SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Researchers propose a new approach for dismantling online hate networks
How do you get rid of hate speech on social platforms? Until now, companies have generally tried two approaches. One is to ban individual users who are caught posting abuse; the other is to ban the large pages and groups where people who practice hate speech organize and promote their noxious views.
But what if this approach is counterproductive? That's the argument in an intriguing new paper out today in Nature from Neil Johnson, a professor of physics at George Washington University, and researchers at GW and the University of Miami. The paper, "Hidden resilience and adaptive dynamics of the global online hate ecology," explores how hate groups organize on Facebook and Russian social network VKontakte — and how they resurrect themselves after platforms ban them.
As Noemi Derzsy writes in her summary in Nature:
Johnson et al. show that online hate groups are organized in highly resilient clusters. The users in these clusters are not geographically localized, but are globally interconnected by 'highways' that facilitate the spread of online hate across different countries, continents and languages. When these clusters are attacked — for example, when hate groups are removed by social-media platform administrators (Fig. 1) — the clusters rapidly rewire and repair themselves, and strong bonds are made between clusters, formed by users shared between them, analogous to covalent chemical bonds. In some cases, two or more small clusters can even merge to form a large cluster, in a process the authors liken to the fusion of two atomic nuclei. Using their mathematical model, the authors demonstrated that banning hate content on a single platform aggravates online hate ecosystems and promotes the creation of clusters that are not detectable by platform policing (which the authors call 'dark pools'), where hate content can thrive unchecked.
[...] The researchers advocate a four-step approach to reduce the influence of hate networks.
- Identify smaller, more isolated clusters of hate speech and ban those users instead.
- Instead of wiping out entire small clusters, ban small samples from each cluster at random. This would theoretically weaken the cluster over time without inflaming the entire hive.
- Recruit users opposed to hate speech to engage with members of the larger hate clusters directly. (The authors explain: "In our data, some white supremacists call for a unified Europe under a Hitler-like regime, and others oppose a united Europe. Similar in-fighting exists between hate-clusters of the KKK movement. Adding a third population in a pre-engineered format then allows the hate-cluster extinction time to be manipulated globally.)
- Identify hate groups with competing views and pit them against one another, in an effort to sow doubt in the minds of participants.
Hidden resilience and adaptive dynamics of the global online hate ecology[$], Nature (DOI: 10.1038/s41586-019-1494-7)
(Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday August 27 2019, @02:55PM (54 children)
Or, maybe ask one of our self-loathing white folk if I can borrow theirs?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Tuesday August 27 2019, @03:40PM (51 children)
Look at this fucking retard. Just look at its brainless simpering mess of a person.
Such a fucking cowardly baby that takes opposition to nazis who are literally committing mass murder on a monthly basis as self-flagalation. This is the wisdom of a sad loner whose only value is the color of their skin. They've done jack shit with their life, and it shows.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Tuesday August 27 2019, @04:17PM (30 children)
No, it's that CNN hardly opposes fascism. And everything they (and the Post and the Times) write is a sorrowful editorial and frequently is just plain wrong, like when you read up on Venezuela, middle east, etc. The networks are a sham.
Now, we should learn from these hate groups and build some robustness into our own networks so the ISPs can't take them down so easily. Making censorship impossible is a good thing, regardless who is doing it.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2, Interesting) by jmorris on Tuesday August 27 2019, @04:29PM (28 children)
Alt-Tech is working day and night on these problems. But there are serious problems, you really don't want a totally uncensorable network because the Proggies then bring out their favorite weapon. Look at the chans, anytime they want to disrupt they flood a board with CP. There is an attempt to build a totally decentralized, distributed 'chan'. Guess what the biggest problem is? Yup, nobody wants to host because it is flooded with CP and they fear being z&. The trick is to have a moderation capability while still being decentralized enough to avoid the backbone level censorship that took 8chan down. Work is ongoing, anyone who cares about keeping the Internet the way it was in the first two decades should investigate and try to contribute their efforts. It is the frontline in the war for the future, either the Chinese Social Credit dystopia FaceBook, Google and Twitter have planned or the last great hope of Mankind for a free world.
Choose. Choose wisely. Choose soon.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday August 27 2019, @05:01PM
You can see what makes CP such a valuable weapon, right? There's a trivial fix for that too. A few psychologists from the 30s spelled it out quite clearly.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 27 2019, @05:17PM (2 children)
If the backbone is anonymous onion routing like Tor, then nobody needs to know that you have accessed certain images. Then you can use a client-side filter to detect nudes and block them. You can also filter text based on keywords.
The important part is that it should be impossible to shut down and unlikely to incriminate users.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday August 27 2019, @05:28PM (1 child)
A decentralized network requires every participant to host some or all of the content. Hosting CP gets you vanned.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 27 2019, @05:43PM
Maybe. Are Freenet users getting vanned? Can we encrypt the pieces?
Instead of making communications retrievable, you could tap into a stream of communications that stops when you exit the software. It could look like the live view of Twitter for a keyword search. You store what you see in memory, then choose to save it or discard it based on settings. That would make it bad for archiving knowledge or having threaded conversations, but less likely to incriminate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 27 2019, @05:39PM (2 children)
i don't think we need centralized moderation. i think we need decentralized clients with user accounts with reputation. then people can down mod/block accounts that post cp or other shit people don't want to see. all content needs to be stored encrypted and if you haven't chosen to open it, it stays encrypted. similar to storj.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by janrinok on Tuesday August 27 2019, @05:55PM (1 child)
Except you can't get a reliable reputation if everyone posts as AC. If you use an ID number or something similar you are no longer truly anonymous. People might not be able to associate you with an ID, until they have access to your computer. Frost is the nearest I've seen in this regard. If you just want to transfer data anonymously you can, if you want to go looking for something illegal, you can do that also, but you are unlikely to stumble upon it unless you are looking.
The other problem is that, like TOR and other 'secure' systems, the traffic is identifiable unless you set it up in a specific way. Nobody can see what the data means, but they are able to see that you are using a system designed to hide such information. To be popular it has to be easy to use straight 'out of the box'. I suspect some governments would simply make the use of secure communications illegal, but that is a different discussion.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday August 27 2019, @06:34PM
In this gossipy world, "reputation" is the worst possible way to judge people, as if that should even be allowed, much less encouraged.
I suspect some governments would simply make the use of secure communications illegal
The ISP is the weak link there. But as far as breaking down the walls, the "hate groups'" example (ideology notwithstanding) of staying connected is the one to follow.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday August 27 2019, @06:35PM (18 children)
So let me get this straight: What you call the "Free World" is where free speech exists for Nazis and alt-right folks and white supremacists, but nobody else, because the other people might post CP to disrupt the white supremacists, correct? Because that doesn't sound very free to me.
I have chosen. I chose a long time ago. You're free to spout your fascism, and I'm free to call you a fascist and choose not to do business with you or give you the right to put your material on servers I own or rent, and encourage others to do likewise.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by jmorris on Tuesday August 27 2019, @08:20PM (16 children)
You can mount your free speech arguments for child porn if you wish. Here in the real world the van comes for you. That is just how it is. We are close to it coming just for being a political dissident, but we aren't quite there yet. So any platform that is trying to protect free speech has to have a zero tolerance policy against CP. Yes you can find all the CP you want on the Internet, the government doesn't -really- want to stamp it out, why do you think all the proggies have vast stashes of the stuff to flood the boards with? But if you are a dissident, and the government and every provider of Internet services, payment processing, etc. are looking for a reason to deplatform or arrest you, hosting CP is just handing them a reason on a silver platter. It is black letter law illegal in all jurisdictions. Learn the difference between the world you want and the world that is, then work to slide the Overton Window toward the world you want.
And just to be honest, I'm ok with the ban. the chans have enough vile stuff posted, between the disruptor left and the autists themselves posting gore and trans shit to chase the 'normies' out of 'their' boards many of the chans are already bad enough. No need to make it even worse.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday August 27 2019, @08:34PM (6 children)
For reference this is the amount of free speech you get if you're not white: banned because someone said something deemed politically anti-american [thecrimson.com]
That's the extent to which the right protects free speech, open government censorship.
(Score: 3, Informative) by jmorris on Tuesday August 27 2019, @09:12PM (5 children)
So you really can't see the difference between keeping suspected terrorists out of the country and Americans exercising their inalienable rights? Ok, I think I see your problem. Recto cranial inversion.
Did CBP make the wrong call? The article doesn't come close to providing enough detail to form an opinion. Does SBP have both the duty and the lawful authority to make the call? Beyond debate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 27 2019, @11:00PM (2 children)
No, because if you say you're in favor of the principle of freedom of speech, you can't be in favor of banning people from countries for their speech. Also, the first amendment does not say that free speech applies only to Americans, so you're wrong there too.
You stand for nothing and have no principles.
(Score: 2, Troll) by jmorris on Tuesday August 27 2019, @11:21PM (1 child)
Not at all. The guy has the right to be a terrorist supporter in Lebanon. We do not have the obligation to admit a likely enemy into our country. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 29 2019, @01:31AM
But, we already let jmorris in. So not fair, really.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by ikanreed on Wednesday August 28 2019, @03:59PM (1 child)
I can see the difference in that this kid did nothing wrong, and your opinions should result in you being in a hole in the ground.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday August 28 2019, @07:25PM
Kid did nothing wrong. Put jmorris in the ground.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday August 27 2019, @09:29PM (1 child)
You complained is that Facebook et al are censoring online speech. Your solution was to create a system where people you perceive to be on your team are censoring online speech. And you're labelling that "freedom", and now implying anybody who calls you on it is in favor of child pornography.
I call BS. You aren't opposed to censorship at all, you just want to be the one doing the censoring.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Troll) by jmorris on Tuesday August 27 2019, @09:57PM
No, I'm just saying that reality is that we must aggressively block CP on the "dissident side of the web" because we will be shut down and locked up if we don't. Courts have made their ruling on that point, you are free to debate it, I will even support your right to continue that debate, but barring a new ruling the current one stands. Although, personally I can agree to blocking it anyway since I never bought into that bullcrap the Supreme Court tried to pass off. Sorry snowflake, porno is not the sort of thing the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the 1st Amendment. If you had tried to pass off the sort of crap PornHub has as its stock and trade on "free speech" grounds, any of them would have laughed in your face. The inability to post porn into the middle of serious debates about ideas is not really a violation of any "fundamental Right" so banning it isn't a loss. I'll even argue that there should be a place for it, but there isn't much need since there is not currently a lack of it on the Internet. And as for raping children and selling the 'porn' of it, the Founders would have promptly dangled you at the end of a stout rope as the only rebuttal needed. Loli is another kettle of fish, one I'm also not interested in so go debate that corner case one with somebody who cares.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Tuesday August 27 2019, @09:54PM (6 children)
And just to be honest, I'm ok with the ban.
That's too bad. But that's why we need the bulletproof tech to defeat all censorship. We can't let people interfere with others' communications, no matter what offense they take. There's just no other way to end the argument.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by jmorris on Tuesday August 27 2019, @10:01PM (5 children)
If porn were in danger of being banished from the Internet entirely I might care. But it isn't, it isn't likely to so we are back to the argument of whether it should be splashed into every nook and cranny of the Internet whether the people there want it or not, and I vote for nah, banhammer that crap when we are trying to have a serious discussion. Or where minors could be present. Etc.
It isn't like people don't know where they can go to find limitless porn.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 27 2019, @11:02PM
If porn can be censored, so can anything else. So, if you allow porn (even CP) to be censored, then your anti-censorship tech already failed at its intended purpose.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday August 28 2019, @12:39AM (3 children)
I find even the attempt to censor anything to be most offensive. It's just not worth arguing. It must be defeated by any means available. That is the singular, solitary objective.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday August 28 2019, @01:15AM (2 children)
Nah, some moderation is conducive to a good discussion. I mean if you are in a discussion about model railroads and some dolt wants to start going on about The Jews and derailing the conversation (see what I did there?), raise yer hand if you think freeze peach is imperiled when a moderator tosses the jerk. No, the problem is when somebody decides model railroads are verboten and talks the platform being used into suddenly banning the model railroad forum. If Big Social had been upfront that they were creating a big safe space, there wouldn't be nearly the objections raised. But no, YouTube was "Broadcast Yourself", put anything ya want up, even blatant copyright violations! Twitter was the "Free speech wing of the free speech movement." Facebook simply wanted every person on the Earth to have an account to supplement the info they were collecting anyway. Paypal was as solid as a bank, if you weren't doing illegal stuff everyone assumed they had as much of a right to an account as they do any an FDIC bank (which PayPal is btw.) Of course some people are having trouble with actual brick and mortar FDIC banks too. Everything was still wide open traditional Internet until Donald Trump came down that escalator and everything changed. The last round of YouTube bannings this weekend were accounts with zero previous dings, no warning, no explanation, just all content deleted and apparently no appeals allowed either. Nobody can even say what the actual rules are anymore. Well we can say, just not on Social Media because saying it is a banable offense.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Wednesday August 28 2019, @06:03AM
I lately discovered that I'm permabanned from posting on Reddit. The one-and-only post I've made there, six? years ago, was how to use browser settings to make New Slashdot look like Old Slashdot, on a discussion about same. I can only conclude that I must have upvoted the wrong post, or joined the wrong subreddit (you can guess which one, something to do with an escalator).
So there's a case of zero warning, zero dings, no explanation out-of-the-blue banning for reason of WTF.
And don't FDIC regs prohibit discriminatory business practices??
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday August 28 2019, @02:06PM
You can ignore the 'baitor. Do the filtering at your end.
This argument is so stupid. It's not even an argument. It's an imposition. Technology is the only answer. The good guys can't win any other way.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 28 2019, @12:59AM
I do not follow. How did you arrive at the "but nobody else," part? This problem is exclusive to one side or the other.
(Score: 2) by EEMac on Tuesday August 27 2019, @07:12PM (1 child)
"flooded with CP"? Sorry if I'm missing something obvious, but what does that mean?
(Score: 3, Informative) by inertnet on Tuesday August 27 2019, @08:22PM
I had to think hard about that one too, then I realized that the 'C' stands for child. You figure out what the 'P' stands for.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday August 27 2019, @05:34PM
CNN very much opposes some fascism. As long as it is the Right kind of fascism.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 27 2019, @04:54PM (15 children)
Who would these "nazis" be? Interesting how much lack of detail there is to these accusations.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Tuesday August 27 2019, @05:27PM (14 children)
The people who have written extensive manifestos either declaring themselves to be Nazis or sharing similar ideology to Nazis, and then gone on shooting rampages. For example, the guy who shot up a synagogue in Pittsburgh did so because he was a Nazi, and he was very clear on that point. So was the guy who killed a bunch of people in a Walmart for being brown, and the guy who murdered his own sibling and a bunch of their friends and random bystanders because said sibling was dating a black guy.
I know you don't want to associate your own political ideology with mass murder, because it looks bad. But the fact of the matter is that you have people matching your ideology who have been committing mass murders, and instead of saying "mass murder is wrong, period", you've instead tried to pretend it's not happening.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 27 2019, @05:44PM (8 children)
It's happening, but not on any significant scale.
(Score: 3, Informative) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday August 27 2019, @10:23PM (7 children)
50 people murdered in Christchurch in one afternoon sounds significant to me.
Fewer than 6 million I suppose, but you need concentration camps for that sort of scale.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 27 2019, @11:06PM (6 children)
No, in a world with billions of people (and over 300 million in the US), that is insignificant. More so if you look at the total deaths per year from such events, so even though 50 dead in one attack sounds like a lot, it isn't in the grand scheme of things. Even 9/11 was insignificant, to the point where the damage caused to ourselves by us responding to 9/11 was many thousands of times worse than the attack itself, and the damage from that response just continues on. That's what happens when you react to terrorism by taking away people's liberties.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday August 28 2019, @12:30AM (1 child)
Sorry, but that's wrong and also wrong.
The Christchurch shootings didn't happen in a world of billions of people, and didn't happen in the US at all.
It happened in a city of fewer than 300,000 people, which has a murder rate of about 5 per year.
So, to recap. One Nazi did 10 years worth of murders in a small city in one afternoon.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 28 2019, @05:49AM
Christchurch is a perfect counter-example to your argument. The person who shot up the mosque there was not even from the same country. He chose that location, traveled to it, and then shot it up. It's the exact same thing with El Paso where the shooter was again not a native, somewhat ironically. You're looking at a literally global phenomena and you're left with a handful of incidents. I don't think people understand the scale of violence in the past.
Let's look at two things, 9/11 and the Holocaust. 9/11 killed 2,996 people including the 19 attackers. The latest figure for the Holocaust is around 6 million. The Holocaust would have been equivalent to a 9/11 scale of death happening every single day for 2023 days. That's a 9/11 scale event each and every day for more than 5 years. And that actually dramatically understates the damage since populations have increased dramatically since then. If you scale these events up to modern population sizes you end up with the Holocaust being equivalent to a 9/11 scale event happening each and every day for more than 18 years. That is, a child who is just born will reaching voting age with a 9/11 event happening literally every single day of his life - against a single demographic.
To hyperbolize these idiots with a manifesto and a gun as anything more than that is just absurd. It's just the media trying to rile up fear and emotions for clicks.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday August 28 2019, @01:38AM (3 children)
Tell me, would it be "significant" enough if it was your family it happened to, or you?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Touché) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday August 28 2019, @02:35AM (2 children)
The worst year New Zealand has ever had for murders was 1987, with 24.
A Nazi from Australia doubled that in one afternoon, but A/C idiot above thinks that is "not significant".
Sometimes the level of debate on this site is disappointing.
Here's link to the Police's list. [police.govt.nz]
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 28 2019, @03:17AM (1 child)
Just wait until the muzzies hit critical mass there. You'll reminisce wistfully of the old days when there was only 50 in a mass killing event.
(Score: 2) by rylyeh on Wednesday August 28 2019, @04:25AM
Seriously son - the 'muzzies'!?!?
The only Muzzy I know eats clocks.
You going to need a gallon of 'Preparation H' to soothe that inflamed territorial imperative.
"a vast crenulate shell wherein rode the grey and awful form of primal Nodens, Lord of the Great Abyss."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 27 2019, @06:19PM
The Walmart incident is highly suspect in many ways, including the alleged shooter's political views.
The Ohio shooter was antifa supporter, his alleged "racism" does not fit your narrative, unless your narrative is that all whites are bad.
The last two(mosque and synagogue) are only connected in so much as "nazism" overlaps with Eco-fascism and state communism and of course that they were white and anti immigration. Government sponsored terrorism is likely to use white actors in the US or New Zealand, unless they are trying to frame the immigrant groups, but since the governments are captured by enemies they do the opposite.
Shooters need to do their duty and clean up their own criminal governments before blaming the ""refugees".
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 27 2019, @07:07PM
So not many people, right? Speaking of cowardice, why is it that we're supposed to get all worked up over a few dastardly deeds? Law enforcement has that all fixed. You can't keep the crazy people from being crazy, but you can jail for very long periods of time people who think that killing a few people here and there is ok. It's not going to be perfect, but it will get nazi rampages to below lightning strikes as a cause of death.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday August 27 2019, @10:21PM (2 children)
Citation needed. Show me a "Nazi" shooter. The goof that shot up the synagogue a year or so back might qualify, dunno really. I was on Gab, where he supposedly was, but never saw anything from him and, like every other social media :( they purged every hint he ever existed so fast nobody managed to save much. All we really know is his supposed final post of "screw your optics, I'm going in" which kinda implies somebody had been telling him it might be a bad idea to do something rash, but we don't really know the details of that final thread. And despite full cooperation with the Feds, Gab was deplatformed yet again over the incident. The M.O. for that one is at least consistent with a Nazi. But one incident does not a pattern make.
Christchurch guy's manifesto is super suspicious and is missing the Nazi markers other than "Black Sun" inspired cover art. Nazis can generally be counted on to hate Jews, he didn't, he had in fact visited Israel recently. He livestreamed his rampage on Facebook. Facebook was not deplatformed.
El Paso shooter was confused, more "Yang Gang" than Nazi except he was really worked up over immigration, seemed to be inspired by the Christchurch shooter somehow. Again, that manifesto is also super suspicious. Appears to have been posted to Instagram and cross posted to 8chan, where it was removed after around fifteen minutes. 8chan was of course deplatformed, Instagram not so much. But the day of the event I was lurking 8chan and they were reporting the story faster then even Drudge, in fact it really looked like Drudge was also lurking and posting from 8chan's boards that day. Nothing gets em fired up on the chans like a "Happening."
Then of course there was the Dayton shooter. He was Antifa and generally messed up so that story went into the memory hole since it wasn't politically useful. The shooter the week before also turned out to not be very politically useful, so also memory holed. Seeing a pattern yet? The only one I see is in which random shooters get massive media coverage and which social media gets deplatformed.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday August 27 2019, @10:52PM (1 child)
I see no reason to supply evidence that you're already determined to declare "super suspicious" if it happens to say something you don't want to admit.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Troll) by jmorris on Tuesday August 27 2019, @11:14PM
Have you actually read the two manifestos? There was a pretty good discussion here back when Christchurch was news. I wasn't the only one smelling a rat. We know the accused did it of course, he livestreamed it, but whether he wrote that manifesto alone is dubious. If he did have help they author is still out there somewhere. El Paso is just weird, that guy ain't right. Assuming he actually wrote it or posted it, lot of doubt on that question. And he wanted to shoot up illegals, so he drives from Dallas to El Paso? Have you ever been in Dallas? Hello, it was equally target rich. His manifesto is silent on why he felt he needed to go to Beta Male O'Roark's hometown to shoot up a Walmart. He lived so we might at least get an answer to some of those questions eventually.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Captival on Tuesday August 27 2019, @08:24PM (3 children)
Count up all the murders committed by 'Nazis' in America this year. Then compare it to a single day in gun-free Democrat Chicago. Warning, you have to use real math, not woke math where numbers you don't like are ignored.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 27 2019, @11:20PM (2 children)
but this time I will, for you, sweetest reader. Citations below!
[1] That says that in 2018 there were around 550 homicides last year in Chicago, so almost exactly averaging 1.5/day.
[2] The WORST day of 2019 has been 7 deaths, in Chicago
Ok. Now let's look at Nazi and related violence for 2019... oh look! White nationalist murders total in 2019 are PLURAL orders of magnitude more than the worst day in Chicago
Conclusion: whoever upvoted you hasn't got a fucking clue about gun violence statistics, and neither do you: you're a troll.
[1]https://www.thetrace.org/2019/01/chicago-gun-violence-decline-crime-lab/
[2]https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/05/us/chicago-violence-guns.html
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 27 2019, @11:22PM
And note those homicide numbers include KNIFE violence, which is MUCH more lethal on a per-wounded-incident basis.
So, yeah. The numbers against your (GP) claim are clear as day.
(Score: 2) by Captival on Wednesday August 28 2019, @01:13AM
I notice you posted plenty of links to Chicago's numbers, but none to support your case. Why? We have to assume it's because you're stupid.
Wow. 50. That sure looks like ORDERS OF MAAAAAGNITUDE more than 500.
(Score: 1, Troll) by VLM on Tuesday August 27 2019, @04:39PM (1 child)
As they furiously rub their hands together in anticipation of charging usurious interest on the loan.
There's just so many coincidences to be discovered when researching who "they" are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 27 2019, @07:29PM
The bourgeoisie?
Or should I have brought a pile of (((parens)))?