Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

Sleeper issue in 2017 was about banning sale of ivory products (including antiques):
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41664570

[The Larch]

Sleeper issue in 2017 was about banning sale of ivory products (including antiques):
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41664570

And what embarrassing and completely detached from reality thing did Rees-Mogg say about that?

[Sheilbh]

Nothing.

His comments on Grenfell are the first thing (apparently) taking off on Facebook. Last election the huge Facebook stories in the election were fox hunting and the ivory trade. Both were very harmful for the Tories. It's not good news for them that the first Facebook story of the election is one of the more privileged looking members of the cabinet seeming to blame the Grenfell victims for their own deaths.

Stormzy has now waded in and called Rees-Mogg an "actual piece of shit" for these comments which will escalate the story.

And again in the weirdness of the Tories calling this election. Every other party has launched their campaign, every other party leader has got their message out and Johnson's done nothing. It's baffling, early days, but weird given that they wanted the election. I wonder if it's maybe that there's divisions of who's responsible, what the strategy should be etc?

[Agelastus]

Sleeper issue in 2017 was about banning sale of ivory products (including antiques):
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41664570

Oh, yes...I've been trying to forget that that nonsense that won't save a single elephant passed.

A challenge in the High Court against it failed today as well.

[Josquius]

This is pretty horrific. How can it be legal. Its just a few more steps till deep fakes are the norm

https://mobile.twitter.com/BBCDanielS/status/1191732381306277890?s=19

[Zoupa]

I thought twitter had banned political ads?

[Barrister]

I thought twitter had banned political ads?

People, including politicians, can still post whatever they want, including ads.

Twitter banned paid-for political advertising.

[crazy canuck]

I thought twitter had banned political ads?

What a wonderful world that would be

But here is the reality

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/31/opinion/aaron-sorkin-mark-zuckerberg-facebook.html?searchResultPosition=1

an excerpt of which reads:

It was hard not to feel the irony while I was reading excerpts from your recent speech at Georgetown University, in which you defended — on free speech grounds — Facebook's practice of posting demonstrably false ads from political candidates. I admire your deep belief in free speech. I get a lot of use out of the First Amendment. Most important, it's a bedrock of our democracy and it needs to be kept strong.

But this can't possibly be the outcome you and I want, to have crazy lies pumped into the water supply that corrupt the most important decisions we make together. Lies that have a very real and incredibly dangerous effect on our elections and our lives and our children's lives.

Don't say Larry Flynt. Not even Larry Flynt would say Larry Flynt. This isn't the same as pornography, which people don't rely upon for information. Last year, over 40 percent of Americans said they got news from Facebook. Of course the problem could be solved by those people going to a different news source, or you could decide to make Facebook a reliable source of public information.

The tagline on the artwork for "The Social Network" read, in 2010, "You don't get to 500 million friends without making a few enemies." That number sounds quaint just nine years later because one-third of the planet uses your website now.

And right now, on your website, is an ad claiming that Joe Biden gave the Ukrainian attorney general a billion dollars not to investigate his son. Every square inch of that is a lie and it's under your logo. That's not defending free speech, Mark, that's assaulting truth.

[Syt]

I thought twitter had banned political ads?

What a wonderful world that would be

But here is the reality

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/31/opinion/aaron-sorkin-mark-zuckerberg-facebook.html?searchResultPosition=1

an excerpt of which reads:

It was hard not to feel the irony while I was reading excerpts from your recent speech at Georgetown University, in which you defended — on free speech grounds — Facebook's practice of posting demonstrably false ads from political candidates. I admire your deep belief in free speech. I get a lot of use out of the First Amendment. Most important, it's a bedrock of our democracy and it needs to be kept strong.

But this can't possibly be the outcome you and I want, to have crazy lies pumped into the water supply that corrupt the most important decisions we make together. Lies that have a very real and incredibly dangerous effect on our elections and our lives and our children's lives.

Don't say Larry Flynt. Not even Larry Flynt would say Larry Flynt. This isn't the same as pornography, which people don't rely upon for information. Last year, over 40 percent of Americans said they got news from Facebook. Of course the problem could be solved by those people going to a different news source, or you could decide to make Facebook a reliable source of public information.

The tagline on the artwork for "The Social Network" read, in 2010, "You don't get to 500 million friends without making a few enemies." That number sounds quaint just nine years later because one-third of the planet uses your website now.

And right now, on your website, is an ad claiming that Joe Biden gave the Ukrainian attorney general a billion dollars not to investigate his son. Every square inch of that is a lie and it's under your logo. That's not defending free speech, Mark, that's assaulting truth.

But that's Facebook, not Twitter.

[crazy canuck]

Ah, thanks, got that confused.  My apologies.

[Valmy]

I thought twitter had banned political ads?

People, including politicians, can still post whatever they want, including ads.

Twitter banned paid-for political advertising.

So you can post lies and propaganda but only your followers will see it....theoretically.

[The Brain]

But this can't possibly be the outcome you and I want, to have crazy lies pumped into the water supply that corrupt the most important decisions we make together. Lies that have a very real and incredibly dangerous effect on our elections and our lives and our children's lives.

Lies have always been a mainstay of political propaganda, which may be a bit sad but it's also an important part of freedom. I vastly prefer a society that doesn't have a Ministry of Truth approach to speech. There are entire political ideologies based on lies, and denying them a voice is not the way forward IMHO. If you don't care for the lies being told then by all means counter with truthful propaganda, but don't try to ban the other kid's toys.

[Tamas]

But this can't possibly be the outcome you and I want, to have crazy lies pumped into the water supply that corrupt the most important decisions we make together. Lies that have a very real and incredibly dangerous effect on our elections and our lives and our children's lives.

Lies have always been a mainstay of political propaganda, which may be a bit sad but it's also an important part of freedom. I vastly prefer a society that doesn't have a Ministry of Truth approach to speech. There are entire political ideologies based on lies, and denying them a voice is not the way forward IMHO. If you don't care for the lies being told then by all means counter with truthful propaganda, but don't try to ban the other kid's toys.

This

[Sheilbh]

Yes, for a man who tries to portray an image of wit, erudition and urbanity (in an old-fashioned way) he has a definite tendency to put his foot in it.

Yes. And I do have an issue about a cabinet minister commenting on this basis: "the more one's read over the weekend about the report". He could read the report.

I doubt his clarification has helped either as there's good reasons for the "stay in place" advice and people who live in tower blocks who weren't aware of it before are probably aware of it now because of Grenfell leading them to look more carefully at their own residence's fire precautions.

Yeah it's not always suitable, but generally is and this isn't that bright.

And I'm not sure this interview with Andrew Bridgen has helped

Labour have heavily criticised the Commons leader, Jacob Rees-Mogg, as well as his Tory colleague Andrew Bridgen, over their comments on the Grenfell Tower disaster.

Earlier today, Rees-Mogg said it would have been "common sense" for people living in Grenfell Tower to have ignored the fire brigade and to have left the building once the fire started. He later apologised (see 2.08pm).

This evening, Bridgen has told BBC Radio 4's PM programme:

Jacob is a good friend of mine and he's an extremely intelligent and compassionate human being and his comments regarding Grenfell were uncharacteristically clumsy.

But I think we have to put them in the context of Jacob, I mean, Jacob is a leader; he is an authority figure. And what he has failed to realise is that, in a life-threatening and stressful situation, most people – most of the public – will probably defer to the advice of an authority figure – be that someone from the fire authority or the police – and not come to their own conclusions.

And, as we know with regard to Grenfell, that advice was flawed.

Bridgen said he believed Rees-Mogg meant he would not have stayed put were he caught up in the disaster – even if told to do so by firefighters.

The interviewer, Evan Davis, put it to him that that was, in fact, central to people's objections, adding that Rees-Mogg was, in effect, saying he would not have died because he would have been cleverer than those who took the fire brigade's advice.

After a lengthy pause and a sigh, Bridgen replied:

But we want very clever people running the country, don't we Evan? That's a by-product of what Jacob is an that's why he's in a position of authority. What he's actually saying is that he would have made a better decision than the authority figures who gave that advice.

But I can assure you there's absolutely no malice and no... I mean, he's one of the most compassionate and thoughtful politicians we've got.

Bridgen agreed that Rees-Mogg "lives in a different world" to those who lived in Grenfell Tower and, therefore, finds it difficult to empathise; adding that he is not alone among politicians and people who work in the media in that respect.

Listening to the clip is actually worse

Also in why this feels like 2017 report by Sky correspondent of one Cabinet Minister noting that they've knocked on hundreds of doors since the election was called and no-one's brought up Brexit.

I'm clearly not the only getting those vibes:

[Sheilbh]

But this can't possibly be the outcome you and I want, to have crazy lies pumped into the water supply that corrupt the most important decisions we make together. Lies that have a very real and incredibly dangerous effect on our elections and our lives and our children's lives.

Lies have always been a mainstay of political propaganda, which may be a bit sad but it's also an important part of freedom. I vastly prefer a society that doesn't have a Ministry of Truth approach to speech. There are entire political ideologies based on lies, and denying them a voice is not the way forward IMHO. If you don't care for the lies being told then by all means counter with truthful propaganda, but don't try to ban the other kid's toys.

This

Isn't the difference with Facebook and what makes it more of an issue that it allows you to perfectly target your lies? And I understand they're moving away from this, but if you do target people on Facebook with that type of advertising only you (the transmitter) and them (the recipients) actually see it. This is why a lot of the Vote Leave advertising (e.g. the donkey welfare ones) weren't known about during the campaign.

Which creates an issue because a broadcast lie, across a network, even targeting a large group of people can be countered. That is more difficult if the liar has tailored their message for x micro-group.

Similarly if the black-box advertising still goes on (and I think only seeing stuff from people you know/follow would intensify this) is really difficult to counter, because you don't know it exists.

Edit: Eg it wasn't donkey welfare but these two were micro-targeted to an "animal lover" segment of Facebook plus, probably some other interests. They only came out in July 2018 when Facebook released them to the House of Commons: