registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,540
Likes: 6,334
|
Post by registerme on Jan 14, 2021 22:55:08 GMT
there’s a difference in London, how many CCTV are capable tracking and recognising people in Real time? Who knows? You can try asking GCHQ if they are running any secret programme similar to Optic Nerve but for CCTVs. Reminds me of a story. I worked with a chap who, in a previous job, was employed by a company that did some work for GCHQ. When he asked them where he should send the invoice they said "fax it". When he asked what number he should fax it to they said "it doesn't matter". It still makes me chuckle, and I tend to believe it / him. The fella I worked with couldn't dissemble to save his life.
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,424
Likes: 1,701
|
Post by benaj on Jan 14, 2021 23:13:09 GMT
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,959
Likes: 4,388
|
Post by agent69 on Jan 15, 2021 13:52:01 GMT
This relates to many topics, but I'll post it here as it also relates to the virus.
Some people think I have a downer on students, but that is nothing compared with my loathing of the big social media platforms. Why are these platforms allowed to pump out lies about stop the steal, the pandemic doesn't exist, 5G masts caused the virus and the vaccine contains microchips, pork products and alcohol?
Would it not be simple for the Government to say to the likes of Twitter you must be able to identify anyone who posts on your platform, otherwise we hold you responsible for what has been posted. If I am Pfizer and selling my vaccine for a profit surely I am entitled to have details of anyone making libelous comments about my product, in order that I can take legal action against them?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2021 14:33:58 GMT
In China... and in London. there’s a difference in London, how many CCTV are capable tracking and recognising people in Real time? But China has party cells controlling most street Blocks reporting activity real-time. Very un-nerving to see and similar to the Stasi if more organised. London doesn't have that at all. China also has a restricted internet and state controlled press. Let's not get silly. China is a dictatorship and frankly reasonably competent. UK is lead by Boris.
|
|
Mike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 651
Likes: 446
|
Post by Mike on Jan 15, 2021 14:43:22 GMT
there’s a difference in London, how many CCTV are capable tracking and recognising people in Real time? But China has party cells controlling most street Blocks reporting activity real-time. Very un-nerving to see and similar to the Stasi if more organised. London doesn't have that at all. China also has a restricted internet and state controlled press. Let's not get silly. China is a dictatorship and frankly reasonably competent. UK is lead by Boris. And, the graphic doesn't distinguish between suirveilance cameras operated by the state and those operated by private individuals/companies. Some reports suggests as many as 98% "are operated by the commercial sector." Others put it at more like 90%. One suspects the number of state-linked cameras in Chinese cities would be higher than the <=10% in London...
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,692
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Jan 15, 2021 16:39:13 GMT
This relates to many topics, but I'll post it here as it also relates to the virus.
Some people think I have a downer on students, but that is nothing compared with my loathing of the big social media platforms. Why are these platforms allowed to pump out lies about stop the steal, the pandemic doesn't exist, 5G masts caused the virus and the vaccine contains microchips, pork products and alcohol?
Would it not be simple for the Government to say to the likes of Twitter you must be able to identify anyone who posts on your platform, otherwise we hold you responsible for what has been posted. If I am Pfizer and selling my vaccine for a profit surely I am entitled to have details of anyone making libelous comments about my product, in order that I can take legal action against them?
I think this is such a complicated topic, I wouldn't even profess to knowing what I would want to see happen if given free rein. Here's the Economist trying to work it through just now too. Re: pumping out lies, well Donald lies as easily as he breathes, it does seem almost straightforward that he be stopped, but the article makes a good point in that shutting out Trump from Twitter "Some Democrats cheered, but they should evaluate any new speech regime based on its broader application. Otherwise an act that silenced their enemies last week could become a precedent for silencing them in future"
Fair point. Re: the millions of idiots who unfortunately circulate our daily lives flinging nonsense about, it's a bit different and difficult to know where to draw the line, and again it's putting an awful lot of power/trust in social media platforms themselves. Re: forcing people to use real names, I looked this up, as your point sounded intuitively appealing to me. This article raises some interesting points as to why that shouldn't be enforced e.g. " Using the internet under a pseudonym is mainly being done for protection. It is important that others - our neighbors, our employer, as well as criminals do not know everything we do online. Particularly people who are part of a minority must be able to protect their identity.
If everyone were forced to use their real name, the internet would become a paradise for stalkers, mobbers, and criminals trying to commit identity theft.
Journalism, whistleblowing, activism, all of these would be threatened of becoming impossible when being forced to always use a clear name online"So in sum, I have no idea! It does not seem that there are easy answers here.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,467
Likes: 2,904
|
Post by michaelc on Jan 15, 2021 16:41:31 GMT
there’s a difference in London, how many CCTV are capable tracking and recognising people in Real time? But China has party cells controlling most street Blocks reporting activity real-time. Very un-nerving to see and similar to the Stasi if more organised. London doesn't have that at all. China also has a restricted internet and state controlled press. Let's not get silly. China is a dictatorship and frankly reasonably competent. UK is lead by Boris. It is definitely not a dictatorship and neither it is a democracy. However in practice it shares more of our electoral system than you'd think. Where I live, if I want to influence who becomes an MP I would need to join the Tory party and vote (or indeed stand) internally for candidates. Those candidates are then put to the electorate who vote them in by a huge majority. In theory I could join another party but it would be a waste of time. In China, my understanding is (if it is broadly similar to the old USSR which I know more about), you'd do similar. You'd join the party and then vote or stand internally. As with here, if you are popular you are more likely to get voted in and progress up the party structure. In some ways it is similar to how companies are run although they are even less democratic (perhaps half way to a dictatorship?) - there is no voting other than at board level. Competent employees that are popular are likely to be promoted and may eventually work their way to the "top" - things usually run as a meritocracy. A dictatorship is something quite different. It is centered around one person and is typically not as good as making the right choices as a place like China where those in power should in theory rise through the ranks based on merit.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,467
Likes: 2,904
|
Post by michaelc on Jan 15, 2021 16:51:42 GMT
This relates to many topics, but I'll post it here as it also relates to the virus.
Some people think I have a downer on students, but that is nothing compared with my loathing of the big social media platforms. Why are these platforms allowed to pump out lies about stop the steal, the pandemic doesn't exist, 5G masts caused the virus and the vaccine contains microchips, pork products and alcohol?
Would it not be simple for the Government to say to the likes of Twitter you must be able to identify anyone who posts on your platform, otherwise we hold you responsible for what has been posted. If I am Pfizer and selling my vaccine for a profit surely I am entitled to have details of anyone making libelous comments about my product, in order that I can take legal action against them?
I think this is such a complicated topic, I wouldn't even profess to knowing what I would want to see happen if given free rein. Here's the Economist trying to work it through just now too. Re: pumping out lies, well Donald lies as easily as he breathes, it does seem almost straightforward that he be stopped, but the article makes a good point in that shutting out Trump from Twitter "Some Democrats cheered, but they should evaluate any new speech regime based on its broader application. Otherwise an act that silenced their enemies last week could become a precedent for silencing them in future"
Fair point. Re: the millions of idiots who unfortunately circulate our daily lives flinging nonsense about, it's a bit different and difficult to know where to draw the line, and again it's putting an awful lot of power/trust in social media platforms themselves. Re: forcing people to use real names, I looked this up, as your point sounded intuitively appealing to me. This article raises some interesting points as to why that shouldn't be enforced e.g. " Using the internet under a pseudonym is mainly being done for protection. It is important that others - our neighbors, our employer, as well as criminals do not know everything we do online. Particularly people who are part of a minority must be able to protect their identity.
If everyone were forced to use their real name, the internet would become a paradise for stalkers, mobbers, and criminals trying to commit identity theft.
Journalism, whistleblowing, activism, all of these would be threatened of becoming impossible when being forced to always use a clear name online"So in sum, I have no idea! It does not seem that there are easy answers here. Social media generally allows people who aren't in the same room to discover and communicate with each other. Some want to scan every conversation or interaction the people in the world have for potentially "libellous" commentary. At the end of the day, people are a broad spectrum. You can't legislate against people being, for example, transphobic in their own house. The line in my view is clear and it should be the same as it is consistent with communiction today. So for example, a chat flagged as private, should be able to include most content except things that are illegal today in private conversations such as plotting to enact a crime. When the social media settings are more public, the bar should be higher. If you have 100,000 followers on twitter then what you write should be subject to the same laws as if you'd written it in a publication with 100,000 circulation - typically libel laws would apply. But if you have 100 subscribers and they're mostly your friends, well you could be sued for libel but just as if you'd libelled someone in a wedding invitation sent to your friends only good luck with that.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,233
Likes: 11,424
|
Post by ilmoro on Jan 15, 2021 19:17:13 GMT
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,338
Likes: 2,754
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Jan 15, 2021 20:42:32 GMT
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,959
Likes: 4,388
|
Post by agent69 on Jan 15, 2021 20:54:18 GMT
A league table we should be happy to be top of!
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Jan 16, 2021 10:44:44 GMT
A league table we should be happy to be top of! How close to the top of the other “vaccination” table is GBR on a per capita basis? That’d be the “naturally” acquired antigen triggered immune response aka catching SARS-Cov-2 as opposed to synthetic acquired antigen triggered immune response aka vaccination rollout. With circa 3.3m positive tested cases I’d estimate up to between 6.6m and 10m have had a naturally acquired antigen triggered immune response to date taking into account cases that were never tested. That compares with 3.2m to 13th Jan that have had a first dose vaccination. The MRC BSU (see here) estimate an attack rate of 19% (18% to 20% at 95% CI) for England. Assuming that's valid across UK we get to something like 12.7m infections.... FWIW
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,959
Likes: 4,388
|
Post by agent69 on Jan 16, 2021 10:50:55 GMT
I'll leave you all to form a view on which section of society was responsible.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,678
Likes: 5,041
|
Post by adrianc on Jan 16, 2021 10:53:28 GMT
I'll leave you all to form a view on which section of society was responsible.
The nurse quoted in the article sums it up perfectly... "One word...Idiots"
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2021 11:57:59 GMT
But China has party cells controlling most street Blocks reporting activity real-time. Very un-nerving to see and similar to the Stasi if more organised. London doesn't have that at all. China also has a restricted internet and state controlled press. Let's not get silly. China is a dictatorship and frankly reasonably competent. UK is lead by Boris. It is definitely not a dictatorship and neither it is a democracy. However in practice it shares more of our electoral system than you'd think. Where I live, if I want to influence who becomes an MP I would need to join the Tory party and vote (or indeed stand) internally for candidates. Those candidates are then put to the electorate who vote them in by a huge majority. In theory I could join another party but it would be a waste of time. In China, my understanding is (if it is broadly similar to the old USSR which I know more about), you'd do similar. You'd join the party and then vote or stand internally. As with here, if you are popular you are more likely to get voted in and progress up the party structure. In some ways it is similar to how companies are run although they are even less democratic (perhaps half way to a dictatorship?) - there is no voting other than at board level. Competent employees that are popular are likely to be promoted and may eventually work their way to the "top" - things usually run as a meritocracy. A dictatorship is something quite different. It is centered around one person and is typically not as good as making the right choices as a place like China where those in power should in theory rise through the ranks based on merit. I understand much of this but, but. In the UK, anyone can join any party and any party might be the route to power. In China you are only invited to join only one party, and only that one party is the route to power.
While meritocracy might be what China wants to project, the few members I have met have either not been the brightest tools in the box (probably why I was allowed to meet them), or, they have been princlings (descendants of the long march) who do nothing for their role.
The in the UK, all the adults get to vote on who gets into power In China, a very small self selected group gets to vote on who gets into power.
Dictatorships are seldom about one big man, they are about a gang that agree their boss is everyone's boss. The Chinese Communist Party is a gang, just a big gang.
Politics is all about the mechanism you use to choose your elite
|
|