UK government irate at Twitter’s surveillance API crackdown
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
I keep seeing stories build on just bullshit. The BBC will say "And what about housing Mrs May" and she will say "My government has created a white paper...... and councils are pissed about planning permission....."
There is no answer. Over and over and over again. There is no point in the BBC reporter existing, no point in anyone's time being wasted. Just report nothing.
Giving Governments access to public data has totally changed the dynamics of politics and the public is losing everything as a result.
Government just fabricates an internal memo leak, waits 12 hours to get some data back on public opinion and then depending on that, will deny it, or will go ahead.
Time and time again you see this. Our old Chancellor had no experience with finance, and during his term, it was found that he had dodged tax.... the day after he had given a statement that he was serious about tax evasion. Then, something about an old Veteran having cake was the main story that day across the whole media board. Forgotten.
David Cameron said one evening after a COBRA meeting "Lets send dogs, and fences to Calais to stop the swarm of immigrants" - That got bad data results, so by 6am the next morning he adapted it to "We will take 10000 and send aid". By 9am, it was all forgotten.
What is happening?? Where is reality?? Is no one responsible for anything any more?? Is this a result of the fragmentation of media outlets?? Like, I grew up with 4 channels. Now I don't want TV. Therefor there is no cross reference at all. You can say what you want and like 10% of the populace will hear it. That means government has never had it so easy.
As a Brit, I can only echo your frustration. With the upcoming election...we're still pretending it matters.
The proponents (sitting parties) call it first-past-the-post, to make it sound like a fair system.
But most people know that proportional voting systems are better.
With a two party system there will always be debate, but it won't be as real as it is with proportional voting. The parties run no real risk of not getting elected. It also drives the two parties to each side of the 'spectrum', which isn't very constructive.
Take a look at these lists[1][2], see any pattern in which countries are using which system?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation#Li...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting#Lis...
The people voted No overwhelmingly (68% No, 32% Yes).
As with the Brexit referendum, those that lost complained afterward that the public was mislead, weren't given appropriate choices in the election etc.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vot...
Interesting map, hadn't seen it before. The only ares where Yes won was Cambridge, Oxford and a few parts of central London/Glasgow/Edinburgh.
And they weren't wrong. The problem unfortunately is that the public, as a whole, just doesn't care.
They'd rather a comfortable, self-affirming, lie than an uncomfortable, intellectually challenging, truth.
Result: no-one cared. It was never about truth, it was about emotion
The only problem I can see with Corbyn is that he hasn't spoken up over things like the Investigatory Powers Act, Brexit and (bad) education reforms. I like his policies but I do not like his inaction over things important to me, so I cannot support him.
I'll never vote Tory though. Never in my life.
https://samkriss.com/2017/04/24/corbynism-or-barbarism-part-...
That said if I was to vote Labour it means I have to vote for Angela Eagle as my local MP, who I absolutely cannot stand. She didn't just remain silent on the issues I mentioned, she actively supported them and represents the Blairite right-wing of Labour that disenfracnhised its traditional supporter base in the first place.
That's essentially what a ballot paper is, except the questionnaire is "Which political party have the Red-top or Black-top newspapers convinced you to vote for?" - and I think history demonstrates that a population cannot reliably vote for their own best-interests - so expecting them to produce reliable aggregate data through mass surveys - with which to make major decisions, is foolish.
Most of our politicians know precisely fuck all about the cabinet offices they inhabit.
Meanwhile, Hunt, the culture secretary for the Olympics did such a great job that he is now the Health Secretary.
I would rather get a 1% tax increase, and pay for real people, a real NHS manager with 50 years, and pay him for his insight than pay these fucking plebs to poke around in their careers.
Take the TPP for example. Is it a good idea? Is it bad? I haven't read it, and even if I did, I probably wouldn't know either way. Even if I could vote on it directly, I'd have to trust someone to explain it to me. And how would I know which explanation to trust? It seems that we're back to square one.
Edit: that isn't "regressive" as leftists confusingly redefine it, it's the dictionary definition. Might be important to note in a political comment.
Because it's mainstream press. It engineers the very reaction and emotions you're experiencing now. It is designed to generate anger and outrage. Keep this in mind when you look at a piece of the media the next time. You cannot overlook it anymore. Omission of facts, outrageous titles, going on without getting to the point, it is all just psychological games.
You know who actually publicly uses Twitter?
Political activists.
I agree that it'll mostly be abused by government, but knowing what people are planning can be helpful. Right now there are groups of people coordinating a street battle in Berkeley over social media. Giving local police insight into the groups is almost certainly a benefit, assuming the police act to keep the peace.
I'd argue that any minute amount of good that comes from this is by far and away out balanced by the abuse of those with access (and in the UK there is a tendency for creeping escalation with such powers) and the violation of privacy of innocent people.
They act to maintain the status quo.
If you use an online service, you should just assume that whatever the company can access, the country the service is based in and their intelligence partners can also access.
Indeed. That role is to tell the government to GFTS until they have a warrant in hand.