About the Author
please enter your email address on this page.
First they will say that the thing they don’t want you doing is dangerous to you. When you tell them it isn’t or that you don’t care, they will tell you it is dangerous to others. When you demonstrate that it isn’t dangerous to others, they will tell you that it’s bad for “society.” They will offer exactly no evidence for any of their claims because, in their eyes, moral superiority is its own evidence. But your evidence they will subject to the highest scrutiny before dismissing it out of hand.
(I have probably been guilty of this. Worth keeping in mind.)
The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) also voiced concern.
“Facebook’s failure to remove illegal content from its website is appalling and violates the agreements they have in place to protect children,” said a spokeswoman.
“It also raises the question of what content they consider to be inappropriate and dangerous to children.”
The BBC first asked Facebook for an interview about its moderation system in late-2015, and repeated the request following this follow-up investigation.
The social network’s director of policy Simon Milner agreed to be interviewed last week, on condition the BBC provided examples of the material that it had reported, but had not been removed by moderators.
The BBC did so, but was reported to the UK’s National Crime Agency as a consequence.
This story is almost comical.
I can't stop watching this gif. Watch everyone avoid Oklahoma for as long as possible pic.twitter.com/kbFPb9ZHe6
— Comfortably Smug (@ComfortablySmug) March 31, 2017
I have been listening to the works of Harlan Coben lately. On the whole, he’s a great storyteller and his novels are very gripping. My main complaint is that at the end of each standalone novel, he has one last twist that makes things worse rather than better. In two of the three cases, it’s a left-field “you were never going to guess that” sort of thing, which is fine… but one of the reasons you never would have guessed it is that the behavior of the characters prior to the revelation makes less rather than more sense. In one case, it turns out throughout the entire novel the narrator had very pertinent information to the case never affected his thinking throughout. In all three cases, the story would have been better if they’d gone with the penultimate theory of crime (or equivalent).
At a young age, Leslie quickly became a model example of bad parenting combined with mental illness and a complete commitment to drinking, drugs, womanizing and being generally offensive. Leslie enlisted to serve in the Navy, but not so much in a brave & patriotic way but more as part of a plea deal to escape sentencing on criminal charges. While enlisted, Leslie was the Navy boxing champion and went on to sufficiently embarrass his family and country by spending the remainder of his service in the Balboa Mental Health Hospital receiving much needed mental healthcare services.
Sir Humphrey: Unfortunately, although the answer was indeed clear, simple, and straightforward, there is some difficulty in justifiably assigning to it the fourth of the epithets you applied to the statement, inasmuch as the precise correlation between the information you communicated and the facts, insofar as they can be determined and demonstrated, is such as to cause epistemological problems, of sufficient magnitude as to lay upon the logical and semantic resources of the English language a heavier burden than they can reasonably be expected to bear.
Hacker: Epistemological — what are you talking about?
Sir Humphrey: You told a lie.
Hacker: A lie?
Sir Humphrey: A lie.
Hacker: What do you mean, a lie?
Sir Humphrey: I mean you… lied. Yes, I know this is a difficult concept to get across to a politician. You… ah yes, you did not tell the truth.
Hacker: You mean we are bugging Hugh Halifax’s telephones?
Sir Humphrey: We were.
Hacker: We were? When did we stop?
Sir Humphrey: [checks his watch] Seventeen minutes ago.