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This discussion has been archived.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, @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
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (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