Censorship is the best friend to dictators, religious theocracies, religious fanatics that kill to enforce blasphemy, strongmen that ruin countries in order to enrich themselves and stay in power, religious supremacists who shove their religion violently down the throats of others, and other destructive forces.
This is who social media corporations have chosen to be in bed with. They fail to screen out hate, bigotry and violent incitement. They succeed at censoring content that dictators, theocracies and violent religious supremacists loathe.
Sunday, May 31, 2020
Friday, May 29, 2020
Social media Corporations: Big Brother Censors
Social media corporations are publishers, not just platforms, and must stop receiving protections they do not deserve.
They must be held liable for the content on their sites, especially in light of the fact that they allow an enormous amount of hate, bigotry and incitement to violence to be published while they arbitrarily remove and block other content that they find offensive.
They are the world's largest, greediest spreaders of hate, bigotry and incitement to violence. At the same time, they have ceased to be platforms for free speech, openness and transparency by their arbitrarily blocking content that does not promote hate, bigotry or incitement to violence.
Social media corporations are killing free speech and religious freedom.
These corporations need to be reigned in and regulated.
Controlling the dissemination of information and disinformation gives these corporations a level of power that helps strongman dictatorships and religious theocracies, and that destroys democracies, free speech and religious freedom.
At the bare minimum, a special tax must be levied on these corporations to fund an independent organization(s) that will:
1. ensure social media corporations do not disseminate hate, bigotry and incitement to violence.
2. ensure social media corporations do not block and censor content arbitrarily that does not promote hate, violence and incitement to violence. .
3. ensure a legitimate avenue is provided for contesting when content is blocked that does not promote hate, violence and incitement to violence.
Sunday, May 24, 2020
Animal Cruelty: Exploited, Manipulated, Poorly Responded To Crime
All animal organizations that say they oppose animal cruelty must immediately stop conducting their own investigations and instead become advocates for a proper and widespread response to animal cruelty by public law enforcement.
Violent crimes can happen any time, any place. Only public law enforcement is available 24 hours a day most everywhere to respond. No one else is as capable of responding to crimes in progress.
Crimes in progress, especially violent crimes, must receive an appropriate, timely response.
If domestic violence, for example, is not responded to by public law enforcement, and if responding to domestic violence is left in the hands of special teams and private nonprofit organizations, there will be an explosion of domestic violence. If police do not respond appropriately to in progress domestic violence calls and if the public relies upon private organizations and special teams to do investigations, practically every domestic violence offender will never get arrested and the crime will grow exponentially.
Dog fighting and animal cruelty are poorly responded to when in progress, and rarely responded to appropriately when on viewed by public law enforcement. The advocacy needed for this to change has been nonexistent for decades now. If violent crimes, including animal cruelty and dog fighting, are not responded to properly when in progress, and if they are ignored when police on view these crimes, then the crimes grow unchecked no matter how many investigations, even if they are effective, which often they are not, that an animal organization may conduct
What is needed is for public law enforcement at large to respond appropriately to 911 calls for animal cruelty and dog fighting, and to respond appropriately when on viewing animal cruelty and dog fighting, and for animal organizations and animal advocates, to ensure this happens. Every effort that diverts from this being achieved benefits animal abusers and dog fighters. Too many animal advocates are only interested in how animal cruelty can further their careers and how it can enrich themselves.
Most humane investigators do not have law enforcement powers, which makes their investigations toothless at best. Many are the times that animal abusers and dog fighters move their animals to another location after getting paid a visit by a humane investigator, whether they are armed or not. Those that do have law enforcement powers - whether they are employed by private sector nonprofit organizations or are assigned by police departments to investigate animal cruelty - do little more than give larger public law enforcement an excuse to continue doing little to nothing about animal cruelty and dog fighting. Token police teams assigned by a police department or by an animal organization to investigate animal cruelty are little more than public relations ploys that enable police departments and other public law enforcement to continue poorly responding to animal cruelty related crimes.
If animal organizations want to help, they must become advocates for police to respond appropriately and in a widespread manner to animal cruelty and dog fighting. They must stop investigating animal cruelty. They can, however, assist police departments in removing animals from crime scenes if needed and by providing shelter if needed for the animals until a judge decides if the seizure is justified. Because this does not keep the illusion going that certain animal organizations are the answer to animal cruelty, this does not happen. Humane investigators can assist people that need help caring for their animals in the many instances where such help is needed but does not constitute criminal animal abuse.
The dysfunctional status quo means dog fighters have a greater chance of getting struck by lightning than ever getting arrested for dog fighting. Few animals abusers are arrested despite animal cruelty being a common occurring widespread crime.
Sadistic people continue burning, starving, torturing, fighting, beating, and mutilating animals with rarely anything being done to stop them.
No anti domestic violence or anti drunk driving organization conducts their own criminal investigations. Instead, they advocate for police to respond broadly and appropriately to those crimes. If they investigated these crimes on their own and did not hold police accountable, domestic violence and drunk driving would be out of control.
What is needed is for public law enforcement at large to respond appropriately to calls for animal cruelty and dog fighting, and to respond appropriately when on viewing animal cruelty and dog fighting. Animal organizations must advocate to make this happen. Everything else, token anti animal abuse police teams, humane investigators, nonprofit animal organizations' anti cruelty investigations, and so forth, are only ineffective window dressing that maintains a dysfunctional status quo.
The priority for all crimes, animal cruelty, dog fighting, domestic violence, battery and so forth, is for a timely and appropriate police response when these crimes are in progress. Failing to respond appropriately to in progress crimes and crimes that are on viewed by law enforcement, including animal cruelty and dog fighting, means missing the most critically important opportunities for stopping these crimes.
Is it ethical for a private nonprofit organization to investigate any crime, including animal cruelty, when the public already pays through their taxes for public law enforcement to perform this task? If public law enforcement is not properly doing their job in responding to a crime, including for animal cruelty, then it is the responsibility for an organization concerned about animal cruelty to ensure that that there is a better police response. No organization should use the poor police response as the excuse for why they should be the ones investigating a crime. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The poor police response is exploited by a number of animal organizations, who use this opportunity to present themselves as the answer to animal cruelty. By presenting themselves as the answer to animal cruelty, they create a false narrative that generates money and publicity for themselves.
No animal organization, even if they were far more successful and competent than they are now at responding to animal cruelty, can come anywhere close in effectiveness to what public law enforcement can achieve.
To repeat the same message said for decades now to these organizations, only to fall on deliberately deaf ears - help animals, stop investigating animal cruelty and instead be advocates that fight for the police to respond appropriately.
Violent crimes can happen any time, any place. Only public law enforcement is available 24 hours a day most everywhere to respond. No one else is as capable of responding to crimes in progress.
Crimes in progress, especially violent crimes, must receive an appropriate, timely response.
If domestic violence, for example, is not responded to by public law enforcement, and if responding to domestic violence is left in the hands of special teams and private nonprofit organizations, there will be an explosion of domestic violence. If police do not respond appropriately to in progress domestic violence calls and if the public relies upon private organizations and special teams to do investigations, practically every domestic violence offender will never get arrested and the crime will grow exponentially.
Dog fighting and animal cruelty are poorly responded to when in progress, and rarely responded to appropriately when on viewed by public law enforcement. The advocacy needed for this to change has been nonexistent for decades now. If violent crimes, including animal cruelty and dog fighting, are not responded to properly when in progress, and if they are ignored when police on view these crimes, then the crimes grow unchecked no matter how many investigations, even if they are effective, which often they are not, that an animal organization may conduct
What is needed is for public law enforcement at large to respond appropriately to 911 calls for animal cruelty and dog fighting, and to respond appropriately when on viewing animal cruelty and dog fighting, and for animal organizations and animal advocates, to ensure this happens. Every effort that diverts from this being achieved benefits animal abusers and dog fighters. Too many animal advocates are only interested in how animal cruelty can further their careers and how it can enrich themselves.
Most humane investigators do not have law enforcement powers, which makes their investigations toothless at best. Many are the times that animal abusers and dog fighters move their animals to another location after getting paid a visit by a humane investigator, whether they are armed or not. Those that do have law enforcement powers - whether they are employed by private sector nonprofit organizations or are assigned by police departments to investigate animal cruelty - do little more than give larger public law enforcement an excuse to continue doing little to nothing about animal cruelty and dog fighting. Token police teams assigned by a police department or by an animal organization to investigate animal cruelty are little more than public relations ploys that enable police departments and other public law enforcement to continue poorly responding to animal cruelty related crimes.
If animal organizations want to help, they must become advocates for police to respond appropriately and in a widespread manner to animal cruelty and dog fighting. They must stop investigating animal cruelty. They can, however, assist police departments in removing animals from crime scenes if needed and by providing shelter if needed for the animals until a judge decides if the seizure is justified. Because this does not keep the illusion going that certain animal organizations are the answer to animal cruelty, this does not happen. Humane investigators can assist people that need help caring for their animals in the many instances where such help is needed but does not constitute criminal animal abuse.
The dysfunctional status quo means dog fighters have a greater chance of getting struck by lightning than ever getting arrested for dog fighting. Few animals abusers are arrested despite animal cruelty being a common occurring widespread crime.
Sadistic people continue burning, starving, torturing, fighting, beating, and mutilating animals with rarely anything being done to stop them.
No anti domestic violence or anti drunk driving organization conducts their own criminal investigations. Instead, they advocate for police to respond broadly and appropriately to those crimes. If they investigated these crimes on their own and did not hold police accountable, domestic violence and drunk driving would be out of control.
What is needed is for public law enforcement at large to respond appropriately to calls for animal cruelty and dog fighting, and to respond appropriately when on viewing animal cruelty and dog fighting. Animal organizations must advocate to make this happen. Everything else, token anti animal abuse police teams, humane investigators, nonprofit animal organizations' anti cruelty investigations, and so forth, are only ineffective window dressing that maintains a dysfunctional status quo.
The priority for all crimes, animal cruelty, dog fighting, domestic violence, battery and so forth, is for a timely and appropriate police response when these crimes are in progress. Failing to respond appropriately to in progress crimes and crimes that are on viewed by law enforcement, including animal cruelty and dog fighting, means missing the most critically important opportunities for stopping these crimes.
Is it ethical for a private nonprofit organization to investigate any crime, including animal cruelty, when the public already pays through their taxes for public law enforcement to perform this task? If public law enforcement is not properly doing their job in responding to a crime, including for animal cruelty, then it is the responsibility for an organization concerned about animal cruelty to ensure that that there is a better police response. No organization should use the poor police response as the excuse for why they should be the ones investigating a crime. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The poor police response is exploited by a number of animal organizations, who use this opportunity to present themselves as the answer to animal cruelty. By presenting themselves as the answer to animal cruelty, they create a false narrative that generates money and publicity for themselves.
No animal organization, even if they were far more successful and competent than they are now at responding to animal cruelty, can come anywhere close in effectiveness to what public law enforcement can achieve.
To repeat the same message said for decades now to these organizations, only to fall on deliberately deaf ears - help animals, stop investigating animal cruelty and instead be advocates that fight for the police to respond appropriately.
Monday, May 18, 2020
Feeble Facebook Oversight And Misuse of Abuse
Facebook is a monopoly. It controls information and its dissemination. In its short history, it has allowed hate, bigotry, disinformation and violence to spread.
In response to the feeble effort by government to regulate this monopoly, Facebook now arbitrarily blocks content under the misuse of the term abusive. This blog is blocked from Facebook. It happened when several critical blogs were written about plastic pollution that offended some of the organizations that claim to be against plastic pollution but that are benefiting from this crisis.
Facebook said that the content was blocked because some readers found it abusive. Facebook provided no explanation or legitimate avenue to contest this ruling.
No single man, Mark Zuckerberg, no single corporation, should have the power that Facebook has.
Facebook is starting an oversight committee.
This is a miserable excuse to keep the government from doing what is right. Facebook and other social media corporations should have been treated like publishing companies from the beginning, in which they are liable and responsible for the content they display. Since there is an unwillingness to make this happen, then there are other ways to reign in the power of these monopolies.
Social media corporations should be treated like utility corporations.
Facebook and other social media conglomerates should have a special tax levied. The money should finance an independent organization that will regulate these corporations.
The independent organization, not the social media giants, will have final say as to what is legitimate screening out of hate, bigotry and violent incitement, and what is the unjustifiable screening out of content under the misuse of the word abuse.
The independent organization will also be responsible for ensuring social media monopolies are no longer the platform for hate, bigotry and violent incitement.
Facebook and the other social media monopolies must not be allowed to self regulate. They have proven themselves incapable of the task. The laughable Facebook oversight committee is the latest Facebook effort to keep the government off of their backs and to avoid real accountability.
In response to the feeble effort by government to regulate this monopoly, Facebook now arbitrarily blocks content under the misuse of the term abusive. This blog is blocked from Facebook. It happened when several critical blogs were written about plastic pollution that offended some of the organizations that claim to be against plastic pollution but that are benefiting from this crisis.
Facebook said that the content was blocked because some readers found it abusive. Facebook provided no explanation or legitimate avenue to contest this ruling.
No single man, Mark Zuckerberg, no single corporation, should have the power that Facebook has.
Facebook is starting an oversight committee.
This is a miserable excuse to keep the government from doing what is right. Facebook and other social media corporations should have been treated like publishing companies from the beginning, in which they are liable and responsible for the content they display. Since there is an unwillingness to make this happen, then there are other ways to reign in the power of these monopolies.
Social media corporations should be treated like utility corporations.
Facebook and other social media conglomerates should have a special tax levied. The money should finance an independent organization that will regulate these corporations.
The independent organization, not the social media giants, will have final say as to what is legitimate screening out of hate, bigotry and violent incitement, and what is the unjustifiable screening out of content under the misuse of the word abuse.
The independent organization will also be responsible for ensuring social media monopolies are no longer the platform for hate, bigotry and violent incitement.
Facebook and the other social media monopolies must not be allowed to self regulate. They have proven themselves incapable of the task. The laughable Facebook oversight committee is the latest Facebook effort to keep the government off of their backs and to avoid real accountability.
Sunday, May 17, 2020
Why The ASPCA, Anti-Cruelty Society, PETA, And Others Must Stop Investigating Animal Abuse
If the ASPCA, Anti-Cruelty Society, PETA and others want to help abused animals, they must immediately stop conducting their own investigations and instead become advocates for a proper and widespread response to animal cruelty by public law enforcement.
This is a repeat of some information previously provided, but it is critically important for understanding why these organizations should not be investigating or responding to animal cruelty.
.................................................................................................................................................................
Violent crimes can happen any time, any place. Only public law enforcement is available 24 hours a day most everywhere to respond. No one else is as capable of responding to crimes in progress.
Crimes in progress, especially violent crimes, must receive an appropriate, timely response.
If domestic violence, for example, is not responded to by public law enforcement, and if responding to domestic violence is left in the hands of special teams and private nonprofit organizations, there will be an explosion of domestic violence. If police do not respond appropriately to in progress domestic violence calls and if the public relies upon private organizations and special teams to do investigations, practically every domestic violence offender will never get arrested and the crime will grow exponentially.
This is how it is when it comes to dog fighting and animal cruelty. When these crimes are in progress, the public law enforcement response is poor, with few exceptions. The acceptance that animal cruelty and dog fighting can be investigated after the fact while accepting a poor response when the crimes are in progress means almost all animal cruelty and dog fighting offenders never get arrested.
Victims of violent crimes, including animal cruelty and dog fighting, cannot wait for special police teams or animal organization humane investigators to respond.
Dog fighting and animal cruelty are poorly responded to when in progress, and rarely responded to appropriately when on viewed by public law enforcement. The advocacy needed for this to change has been nonexistent for decades now. If violent crimes, including animal cruelty and dog fighting, are not responded to properly when in progress, and if they are ignored when police on view these crimes, then the crimes grow unchecked.
What is needed is for public law enforcement at large to respond appropriately to 911 calls for animal cruelty and dog fighting, and to respond appropriately when on viewing animal cruelty and dog fighting. Animal organizations and so called animal advocates should have long been at the forefront ensuring proper police responses. Every effort that diverts from this being achieved benefits animal abusers and dog fighters.
Most humane investigators do not have law enforcement powers, which makes their investigations toothless at best. Those that do have law enforcement powers - whether they are employed by private sector nonprofit organizations or are assigned by police departments to investigate animal cruelty - do little more than give larger public law enforcement an excuse to continue doing little to nothing about animal cruelty and dog fighting. Token police teams assigned by a police department or by an animal organization to investigate animal cruelty are little more than public relations ploys that enable police departments and other public law enforcement to continue poorly responding to animal cruelty related crimes.
It is often ineffective, even harmful, when animal abuse and dog fighting are investigated by special police teams or by humane investigators fielded by non profit animal organizations. Many are the times where animal abusers and dog fighters move their animals to another location after getting paid a visit by a humane investigator or another investigator.
Humane investigators can play a role in helping animals. They can assist people that have animals that are not properly cared for in the many instances where animal care needs to be improved but does not rise to the level of criminal animal cruelty or abuse. They must stop conducting criminal investigations they have no business conducting.
No animal organization has any business investigating animal cruelty. They have created a false impression that something meaningful is being done about animal cruelty and dog fighting. The more the public thinks they are the answer to animal cruelty, the more money pours their way in donations.
If animal organizations want to help, they must become advocates for police to respond appropriately and in a widespread manner to animal cruelty and dog fighting. They can also assist police departments in removing animals from crime scenes if needed and by providing shelter if needed for the animals until a judge decides if the seizure is justified. Because this does not keep the illusion going that certain animal organizations are the answer to animal cruelty, this does not happen.
The dysfunctional status quo means dog fighters have a greater chance of getting struck by lightning than ever getting arrested for dog fighting. Few animals abusers are arrested despite animal cruelty being a common occurring widespread crime. Animal cruelty is an easy crime for police to enforce, if things ever change for the better and there is a widespread appropriate police response to animal cruelty, in that the physical evidence of the crime is most often visible and easy to document.
Sadistic people continue burning, starving, torturing, fighting, beating, and mutilating animals with rarely anything being done to stop them.
No anti domestic violence or anti drunk driving organization conducts their own criminal investigations. Instead, they advocate for police to respond broadly and appropriately to those crimes. If they investigated these crimes on their own and did not hold police accountable, domestic violence and drunk driving would be out of control.
What is needed is for public law enforcement at large to respond appropriately to 911 calls for animal cruelty and dog fighting, and to respond appropriately when on viewing animal cruelty and dog fighting. Animal organizations must advocate to make this happen. Everything else, token anti animal abuse police teams, humane investigators, nonprofit animal organizations' anti cruelty investigations, and so forth, are only ineffective window dressing that maintains a dysfunctional status quo.
The priority for all crimes, animal cruelty, dog fighting, domestic violence, battery and so forth, is for a timely and appropriate police response when these crimes are in progress. Failing to respond appropriately to in progress crimes and crimes that are on viewed by law enforcement, including animal cruelty and dog fighting, means missing the most critically important opportunities for stopping these crimes.
Is it ethical for a private nonprofit organization to investigate any crime, including animal cruelty, when the public already pays through their taxes for public law enforcement to perform this task? If public law enforcement is not properly doing their job in responding to a crime, including for animal cruelty, then it is the responsibility for an organization concerned about animal cruelty to ensure that that there is a better police response. No organization should use the poor police response as the excuse for why they should be the ones investigating a crime. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The poor police response is exploited by a number of animal organizations, who use this opportunity to present themselves as the answer to animal cruelty. By presenting themselves as the answer to animal cruelty, they create a false narrative that generates money and publicity for themselves.
No animal organization, even if they were far more successful and competent than they are now at responding to animal cruelty, can come anywhere close in effectiveness to what public law enforcement can achieve.
To repeat the same message said for decades now to these organizations, only to fall on deliberately deaf ears - help animals, stop investigating animal cruelty and instead be advocates that fight for the police to respond appropriately.
This is a repeat of some information previously provided, but it is critically important for understanding why these organizations should not be investigating or responding to animal cruelty.
.................................................................................................................................................................
Violent crimes can happen any time, any place. Only public law enforcement is available 24 hours a day most everywhere to respond. No one else is as capable of responding to crimes in progress.
Crimes in progress, especially violent crimes, must receive an appropriate, timely response.
If domestic violence, for example, is not responded to by public law enforcement, and if responding to domestic violence is left in the hands of special teams and private nonprofit organizations, there will be an explosion of domestic violence. If police do not respond appropriately to in progress domestic violence calls and if the public relies upon private organizations and special teams to do investigations, practically every domestic violence offender will never get arrested and the crime will grow exponentially.
This is how it is when it comes to dog fighting and animal cruelty. When these crimes are in progress, the public law enforcement response is poor, with few exceptions. The acceptance that animal cruelty and dog fighting can be investigated after the fact while accepting a poor response when the crimes are in progress means almost all animal cruelty and dog fighting offenders never get arrested.
Victims of violent crimes, including animal cruelty and dog fighting, cannot wait for special police teams or animal organization humane investigators to respond.
Dog fighting and animal cruelty are poorly responded to when in progress, and rarely responded to appropriately when on viewed by public law enforcement. The advocacy needed for this to change has been nonexistent for decades now. If violent crimes, including animal cruelty and dog fighting, are not responded to properly when in progress, and if they are ignored when police on view these crimes, then the crimes grow unchecked.
What is needed is for public law enforcement at large to respond appropriately to 911 calls for animal cruelty and dog fighting, and to respond appropriately when on viewing animal cruelty and dog fighting. Animal organizations and so called animal advocates should have long been at the forefront ensuring proper police responses. Every effort that diverts from this being achieved benefits animal abusers and dog fighters.
Most humane investigators do not have law enforcement powers, which makes their investigations toothless at best. Those that do have law enforcement powers - whether they are employed by private sector nonprofit organizations or are assigned by police departments to investigate animal cruelty - do little more than give larger public law enforcement an excuse to continue doing little to nothing about animal cruelty and dog fighting. Token police teams assigned by a police department or by an animal organization to investigate animal cruelty are little more than public relations ploys that enable police departments and other public law enforcement to continue poorly responding to animal cruelty related crimes.
It is often ineffective, even harmful, when animal abuse and dog fighting are investigated by special police teams or by humane investigators fielded by non profit animal organizations. Many are the times where animal abusers and dog fighters move their animals to another location after getting paid a visit by a humane investigator or another investigator.
Humane investigators can play a role in helping animals. They can assist people that have animals that are not properly cared for in the many instances where animal care needs to be improved but does not rise to the level of criminal animal cruelty or abuse. They must stop conducting criminal investigations they have no business conducting.
No animal organization has any business investigating animal cruelty. They have created a false impression that something meaningful is being done about animal cruelty and dog fighting. The more the public thinks they are the answer to animal cruelty, the more money pours their way in donations.
If animal organizations want to help, they must become advocates for police to respond appropriately and in a widespread manner to animal cruelty and dog fighting. They can also assist police departments in removing animals from crime scenes if needed and by providing shelter if needed for the animals until a judge decides if the seizure is justified. Because this does not keep the illusion going that certain animal organizations are the answer to animal cruelty, this does not happen.
The dysfunctional status quo means dog fighters have a greater chance of getting struck by lightning than ever getting arrested for dog fighting. Few animals abusers are arrested despite animal cruelty being a common occurring widespread crime. Animal cruelty is an easy crime for police to enforce, if things ever change for the better and there is a widespread appropriate police response to animal cruelty, in that the physical evidence of the crime is most often visible and easy to document.
Sadistic people continue burning, starving, torturing, fighting, beating, and mutilating animals with rarely anything being done to stop them.
No anti domestic violence or anti drunk driving organization conducts their own criminal investigations. Instead, they advocate for police to respond broadly and appropriately to those crimes. If they investigated these crimes on their own and did not hold police accountable, domestic violence and drunk driving would be out of control.
What is needed is for public law enforcement at large to respond appropriately to 911 calls for animal cruelty and dog fighting, and to respond appropriately when on viewing animal cruelty and dog fighting. Animal organizations must advocate to make this happen. Everything else, token anti animal abuse police teams, humane investigators, nonprofit animal organizations' anti cruelty investigations, and so forth, are only ineffective window dressing that maintains a dysfunctional status quo.
The priority for all crimes, animal cruelty, dog fighting, domestic violence, battery and so forth, is for a timely and appropriate police response when these crimes are in progress. Failing to respond appropriately to in progress crimes and crimes that are on viewed by law enforcement, including animal cruelty and dog fighting, means missing the most critically important opportunities for stopping these crimes.
Is it ethical for a private nonprofit organization to investigate any crime, including animal cruelty, when the public already pays through their taxes for public law enforcement to perform this task? If public law enforcement is not properly doing their job in responding to a crime, including for animal cruelty, then it is the responsibility for an organization concerned about animal cruelty to ensure that that there is a better police response. No organization should use the poor police response as the excuse for why they should be the ones investigating a crime. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The poor police response is exploited by a number of animal organizations, who use this opportunity to present themselves as the answer to animal cruelty. By presenting themselves as the answer to animal cruelty, they create a false narrative that generates money and publicity for themselves.
No animal organization, even if they were far more successful and competent than they are now at responding to animal cruelty, can come anywhere close in effectiveness to what public law enforcement can achieve.
To repeat the same message said for decades now to these organizations, only to fall on deliberately deaf ears - help animals, stop investigating animal cruelty and instead be advocates that fight for the police to respond appropriately.
Thursday, May 7, 2020
Social Media's Attack On Religious Freedom And Free Speech
Social media corporations have been the greediest profiteers of hate, bigotry and incitement towards violence. After receiving a backlash, and under fear of finally being regulated, they have now become the greediest non government destroyers of free speech and religious freedom.
Religious freedom, a concept they fail to understand, includes not only the freedom to worship a religion, but also the freedom to criticize, reject, and challenge religious ideas and beliefs.
Social media corporations are not mere platforms, and must stop being treated as such.
Ideas critical of how plastic pollution is responded to by some of the organizations that claim to be against plastic pollution meant a permanent block by one social media giant with no avenue to contest their block. The social media giants explanation for the block reads as follows: "Your message couldn't be sent because it includes content that other people on Facebook have reported as abusive".
Under the broad umbrella of the term abusive, social media corporations grant themselves unlimited powers of censorship. Social media corporations fail miserably at screening out content that promotes hate, bigotry and violent incitement. They arbitrarily block content and close accounts that have nothing to do with hate, bigotry and incitement to violence without providing any real avenue to contest such decisions.
Social media corporations must be regulated like utilities. They never should have been allowed to become monopolies. They are poorly regulated and must be reigned in. They are incapable of self regulation, and should no longer be afforded this opportunity.
Also, a special tax must be levied upon them in order to fund an independent organization responsible for final determinations regarding when content promotes hate, bigotry and incitement towards violence and must be removed, and when social media arbitrarily blocks content that someone or some organization finds objectionable but that does not promote hate, bigotry and incitement towards violence
Regulate the monopolies like a utility. Tax them to create an independent organization that makes final decisions regarding content. The days of social media giants making freedom of speech and religion decisions behind closed doors, accountable to no one, with no legitimate avenues of appeal made available, must end.
Religious freedom, a concept they fail to understand, includes not only the freedom to worship a religion, but also the freedom to criticize, reject, and challenge religious ideas and beliefs.
Social media corporations are not mere platforms, and must stop being treated as such.
Ideas critical of how plastic pollution is responded to by some of the organizations that claim to be against plastic pollution meant a permanent block by one social media giant with no avenue to contest their block. The social media giants explanation for the block reads as follows: "Your message couldn't be sent because it includes content that other people on Facebook have reported as abusive".
Under the broad umbrella of the term abusive, social media corporations grant themselves unlimited powers of censorship. Social media corporations fail miserably at screening out content that promotes hate, bigotry and violent incitement. They arbitrarily block content and close accounts that have nothing to do with hate, bigotry and incitement to violence without providing any real avenue to contest such decisions.
Social media corporations must be regulated like utilities. They never should have been allowed to become monopolies. They are poorly regulated and must be reigned in. They are incapable of self regulation, and should no longer be afforded this opportunity.
Also, a special tax must be levied upon them in order to fund an independent organization responsible for final determinations regarding when content promotes hate, bigotry and incitement towards violence and must be removed, and when social media arbitrarily blocks content that someone or some organization finds objectionable but that does not promote hate, bigotry and incitement towards violence
Regulate the monopolies like a utility. Tax them to create an independent organization that makes final decisions regarding content. The days of social media giants making freedom of speech and religion decisions behind closed doors, accountable to no one, with no legitimate avenues of appeal made available, must end.
Wednesday, May 6, 2020
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)