Future War Cultist wrote:
fething Blair. Don't get me started.

And since we can count on the Supreme Court (one of that scumbags creations) ruling against triggering article 50 without parliaments approval, where do we go from here? This parliament is mostly for remain so there's little chance of them voting to trigger it. I would hope for another general election to clear them out. But, I'm sure there's still plenty of delaying tactics yet to be played.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
How many people have now seen the complete lack of planning by the Brexiteers and the looming economic, political and social problems it has caused and now regret their leave vote?

Ioday’s “Did we do something wrong? No, it was social media” news, Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt has argued that technology companies need to do more to prevent sexting and cyber-bullying.

Hunt, whose job it is to help reduce the teenage suicide rate, argued that the onus for reducing the teenage suicide rate should fall on social media companies such as Facebook and Twitter.

Giving evidence to the Commons Health Committee on suicide prevention, Hunt said: “I think social media companies need to step up to the plate and show us how they can be the solution to the issue of mental ill health amongst teenagers, and not the cause of the problem.”

Pause for screaming and/or tearing out of hair.

Don’t worry though; Hunt wasn’t simply trying to pass the buck, despite the committee suggesting he direct more resources to suicide prevention, as he offered extremely well-thought out technological solutions that are in no way inferior to providing better sex education for children. Here’s a quote-by-quote analysis of just how technologically savvy Hunt is.

***

“I just ask myself the simple question as to why it is that you can’t prevent the texting of sexually explicit images by people under the age of 18…”

Here’s Hunt asking himself a question that he should be asking the actual experts, which is in no way a waste of anybody’s time at all.

“… If that’s a lock that parents choose to put on a mobile phone contract…”

A lock! But of course. But what should we lock, Jeremy? Should teenager’s phones come with a ban on all social media apps, and for good measure, a block on the use of the camera app itself? It’s hard to see how this would lead to the use of dubious applications that have significantly less security than giants such as Facebook and Snapchat. Well done.

“Because there is technology that can identify sexually explicit pictures and prevent it being transmitted.”

Erm, is there? Image recognition technology does exist, but it’s incredibly complex and expensive, and companies often rely on other information (such as URLs, tags, and hashes) to filter out and identify explicit images. In addition, social media sites like Facebook rely on their users to click the button that identifies an image as an abuse of their guidelines, and then have a human team that look through reported images. The technology is simply unable to identify individual and unique images that teenagers take of their own bodies, and the idea of a human team tackling the job is preposterous.

But suppose the technology did exist that could flawlessly scan a picture for fleshy bits and bobs? As a tool to prevent sexting, this still is extremely flawed. What if two teens were trying to message one another Titian’s Venus for art or history class? In September, Facebook itself was forced to U-turn after removing the historical “napalm girl” photo from the site.

As for the second part of Jezza’s suggestion, if you can’t identify it, you can’t block it. Facebook Messenger already blocks you from sending pornographic links, but this again relies on analysis of the URLs rather than the content within them. Other messaging services, such as Whatsapp, offer end-to-end encryption (EE2E), meaning – most likely to Hunt’s chagrin – the messages sent on them are not stored nor easily accessed by the government.

“I ask myself why we can’t identify cyberbullying when it happens on social media platforms by word pattern recognition, and then prevent it happening.”

Jeremy, Jeremy, Jeremy, Jeremy, can’t you spot your problem yet? You’ve got to stop asking yourself!

There is simply no algorithm yet intelligent enough to identify bullying language. Why? Because we call our best mate “dill weed” and our worst enemy “pal”. Human language and meaning is infinitely complex, and scanning for certain words would almost definitely lead to false positives. As Labour MP Thangam Debbonaire famously learned this year, even humans can’t always identify whether language is offensive, so what chance does an algorithm stand?

(Side note: It is also amusing to imagine that Hunt could even begin to keep up with teenage slang in this scenario.)

Many also argue that because social media sites can remove copyrighted files efficiently, they should get better at removing abusive language. This is a flawed argument because it is easy to search for a specific file (copyright holders will often send social media giants hashed files which they can then search for on their databases) whereas (for the reasons outlined above) it is exceptionally difficult for algorithms to accurately identify the true meaning of language.

“I think there are a lot of things where social media companies could put options in their software that could reduce the risks associated with social media, and I do think that is something which they should actively pursue in a way that hasn’t happened to date.”

Leaving aside the fact that social media companies constantly come up with solutions for these problems, Hunt has left us with the burning question of whether any of this is even desirable at all.

Why should he prevent under-18s from sexting when the age of consent in the UK is 16? Where has this sudden moral panic about pornography come from? Are the government laying the ground for mass censorship? If two consenting teenagers want to send each other these aubergine emoji a couple of times a week, why should we stop them? Is it not up to parents, rather than the government, to survey and supervise their children’s online activities? Would education, with all of this in mind, not be the better option? Won't somebody please think of the children?

“There is a lot of evidence that the technology industry, if they put their mind to it, can do really smart things.”

Alas, if only we could say the same for you Mr Hunt.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
How many people have now seen the complete lack of planning by the Brexiteers and the looming economic, political and social problems it has caused and now regret their leave vote?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The legal eagles have already said that it is highly unlikely the European Court would accept a case regarding a member nation's constitutional law, as they have no competency in such a situation.

 Ketara wrote:
That man is unbelievable. Isn't there a convenient airlock somewhere in the House of Commons someone can shove him out of?

The publisher of the Brexit-backing Daily Mail has warned that the vote to leave the EU represents a risk to its business. Daily Mail & General Trust (DMGT), which also prints the Mail on Sunday and Metro newspapers, warned the result of the referendum “could accelerate the decline in print advertising revenue” if the UK economy weakens. Euromoney, which forms part of DMGT’s financial publishing arm, could be impacted by “uncertainty in the financial services sector”, the group added. The company’s property search websites Landmark and SearchFlow could also be affected by “a possible decline in residential and commercial property transactions versus pre-UK referendum volumes,” DMGT warned. Who’s Remoaning now? In a Daily Mail comment article criticising “Bremoaners” published on 11 October, the paper called them “Whingeing. Contemptuous. Unpatriotic”. The newspaper came out in favour of vote Leave two days before the EU referendum, in a front page headline that read: “Lies. Greedy elites. Or a great future outside a broken, dying Europe. If you believe in Britain vote Leave.” The Mail on Sunday backed Remain, warning it was “not the time to risk the peace and prosperity” of the UK. Challenging market conditions DMGT chief executive Paul Zwillenberg said: “DMGT’s results reflect the ongoing resilience of the portfolio through varying market conditions. “Our focus has been on prudent financial and strategic management of DMGT’s diversified portfolio. “We have established clear priorities to improve our operational execution, increase the portfolio’s focus and enhance financial flexibility.”

 reds8n wrote:
https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/business/daily-mail-fears-brexit-will-negatively-affect-newspaper-profits/

The publisher of the Brexit-backing Daily Mail has warned that the vote to leave the EU represents a risk to its business. Daily Mail & General Trust (DMGT), which also prints the Mail on Sunday and Metro newspapers, warned the result of the referendum “could accelerate the decline in print advertising revenue” if the UK economy weakens. Euromoney, which forms part of DMGT’s financial publishing arm, could be impacted by “uncertainty in the financial services sector”, the group added. The company’s property search websites Landmark and SearchFlow could also be affected by “a possible decline in residential and commercial property transactions versus pre-UK referendum volumes,” DMGT warned. Who’s Remoaning now? In a Daily Mail comment article criticising “Bremoaners” published on 11 October, the paper called them “Whingeing. Contemptuous. Unpatriotic”. The newspaper came out in favour of vote Leave two days before the EU referendum, in a front page headline that read: “Lies. Greedy elites. Or a great future outside a broken, dying Europe. If you believe in Britain vote Leave.” The Mail on Sunday backed Remain, warning it was “not the time to risk the peace and prosperity” of the UK. Challenging market conditions DMGT chief executive Paul Zwillenberg said: “DMGT’s results reflect the ongoing resilience of the portfolio through varying market conditions. “Our focus has been on prudent financial and strategic management of DMGT’s diversified portfolio. “We have established clear priorities to improve our operational execution, increase the portfolio’s focus and enhance financial flexibility.”

2016 does not know when to quit.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
How many people who voted to remain only did so out of a fear of taking that difficult first step? And now that world war three hasn't broken out, along with the disgusting refusal by some remainers to accept the result and instead ignore it, would vote to leave if given a second vote?

 Future War Cultist wrote:
How many people who voted to remain only did so out of a fear of taking that difficult first step? And now that world war three hasn't broken out, along with the disgusting refusal by some remainers to accept the result and instead ignore it, would vote to leave if given a second vote?

Herzlos wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
How many people who voted to remain only did so out of a fear of taking that difficult first step? And now that world war three hasn't broken out, along with the disgusting refusal by some remainers to accept the result and instead ignore it, would vote to leave if given a second vote?

How many who voted Leave will have changed their minds after being hit by the weak GBP on their annual Spanish holiday?

Lets face it, no-one involved enough to post on here is going to change their mind, but there are a huge number of waverers on both sides of the line.

 Whirlwind wrote:

In other news this is the sort of person we have in charge of the country...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38165395

What a lovely, petty minded person. Maybe it will be workhouses for immigrant children next!

Herzlos wrote:

I ran a poll on another forum and almost no-one from either side had changed their decision. That's why there's been heated arguments for 6 months that have gotten absolutely no-where

 Graphite wrote:
But would it clear them out? Certainly a lot of pro-brexit folks would vote in UKIP and the like. But how many people are so pro-brexit, with that as their number one issue, that they'll vote on that basis?

How many people were "sort of anti-eu, but it's not really the most important thing in my life" who voted for Leave but would still come back to the Tories/Labour at a GE?

Stranger83 wrote:

I said from the moment Remainers started on the legal challenge to Brexit that they should be careful what they wish for, to date I don't see anything that would change my mind on the idea that if we don't trigger article 50 then we can fully expect either a UKIP government or at least a coalition with UKIP being the majority.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:

I said from the moment Remainers started on the legal challenge to Brexit that they should be careful what they wish for, to date I don't see anything that would change my mind on the idea that if we don't trigger article 50 then we can fully expect either a UKIP government or at least a coalition with UKIP being the majority.

As a Scot that would be an excellent development. For the UK, not so much

 Whirlwind wrote:

We know that about 61% of over 65's voted to leave. Of these about 94% of the approx. 500,000 deaths each year fall into this category. That means each year assuming there is no correlation with Brexit and deaths (there may be if it relates to quality of life vote) then approximately 105,000 more Brexiter's die than Leavers do.

On the other end of the scale ugov and so on polls indicate that 25% of under 25's voted Leave and 75% voted Remain. Approx 600,000 children are born each year so assuming the death rates here are relatively negligible then approximately (450k-150k) 300,000 more people pass 18 each year that are pro-EU.

Hence the difference is that there are approx. 200,000 more pro-EU people in the country each year. But if we assume only 70% vote then that equates to about 140,000 pro-EU voters each year.

With a margin of 1.4 million (assuming no other change) then we can infer that in 10 years the country will be pro-EU.

Given that it will take 3 years at least to Leave the EU then the 'will of the people' to Leave the EU will last just slightly over one term of government.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Did anyone hear Jeremy Vine's show today, with Gina Miller, who was chosen as primary complainant in the constitutional law case about the PM's attempt to declare Article 50 by royal prerogative?

It was a very interesting piece, including the phone-in comments, and Gina Miller presented herself as a clever, diplomatic person who has a good grasp of the issues involved.

One of her most interesting points was that our politicians are responsible for this mess because they lie to us. For example, the Referendum Act specifically says the referendum was advisory, not binding, but ministers and MPs in general have been speaking as though it was. Unsurprisingly, a lot of people have swallowed that whole and now are angry that the law says it won't work that way.

I agree with Ms Miller that we cannot have proper governance of the country if the elected representatives are such useless gaks.

 Graphite wrote:
Simple solution? Stop paying politicians. Then only people who really want to do it will put up with the job. Let their own political parties pay them from donations.

Actually, that started out as a wisecrack but might not be a terrible idea. Obviously needs a lot of refinement. Hmmmm.

In other news, the Liberal Democrats Still Aten't Dead. Very interesting. Only another 300 odd by-elections to go. They'd better start praying for a plague.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If you give up your regular job and put your career at risk to become an MP, you need an income unless you are rich or have the support of rich people.

Current MP salary is about £75,000, plus pension, expenses, subsidised housing and so on. It's not a bad screw, but it's not astonishing. If you do the job properly the hours are unsocial, and the job security is crap because you will have to get re-elected every five years.