Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Monday May 27 2019, @12:26AM   Printer-friendly
from the the-real-fake-news dept.

BBC:

Facebook is under fire in Africa for undermining democracy, with critics saying the social media giant has allowed its platform to be weaponised for co-ordinated misinformation campaigns. The role of false news has taken centre stage in every single one of the continent's eight national polls this year - and last week Facebook said an Israel political consultancy was behind much of it.

It banned Archimedes Group, which it said was responsible for a network of those masquerading as African nationals, and removed 265 Facebook and Instagram pages and groups involved in "co-ordinated inauthentic behaviour" mainly targeting Nigeria, Senegal, Togo, Angola, Niger and Tunisia.

Nanjira Sambuli, from the World Wide Web Foundation, says it has taken Facebook too long to pay attention to this problem in developing countries. "Democracies are at risk on this continent, and unfortunately, social media platforms are fast becoming the sites of aggravation," she told the BBC.

Some feel the continent's weak regulations on privacy and data protection have meant Africa has been used as a "guinea pig" for privacy violations. "We're a training ground. Once it works in Africa, they replicate that and they use it across Africa other geographies," Cameroonian tech entrepreneur Rebecca Enonchong told the BBC.

Betteridge says "No," but my heart says, "Yes!"


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Tuesday May 28 2019, @12:33AM (25 children)

    It's not the specific laws enacted, it's the attitude (like yours) that women are just vessels for procreation and shouldn't be allowed agency over their bodies.

    As I said in another discussion about abortion, what a woman does with her body is *her* business, not yours. So if you don't have a functioning uterus then shut the fuck up!

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 3, Funny) by Reziac on Tuesday May 28 2019, @02:25AM (12 children)

    by Reziac (2489) on Tuesday May 28 2019, @02:25AM (#848382) Homepage

    So, whose decision was it to open her legs?? Cuz it's not like the Pollination Fairy is creating these unwanted pregancies...

    --
    And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Tuesday May 28 2019, @02:37AM (10 children)

      Once again, do you have a functioning uterus? No? Then shut the fuck up.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Tuesday May 28 2019, @03:21AM (3 children)

        by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Tuesday May 28 2019, @03:21AM (#848393) Journal

        Ooh, heated.

        In a couple of decades, there will be complete artificial wombs. It will be considered immoral or at least passé or foolish to impregnate a live woman, since they could unilaterally make the choice to abort. You don't have to give deference to the health and well-being of a woman if there is no woman involved in the process. Couples could use these, replacing the implantation step of traditional IVF and skipping the inconveniences and dangers of pregnancy. Even single men could use them if they can create a synthetic embryo.

        Today's abortion debate is a mere sideshow and all of these laws are temporary. Things will get really, really interesting in 20 years.

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
        • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday May 28 2019, @04:36AM (2 children)

          I suppose that could happen, although I think 20 years is more than a bit optimistic.

          Growing a child from gametes to newborn in an artificial womb (ala Cyteen [wikipedia.org], yes?) has incredible amounts of complexity, especially in the release and uptake of various hormones and enzymes that are necessary to grow a baby. We have some understanding of the processes, but we're a long way away (much more than 20 years, IMHO) from having the science, let alone the technology to do so.

          I suspect that we'll move in the other direction (we can keep a premature fetus alive after 22+ weeks or so and will likely push that back as time goes by) first.

          I agree that once we can grow babies with artificial wombs things will likely change dramatically.

          Regardless, that's not really the issue, IMHO. As humans, women have agency and both the right and responsibility to decide for themselves what they will do with their own bodies. Whether that's being a surrogate, a natural parent or not to carry a pregnancy to term, that's completely up to the person whose uterus is involved and no one else.

          My language may be colorful, but the idea that some random asshole on the 'net (or in a statehouse) should have any say over what may be the most important personal decisions a woman makes is beyond arrogant. Hence my previous statement.

          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
          • (Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday May 28 2019, @05:11AM (1 child)

            by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Tuesday May 28 2019, @05:11AM (#848417) Journal

            I suspect that we'll move in the other direction (we can keep a premature fetus alive after 22+ weeks or so and will likely push that back as time goes by) first.

            I am much more optimistic, but I agree that the point of viability will continue to be pushed back first. Artificial womb researchers say that is what they are working on rather than a complete cycle. We could see stricter laws without Roe v. Wade being overturned, and abortion opponents ought to fund research to make extremely premature babies viable. However, it looks like they will just bet on a conservative SCOTUS to overturn. It's entirely possible for President Trump to make an additional 1 or even 2 appointments. The Notorious R.B.G. is in the Endgame now.

            What is your stance on these laws [alcohol.org]?

            According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), data collected in 2016 indicates that the following states have legal provisions that may define alcohol use by a pregnant woman as a form of child abuse:

            Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Maine, North Dakota, Nevada, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin

            --
            [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
            • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday May 28 2019, @05:51AM

              What is your stance on these laws [alcohol.org]?

              I already said what I think:

              the idea that some random asshole on the 'net (or in a statehouse) should have any say over what may be the most important personal decisions a woman makes is beyond arrogant.

              --
              No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday May 28 2019, @04:49AM (5 children)

        by Reziac (2489) on Tuesday May 28 2019, @04:49AM (#848415) Homepage

        Only after it stops taking two to make a pregnancy.

        --
        And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Tuesday May 28 2019, @05:47AM (4 children)

          Only after it stops taking two to make a pregnancy.

          It doesn't [wikipedia.org].

          And if you want to not impregnate someone, you have choices.

          And if you want to impregnate someone, you need consent. And the owner of a uterus has veto powers.

          As such, if you don't have a functioning uterus, shut the fuck up. It's none of your business.

          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
          • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday May 28 2019, @09:47AM (3 children)

            by Reziac (2489) on Tuesday May 28 2019, @09:47AM (#848444) Homepage

            I see you belong to the school of "All sex is rape".

            --
            And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
            • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday May 28 2019, @05:04PM (2 children)

              Nope. Not me. But if that's your thing, you might want to hook up with this gem [wordpress.com].

              That said, consent is not optional. Or it's assault at the least.

              --
              No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
              • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday May 28 2019, @06:55PM (1 child)

                by Reziac (2489) on Tuesday May 28 2019, @06:55PM (#848616) Homepage

                We seem to have gone off into the weeds. My point was that it takes two (male and female, whether in one bed or one test tube) to make a fetus. Assuming consensual sex (we'll leave rape out of this as being anomalous) the female had to do her part; the pollination fairy doesn't flit from house to house magically depositing babies in wombs. Absent rape, she ALSO made the decision to have sex, and made half the decision to have unprotected sex. That's agency, right up front. The idea that agency only arrives after the fact with abortion rights completely negates any agency (or brains) prior to that point. Basically it says, "I had no choice but to become pregnant, because I couldn't restrain my lust and I'm too damn dumb to consider consequences, but now I must have the choice to terminate it." (And yes, the same argument applies to males trying to duck out of shouldering their share.)

                [For the record, because I think every child should be =wanted=, I'd been generally for free-choice abortion, up until viable-without-special-support -- until this 4th trimester thing reared its ugly head. Now I'm not so sure; I can see some mighty sharp spikes at the bottom of this cliff. But then I look at the stats of who gets the most abortions, and at what stage, and wonder if it merely accelerates natural selection.]

                What was the question? :)

                --
                And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
                • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday May 28 2019, @09:33PM

                  Agency is agency. Whether it's having unprotected sex, terminating a pregnancy or preferring Coke to Pepsi. Full stop.

                  What you think about what a woman does with her body is irrelevant unless *she* requests that you weigh in. Even if that woman is your wife/girlfriend/FWB/hooker/one-night stand.

                  As for this "4th trimester" blather, where did you get that? From South Park [getyarn.io]?

                  Are you unaware that the "fourth trimester" is (unless birth is late) after a child is *born*.

                  But none of that matters. The only question is "do you have a functioning uterus?" If not, you have nothing to say that means a damn.

                  Do you have a functioning uterus? No? Then shut the fuck up.

                  --
                  No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 28 2019, @06:51PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 28 2019, @06:51PM (#848612)

      Get raped dumbass, maybe that will teach you a little compassion and understanding. Preferably by your own father for maximum psychological damage, get the point to reaaaally settle in there.

  • (Score: 2) by Username on Tuesday May 28 2019, @11:18AM (7 children)

    by Username (4557) on Tuesday May 28 2019, @11:18AM (#848459)

    Well, thanks for proving my point. Your insistence on how you know more about my anecdotal conversation than I do, really drives it home that education will not stop people from spreading fake news or misinformation. By the way, what degrees do you possess?

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 28 2019, @02:47PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 28 2019, @02:47PM (#848508)

      By the way, what degrees do you possess?

      Is a college degree necessary to recognize a woman's absolute rights over her body? Some things really are that simple. And where is the fake news in that? That all comes out from the anti-choice side. There is only one side here, and discussion by men is most arrogant. They only demand that the woman carry and deliver their package. Anti-choice people are claiming ownership the woman's body. I long for the day when women stop being so damn submissive about this and many other things. They really need to pick up a gun and shoot back.

      And back to my original point, a proper education includes a proper upbringing that teaches respect for and love of live, not the tribal bullshit coming out of your religions and politics that appeal to the brain stem.

    • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday May 28 2019, @05:25PM (5 children)

      Nope. Not going for it. You can try to distract from your unsupportable statement, but that dog won't hunt.

      Just to clarify, you believe that *you* have the right to make decisions about pregnancy and childbearing for other people. Is that correct?

      That's beyond arrogance. I'd point out we abolished slavery here more than 150 years ago.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 29 2019, @03:06PM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 29 2019, @03:06PM (#848925)

        Sorry that you are talking to the wall with these people, but I will continue to assert that the real problem is female submission to male aggression. The girls just have to stand up and push back. Arguing about it is stupid and wasteful. Men have no standing, period. Send a clear message. Just shoot between the eyes. Problem solved.

        • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday May 29 2019, @03:57PM (3 children)

          While I appreciate your sentiment, I have to disagree.

          Women have been "standing up" about agency (whether that be suffrage, control of their own finances, birth control, equal pay or family planning, etc., etc., etc.) in the US for a *very* long time.

          What's more, this isn't a men vs. women thing. It's an issue of liberty and natural rights.

          The same attitudes that gave us slavery in the US (is it a coincidence that pretty much every state that has been trying to ban or criminalize abortion is a former slave state? I think not.) are at play here.

          What's more, this isn't (or rather, shouldn't be) a public policy issue. Rather it's a personal issue for those with functioning uteri to make on an individual basis, and not the purview of governments or religious fanatics.

          It's an issue of individual liberty and choice. Besides these mouth-breathing, knuckle-draggers, you know who else is happy to criminalize women exercising agency? Folks like the Taliban and other regressive and backward groups like Christians.

          So, no. It's not about women standing up for themselves against men. They've been doing that for millenia (read Lysistrata [wikipedia.org] if you don't believe me).

          Many men are supportive of the agency of *all* people, including women. It's the folks who don't believe in liberty and equality who are the problem, not women. Please stop blaming those whose liberty and agency have been denied.

          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 30 2019, @12:19AM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 30 2019, @12:19AM (#849122)

            Funny that when I point out that people need to defend themselves, I'm always accused of "victim blaming". The thing is also that women are not a minority, we shouldn't have to treat them as such. If they stood up, we wouldn't see all sort of stupid laws "protecting" them. Why should they have waited for men to give them to right to vote? Why should they wait for men for anything? Well, because they, quite reasonably, say, *It's not worth the trouble*. There's food in the fridge, the kids are alright, another day, what the fuck... Speaking of which, oh honey...... that's what it all boils down to. "Fight, Eat, Fuck, Sleep".

            Actually, we all know, women really do run the world. The male's purpose is singular. And since the male are so sensitive and emotional, they have to be allowed to think they are in charge.

            Now, back to abortion. It is a cosmetic procedure for a temporary condition, still entirely within the purview of the owner of the containment vessel. The entire debate should revolve around that.

            • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday May 30 2019, @02:24AM

              My point was that not only are women standing up, they have been doing so (loudly) for a very long time. Sadly, progress has been glacially slow.

              Did you just read the last sentence of my comment to save time, or are you deliberately ignoring everything else I said?

              I'll say it again, as you seem to have missed the main points (is that a reading comprehension problem, or do you just perceive that I'm "attacking" you and getting all butthurt? Is that part of you being so sensitive and emotional?):

              Women have been "standing up" about agency (whether that be suffrage, control of their own finances, birth control, equal pay or family planning, etc., etc., etc.) in the US for a *very* long time.

              What's more, this isn't a men vs. women thing. It's an issue of liberty and natural rights.

              The same attitudes that gave us slavery in the US (is it a coincidence that pretty much every state that has been trying to ban or criminalize abortion is a former slave state? I think not.) are at play here.

              What's more, this isn't (or rather, shouldn't be) a public policy issue. Rather it's a personal issue for those with functioning uteri to make on an individual basis, and not the purview of governments or religious fanatics.

              It's an issue of individual liberty and choice. Besides these mouth-breathing, knuckle-draggers, you know who else is happy to criminalize women exercising agency? Folks like the Taliban and other regressive and backward groups like Christians.

              So, no. It's not about women standing up for themselves against men. They've been doing that for millenia (read Lysistrata [wikipedia.org] if you don't believe me).

              And you do realize that where it's important, we're in violent agreement right?

              Now, back to abortion. It is a cosmetic procedure for a temporary condition, still entirely within the purview of the owner of the containment vessel. There should be no debate around that.

              FTFY.

              --
              No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
            • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday May 30 2019, @03:48AM

              Why should they have waited for men to give them to right to vote? Why should they wait for men for anything

              They never have. Are you that ignorant of history? Perhaps you should study a little history. Why don't you start with these women, they're just from the US (and a very small sample, too):
              Abigail Adams
              Elizabeth Cady Stanton
              Susan B. Anthony
              Mary Wollstonecraft
              Matilda Gage
              Sojourner Truth
              Margaret Sanger
              Eleanor Roosevelt
              Simone de Beauvoir
              Jane Jacobs
              Betty Friedan
              Gloria Steinem
              Angela Davis
              Bell Hooks
              Baba Wawa
              Ruth Bader Ginsburg
              Coretta Scott King
              Shirley Chisolm

              I could go on, and on, and on, but perhaps you could start there.

              --
              No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 29 2019, @01:43PM (3 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 29 2019, @01:43PM (#848897) Journal

    It's not the specific laws enacted, it's the attitude (like yours) that women are just vessels for procreation and shouldn't be allowed agency over their bodies.

    Yea, those mental failwaves are pretty strong. You'll be liking NASCAR next.

    • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday May 29 2019, @03:33PM (2 children)

      WTF are you blathering on about?

      All those folks protesting outside family planning clinics *are* NASCAR fans.

      But you knew that already.

      The cognitive dissonance is strong in this one.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 31 2019, @12:15AM (1 child)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 31 2019, @12:15AM (#849519) Journal

        WTF are you blathering on about?

        Making an observation about people who complain about attitudes rather than about problems. It doesn't help that the attitudes are purely imaginary too. If your schemes can be disrupted by imaginary failwaves, then maybe you need to come up with something better to do with your time and obviously limited brain power.