Young men and boys fuelled by “strongly misogynistic” online material are hunting for vulnerable women and girls to exploit on websites such as eating disorder and suicide forums, senior officers have said.
The threat from young males wanting to carry out serious harm is so serious that counter-terrorism officers are joining the National Crime Agency (NCA) in the hunt for them, fearing they could go on to attack or kill.
Britain’s head of counter-terrorism, Matt Jukes, told the Guardian that a joint taskforce would be set up between his force and the NCA to tackle those fixated with violence online, in what he called a “decisive moment”.
Jukes, the Metropolitan police force’s assistant commissioner for specialist operations, said the new pairing would look for those consuming online material about killings or sexual abuse. Those who might go on to plot school shootings and other mass attacks, as well as those who encouraged women and girls to harm themselves, would also fall under their remit.
Yes, let’s start with people calling for censorship, like you.
(You certainly have a high opinion of the thing you’re posting on.)
Yes we should have some sort of censorship. The vast, vast majority of people understand and see the bullshit these people are peddling. But some don’t, and that ends up hurting innocent people. Why the fuck would you argue we should facilitate behaviour like this? https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/online-groups-pressuring-youth-self-harm-1.7107885
Giving me that libertarian vibe of wanting to be fiercely independent of the thing they rely on for survival.
To clarify, this comment is agreeing with whom it is a direct reply of and commenting on the poster they are replying to.
What does the word libertarian mean to you?
Are you thinking of right or left libertarian, the most well known is right libertarianism? Or are you thinking of what America means is libertarianism, because that’s something COMPLETELY different than what the rest of the world thinks. We do not have the same cultural inheritance, and what you think of as libertarianism isn’t exactly what others think of it as.
If we have a form of “true-libertarian” it’s basically the idiots driving around claiming to be a sovereign citizen. To me the comment you replied to doesn’t really give that vibe. He seems more of a “Yes, we need government intervention to prevent extreme negative outcome”. That doesn’t really match with a the simplified way you portray “libertarian”.
To clarify I meant schnirittos was giving the libertarian vibes of immediately calling any amount of curation or harm reduction via removal on social media sites a blanket ‘censorship bad slipery slope boogie woogie.’ And was agreeing with whom I directly replied to.
Schnirittos’ (I know I’m getting it wrong but i just can’t be bothered to go check for a third time I’m sorry) comment, I think, exemplifies(in part) the American-bastardized version of libertarianism you describe.
Aaaah, that makes more sense! Thanks for clarifying my guy!
Np, appreciate the acknowledgment.
It’s not censorship, it’s curation.
Now we’ve got rapists, predators and misogynists telling young boys how the world works. Trying to isolate them from society to make money off of them. To make it easier, it’s like gambling: it influences underdeveloped brains much more than developed brains. That’s why there’s an age limit, just like with alcohol.