hypochondriac

Lazy racist stereotype? He's quoting his lyrics you ninny. Considering that a lazy racist stereotype means you would have to engage in the absolute worst type of bad faith reading possible. I know you consider yourself balanced and politically neutral but maybe take a step back and realise that you sound mental and the worst type of faux offended twitter user. Anyone who would pretend to be offended or consider that type of thing an astonishing error of judgement won't be voting Conservative anyway so I doubt he gives a toss anyway.

It's a bit cringe and Michael gove is a bit of a berk but astonishing error of judgement? Come on that's ridiculous.

What are you talking about?

Are you deliberately exaggerating things in an effort to minimise the very real concern that an enormous number of Jews in the UK are feeling about Corbyn potentially becoming Prime Minister? Combined with the Falconer comment, how unfortunate that a deficit of leadership has led to this shameful situation and Jews have my utmost sympathy in this regard. I went to a bat mitzvah a couple of weeks ago with some family friends and the concern they are feeling is very real.

Shadow banning means your post is visible to your account but not to anyone else including your followers so you don't realise its been banned. I'm sure it also happens on Facebook. It's the definition of content suppression.

Repost

Looks like the man charged with investigating antisemitism in the Labour Party considers criticism by the Rabbi to be "justified" yet you were dismissing it on the basis that he made some supportive comments of Boris once. Fair to say his criticism has some validity?

Probably just a raging tory like the Archbishop and the Rabbi.

Maybe we should take a leaf out of the Australian government's book and create a facial recognition database for those who wabt to access any content that isn't for children: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/10/31/australian-government-proposes-facial-recognition-system-verify/ Nothing dystopian about that at all!

To be fair, not sure about Facebook but it's provable on twitter- and as I said they've admitted to doing it. If you look at metrics and engagements of tweets and a popular account on twitter has so many hundreds of engagements and comments for every tweet and then suddenly has a big dip for a particular tweet then it's pretty clearly been surpressed or shadow banned.

That definitely happens and shadow banning on twitter for example is used routinely (and they have them on camera admitting it.)

Yep and it's a concern when companies become so big that they become akin to the public square. If you get kicked off twitter, YouTube and Facebook then essentially you've become unpersoned and much harder to communicate with and that should be a cause for concern for everyone if they value freedom of speech and the free exchange of ideas.

Unfortunately there are aggressive idiots on all sides of the political spectrum who make fools of themselves. Take this guy for instance: "Go to a White Country." Hmm... Good of the campaigner filming to stay so composed.

"Deal with the issues, don't deflect" says the poster who literally just ignored the words of the chief Rabbi and the Archbishop of Canterbury by suggesting they are Tory stooges. Maybe try and practice what you preach a bit and you'd earn a bit more respect.

In conclusion, it's easy to wag your finger about naughty words said on the Internet but I'm yet to hear from anyone an idea for how to moderate information that doesn't lead to mass censorship and an unprecedented amount of power being handed to either tech companies or governments.

What standards would these companies use to moderate content? Are you suggesting that a social media company should be banned if it fails to recognise a user in Manchester using a Vpn to appear as if they are in texas and then writing something racist? How could they possibly manage that?

That's a non-answer. In reality we know that even with billions in revenue it is currently impossible to manually review the amount of content on something like twitter and remove content deemed hateful in the almost immediate timeframe that some are asking for. The easiest and cheapest way to do this is to use machine learning and bots to do the moderation for them rather than employing thousands of employees solely to moderate twitter content. Machine learning will obviously include the in-built biases of the programmers who created them and will by design be overly cautious to prevent trouble for the big tech companies. So you're saying you want to hand big tech the power to decide what is and isn't acceptable across different countries and the power to use bots and machine learning to go on a mass censorship drive? Sounds awful.

If those on the hard left like Morning Star support Corbyn, does that make him hard left? Just wondering.

Additionally, TV and print is relatively easy to control. You aren't dealing with anything like the same volume of content. If you want immediate or extremely quick removal of content deemed hateful as some countries are calling for then inevitably you're calling for machine learning and bots and all the in built bias and lack of context this method provides.

Except that BBC1 is broadcast and regulated in Britain. How could regulating Facebook work in the same way? If there are more lax laws in America for example what would prevent someone setting up a vpn pretending they are from Florida and then sending out so called "hate speech" to their hearts content.

Behold the floating voter everyone!

But that would be the case whoever was in power so its a bit pointless to use it as a stick to beat the tories with just because they happen to be the ones who have most recently held power. That's the case for whichever party is in government.

He certainly means don't vote for corbyn.

It's not a "fake" story, it's an overly exagerrated pr piece released to friendly journalists to make the club look better. It's a fairly standard pr tactic and it's one we have employed on a number of occasions. It's very clear that it's worked too, many fans are more satisfied simply by the talk of ambitions and exciting signings even if ultimately they don't come off. When we ended up not signing promes for example we got weeks of mileage out of that story and undoubtedly fans were less critical than they would have been had there been radio silence from the club at the time. Do you think its a coincidence that immediately following a massive defeat the Telegraph suddenly invents a positive news story? And what that does is gives the fans somethibg else to talk about and speculate on something that may happen a few months in the future rather than ruminate for too long on the defeat itself. Immediately following the Leicester loss, the club told those working in marketing not to release anything through the clubs official channels over the rest of that weekend, knowing there would be a lot of backlash and they got the newspaper piece out to allow that to do the talking for them and yes I know that happened because I spoke to some people who were given those instructions. Maybe you could say why you consider this sort of thing unlikely for the club to do? As I, said, you clearly haven't had a lot of experience with how PR works if you don't think that carefully planted positive news stories aren't utilised to influence fan opinions and quieten discontent even if only for a period of time.

Believe what you want. I know for certain that one tactic from club pr is to feed things to the telegraph to quell fan disgruntlement. It's a tactic which worked under pellegrino, it worked in the January window with reports about Walcott and promes and its worked now after the 9-0. We have specific scenarios for what to do after a heavy defeat for example or after a prolonged period of bad form or just before a transfer window opens. One of the things involved were those cringey interviews we used to do with krueger and planting unattributed stories with contacts in the media is another tactic. I'm not saying we aren't looking to recruit some more leadership at the club, but this article has quite transparently been released by sources at the club to demonstrate that they are in control in the immediate aftermath of a heavy defeat and they will have exagerrated some areas to make themselves look good. If you think its stuff all invented by the papers then you clearly have very little experience in this area.