thing at all even if the intention to reduce racist comments on twitter is understandable.

Thanks for the considered reply and I agree our conversation was a lot more productive than other people who were just hurling abuse. I totally understand why someone like Ferdinand would be upset by some of the abuse he has received online. My problem is that he's probably not the best person to be recommending policies given his clearly very personal experience of being on the receiving end of this stuff. What I consider to be of vital importance is that we don't charge through a load of laws on the pretext of "ending racism online" or protecting children and then find out that its actually all a massive overreach which effectively ends any lively discourse on social media. I listened to a Graham linehan podcast this week and he made the point that he doesn't believe that humans have evolved to be able to handle the Internet sufficiently. I'd be inclined to agree with him.

I'm sure Turkish can speak for himself but I'd be interested to know what conversation you had a few days ago that led you to believe he considered racism acceptable because I haven't seen any evidence of that. If you get time later it would be helpful if you tried to explain which part you feel I "haven't digested" because otherwise it just looks like you're being intentionally vague in order to dismiss what I was saying.

You asked Turkish if he considered racist abuse acceptable. My answer was that I don't know why you'd ask that as no one has ever claimed that it is. Not sure why you think that means I haven't read or digested what you posted?

Thanks but I wasn't talking to you. Who said it was right? What I've said consistently is that it's not a football problem it's a social media facilitating abuse against high profile figures problem. Just because the media has decided to focus on it recently and in relation to footballers specifically doesn't change that.

We are going in circles I think because I don't think anyone has been accepting that?

Yes you've already done the bit where you avoid my questions by pretending I'm angry and that I need therapy. It's getting old. I'll try again. What does the size of a population have to do with if someone is racist or not?

I think you need to recognise that social media abuse is its own separate thing with distinct motivations, that happens to almost everyone with a profile online. Social media abuse occurs because its quick and easy to fire off anonymous messages to people. That means threats of violence, rape threats, sexist abuse, homophobia and all manner of awful stuff. As someone said earlier its the convenience and the speed that encourages this stuff which is one of the biggest issues rather than everyone still being as racist as decades ago just moving it all online. I genuinely find it quite astonishing that you don't think racism has improved from fourty years ago.

I mean it literally is getting better all the time. Social attitude surveys show how much better its gotten in only the last decade or two. No one said that racism is acceptable, just that's its absolutely absurd to try to pretend that we are heading towards the levels of racism seen in the 70s and 80s. That's clearly ridiculous.

I have twitter but I have disabled alerts so I only have a look when I feel like it. I have Facebook but I only ever use that for posting photos for family members who live far away. Personally I think a lot of the issues are to do with social media but giving the keys to the kingdom to the social media companies isn't the answer.

In what way is racism rising to the levels of the 70s and 80s?

That's what I was saying earlier. It's a generational thing and many of the younger generation love the majority of their lives on social media and it dominates their lives to a greater degree than real life does.

The absolutely huge difference between copyrighted material and abusive comments is a distinct digital footprint present for the majority of copyrighted material. That's not comporable to any number of abusive or racist comments that could be presented in any number of ways. Social media companies have no way to manually monitor posts in real time so will inevitably use AI and machine learning and it will be a safety first approach in case they miss anything. Posts will be divorced of any context and there will be mass deletions with any hint of controversy.