PM Calls Facebook Irresponsible For Allowing Beheading Clips

Not quite a dupe but by Dave+Whiteside · 2013-10-21 23:17 · Score: 1

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/10/21/239219/facebook-lets-beheading-clips-return-to-its-site
why not just add a post in there

--
who where what when now?

Helping him censor the web for him now by alexkaskasoli · 2013-10-21 23:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

Unfortunately this will likely help him in his quest for web censorship...

Re:Helping him censor the web for him now by gl4ss · 2013-10-22 00:14 · Score: 1

yeah nevermind that if you don't have people posting beheading clips as friends or friends who comment on them then you will not see them.
I have not seen not one, and I got something around 200 fb "friends" on the feeds. they know that there's other venues for gore than fb. I don't send titty pics to my mom nor do I send her goatse.
you could get them in your email too, if someone was sending them..

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:Helping him censor the web for him now by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 02:15 · Score: 1

"especially without a warning"
There's no censorship with having a pop-up saying "Hey! This clip contains objectively objectionable content. Are you sure you want to see this?" or at least some basic form of age verification so that people don't stumble into it blindly or have it auto-load on them when all they want to do is read a post about it.
Re:Helping him censor the web for him now by Krojack · 2013-10-22 02:35 · Score: 1

What I don't understand is, they allow them to rally in the streets of Britain and shout over megaphones "death to britains, death to americans" but aren't allowed to post this on FB? /confused
Re:Helping him censor the web for him now by MacDork · 2013-10-22 03:26 · Score: 1

This will likely help Facebook seem relevant again too. No such thing as bad press.

Excellent by AmiMoJo · 2013-10-21 23:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

This is wonderful news. Facebook will now be blocked by default in the government porn filters, and thus far more people will opt out of them. Turns out Facebook is actually useful for something.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC

Re:Excellent by fatphil · 2013-10-22 00:40 · Score: 3, Interesting

I was expecting your post to veer in this direction:

This is wonderful news. Facebook will now be blocked by default in the government porn filters, and thus far more people will just give up on using facebook, and it will be forgotten about and disappear. Turns out the government is actually useful for something.

--
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
Re:Excellent by AHuxley · 2013-10-22 01:31 · Score: 1

Your country does not block Facebook, Facebook unblocks your country. Time for expensive NGO work and a bit of color revolution. The locals get the web 2.0 message http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution.
Meet your new opposition politicians.

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Re:Excellent by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 01:51 · Score: 0

Why would a beheading picture run afoul of a porn blocker? Do the Brits wank to beheading videos or something?
Re:Excellent by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 07:13 · Score: 0

In some civillised countries, some forms of extreme violence are classed as obscene.

Won't somebody think of the children... by Martz · 2013-10-21 23:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

'It's irresponsible of Facebook to post beheading videos, especially without a warning. They must explain their actions to worried parents.'

So much fail...

Facebook doesn't post any beheading videos. It's users do.
I thought we were allowed to be irresponsible as long as it's legal?
If my Facebook friends don't like the content that I may or may not post, then they can hide it or unfriend me.

Looks like he's trying to win Family Votes, and slashdot is helping to peddle this crap.

Shame on you timothy. Shame on you.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by 91degrees · 2013-10-21 23:31 · Score: 1

Facebook doesn't post any beheading videos. It's users do.
Give him the benefit of the doubt here. It's clear what he means

I thought we were allowed to be irresponsible as long as it's legal?
Hasn't been the case in Nanny state Britain for a while. At least not as far as most politicians are concerned.

If my Facebook friends don't like the content that I may or may not post, then they can hide it or unfriend me.
But this leads to the question of why facebook blocked it in the first place, and how those factors no longer apply. If facebook feels that that harm is done and they want to prevent this then they can block them. If they feel these are not the case then they don't have to. Facebok should make up its mind which of these is the case.
Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by Barsteward · 2013-10-21 23:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

I think banning porn videos, bare breasts etc but not beheading videos shows a complete hypocrisy especially with this statement from the dick heads.

"Facebook has long been a place where people turn to share their experiences, particularly when they're connected to controversial events on the ground, such as human rights abuses, acts of terrorism and other violent events. People are sharing this video on Facebook to condemn it. If the video were being celebrated, or the actions in it encouraged, our approach would be different," Facebook said in a statement.

--
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by daem0n1x · 2013-10-21 23:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

Then allow people to post nudity and sex. I can't see how naked people can be considered worse than a guy getting his head cut off. American puritanism in its worse.
And before all the jingos start telling me "if you don't like American puritanism, then don't use Facebook", I declare: I don't use it.
Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by TheCarp · 2013-10-22 00:04 · Score: 1

As much as I mostly agree, I think its more a bit of being spineless than dick heads. Facebook is, at the end of the day, not going to be banned in the UK, and the company is a US company anyway.
Standing up to Cameron doesn't take much spine, its basically just good PR for Facebook.
Porn and erotic images (a friend was recently ranting about people reporting a picture a friend of her posted where her friend was wearing body paint) on the other hand, while they likely could get away with it, and could fight the shitstorm that it kicked up....have no incentive to do so.
Instead they put it on their users. Lock down your porn so only a few people can see it, and there is no real restriction. Close the closet door and you are ok, until you piss someone off and they report everything on your page.
Plus it would likely create sticky situations for them in making the min age to have an account lower than 18.

--
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by gstoddart · 2013-10-22 00:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

Facebook doesn't post any beheading videos. It's users do.
You're right. But Facebook chooses if that's what they're willing to allow on their site.
Somehow I doubt this is some noble thing about freedom of expression like they're saying -- I strongly suspect it's more about the advertising revenue generated.
Zuckerberg and Facebook can claim some principled stand, but from what I've seen, it's likely just plain old greed.
I'm not convinced they're actually capable of being principled on these things -- they want to do two things, make as much money as possible, and collect as much of your personal information as they can (so they can make as much money as possible). But lets' not pretend that Zuckerfuck is, or ever has been, a principled actor in all of this.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by prefec2 · 2013-10-22 00:22 · Score: 1, Interesting

Cameron is presently converting the UK into a totalitarian state. He already has a central spy infrastructure, cameras at every corner, and a content control infrastructure (for pron of course, other stuff is allowed). He fights free press together with his friends in the conservative press (including Murdoch). Most likely, he will perform a referendum on UK-exit from the EU, which if it succeeds will help the EU and harm the UK in many ways. For Cameron it has the advantage that it is easier to dump the European human rights declaration, which he already blamed to be bad for the UK, because they have to treat foreigners/immigrants like humans.
But, yes he is right. The real problem are Facebook videos, photos, or posts. (Well FB sucks, but everyone is still free to not use it)
Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by Barsteward · 2013-10-22 00:51 · Score: 1

I think in cases like this where they try to prepare a clever "statement" to defend their idiotic choices, dick head==spineless

--
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2013-10-22 00:51 · Score: 1

It's reasonable to ask them why they allow these postings without so much as a warning or parental filter, given their reason for taking over from MySpace orients around kids and permitting private pages.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by gl4ss · 2013-10-22 00:54 · Score: 1

fb blocked it in the first place because nannies were asking for it. what they could do maybe would be to introduce a M18 tag and let everything go in that.
it's not quite clear what he means because the nanny orgs lobbying him are wording it like facebook is posting the stuff - as if it wasn't their little kids "online friends" who were posting the stuff(I've never seen ANY gore on fb. plenty on other corners of the internet though).
that being said, cutting them is a short way of censoring a lot of activist news stories.
and wait until they hear about goatse.......

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 01:09 · Score: 0

better if the UK-exit referendum is held at the same time as the Scottish independence referendum, win the result of UK going out and Scotland being a member of the EU.
I traveled around UK and Scotland was where I was beast treated.
Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by Pino+Grigio · 2013-10-22 01:17 · Score: 1, Interesting

Oh do shut up. Cameron had nothing to do with the creation and activities of GCQH, before 2010. He also wasn't responsible for CCTV cameras being put up all over the country. Cameron is against regulation of the press. A referendum on leaving the EU is what the people fucking want, regardless of what the end result would be. You have no idea whether that would be good or bad for the EU or the UK. His opposition to European Human Rights law is based on the fact that Islamic hate preachers can come to the UK and spread their shite, sponge benefits and resist deportation because they have a fucking cat, for 10 years at a cost of millions of pounds.
Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by JackieBrown · 2013-10-22 01:20 · Score: 1

Then allow people to post nudity and sex. I can't see how naked people can be considered worse than a guy getting his head cut off. American puritanism in its worse.
I guess you thought this story was about the American Prime Mister?
Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by drinkypoo · 2013-10-22 01:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

I thought we were allowed to be irresponsible as long as it's legal?
If my Facebook friends don't like the content that I may or may not post, then they can hide it or unfriend me.
Facebook is not a common carrier because they already censor content. For example, they censor stills of breastfeeding in which you can barely see a breast. They are the only and ultimate arbiter of what content is permissible on their site, and therefore they should be legally responsible for all of it.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by daem0n1x · 2013-10-22 01:30 · Score: 1

Facebook is an American company. These stupid rules against nudity and sex are very clearly American-inspired.
Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 01:34 · Score: 1

>A referendum on leaving the EU is what the people fucking want
And these same people honestly can't tell the difference between their ass and their elbow.
Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by intermodal · 2013-10-22 01:35 · Score: 1

Every time I think Cameron has truly demonstrated how much he fails at understanding technology, he goes and does something like this and proves how much worse his failures on that front can get. We have to remember, Cameron thought it was reasonable to believe ISPs could magically block porn as well in some reliable fashion.

--
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by Baloroth · 2013-10-22 01:43 · Score: 4, Interesting

And yet it's the UK that is rolling out a country wide porn filtering system that you have to opt out of.

--
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 01:49 · Score: 0

So FB is now the decider for how we behave? This is worse than banning the pictures. We'll allow it, as long as you all behave as we say? If I was ever on FB, I'd be off now.
Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by daem0n1x · 2013-10-22 01:53 · Score: 1

American puritanism had to come from somewhere...
Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 02:00 · Score: 1

> Cameron is against regulation of Rupert Murdoch
Fixed that for you.
Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 02:27 · Score: 0

...somewhere like a religion that existed before either the US or England?
Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by Baloroth · 2013-10-22 02:30 · Score: 2

Yeah, the Puritans. Know where they came from, originally? Hint: it wasn't America.

--
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 02:59 · Score: 0

You going to take what the PM said literally? You should be ashamed!! Pretty obvious he is concerned that any user can come across these videos, and FB is the one that is allowing it to be "posted" they might as well post the videos themselves. Dumb argument to have that's as silly has the idiot TV stations that air infomercials and claim they have no responsibility for the views or damage the product can do, but that doesn't stop them from hoarding in the money, despite whether it a dangerous product.
""acts of terrorism and human rights abuses""
And I promise you you will never see one American either citizen or soldier in these videos. So what explanation do you have for that one? Or is it because there American its not okay? You are no better then "slashdot" you have decide to act the the media taking everything out of context, to peddle an agenda..
Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by operagost · 2013-10-22 03:11 · Score: 2

To be fair, pornography is different from actual videos of terrorists beheading someone. Porn is fiction, murder is not. That, of course, doesn't excuse Facebook from banning any videos or pics of people nude in everyday, nonsexual situations.

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by operagost · 2013-10-22 03:13 · Score: 1

Jingo... you keep using that word. I do not believe it means what you think it means.

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by operagost · 2013-10-22 03:15 · Score: 1

And clearly, stubborn douchebaggery comes from daem0m1x.

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by wvmarle · 2013-10-22 03:15 · Score: 1

1984 was set in (what used to be) the UK. Apparently Orwell was quite the clairvoyant. He just missed the actual year by a few decades.
Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 03:16 · Score: 0

Stop parroting this nonsense.
Children are pretty capable of understanding the moral implications of violence and human rights. You can explain to your 4 year old that the violence they used to keep that bully from stealing their bike is not the same as the violence they used to put gum in their little sisters hair. And if you don't explain this difference to your children while they are toddlers, they will not be able to function in society as adults.
Contrast this with the incredibly complex moral and social implications of human sexual behavior. It's healthy, but you can catch incurable diseases from it. It feels good, but not everybody wants it. You can touch someone you don't know on the shoulder and they won't mind, but touching them in other places can be a felony. Sex allows two people to bond, but can cause emotional pain and ruin relationships. People want different things from sex. You can get addicted to sex. You can get addicted to certain things, sexually, that make you unable to function in society or unable to form a child-baring relationship later in life. Some people discriminate against other people because of what they want from sex, or how much sex they want.
My toddler is a smart kid. But most ADULTS haven't even wrapped their heads completely around the intricacies of human sexual behavior. I think my kids can wait until they are 12 years old and my wife and I are perfectly fine with that. And if facebook wants to make money off of the deep-pockets of we "American Puritans" they can adapt their business model to fit our culture. And it sounds like they are doing exactly that.
Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by serviscope_minor · 2013-10-22 03:22 · Score: 1

Islamic hate preachers can come to the UK and spread their shite, sponge benefits and resist deportation because they have a fucking cat, for 10 years at a cost of millions of pounds.
And you know what? The fucker has finally gone. The system worked eventually.
A clue: if you switch off rights for people you don't like, then they are not rights. Rights apply to everyone. That's the definition. Scoundrels included.
Secondly, he's pandering to the press on this one. There is not a single objectionable phrase (if anything it's too weak) in the EU declaration of human rights. I challenge you to find one.
The problem is the same with the US and it's constitution in that judges give madcap interpretations of it. Ones that make no logical sense at all.
The thing is the only solution he is proposing is to simply scrap the law so the pesky judges don't have the final say and you can be shat on by the government simply because you've raised the ire of the Daily Mail (ok hyperbole, I know).

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by daem0n1x · 2013-10-22 04:11 · Score: 1

Dude, you are nuts. I hope your whole post is a troll or else you need some psychiatric advice.
Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 04:37 · Score: 0

Not to mention he thought LOL meant "Lots of Love"
Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by Pino+Grigio · 2013-10-22 04:43 · Score: 1

If the first thing you do when you come to this country is break the law (in this case immigration law), your rights should be circumscribed accordingly. This is extremely easy to understand, is necessary as a practical measure to prevent people taking the piss and is something judges at the European Court should take into account. The problem isn't the declaration, it's the EC's interpretation of it in many cases.
Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by drinkypoo · 2013-10-22 05:24 · Score: 1

I think banning porn videos, bare breasts etc but not beheading videos shows a complete hypocrisy especially with this statement from the dick heads.
"Facebook has long been a place where people turn to share their experiences, particularly when they're connected to controversial events on the ground, such as human rights abuses, acts of terrorism and other violent events. People are sharing this video on Facebook to condemn it. If the video were being celebrated, or the actions in it encouraged, our approach would be different," Facebook said in a statement.
Actually, I feel less like there is proof that they are hypocrites after reading that statement. If people were posting porn videos, bare breasts etc. on facebook in order to say they were very bad things, then perhaps they might permit that.
Well, okay, not really. But you can't take things corporations say seriously, because they have no soul.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by mrclisdue · 2013-10-22 05:34 · Score: 1

...make you unable to function in society or unable to form a child-baring relationship later in life...
classic.
Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by Stan92057 · 2013-10-22 05:49 · Score: 1

Fact: pornography,nudism is allowed in the USA. Its a billion dollar business so saying America is prudish and bans it, is just plain stupid. The USA just doesn't allow you to do,show theses things around kids.

--
Jack of all trades,master of none
Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by Cederic · 2013-10-22 07:05 · Score: 1

In snail mail, it did.
Maybe you just aren't old enough.
Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 07:15 · Score: 0

I can't see how naked people can be considered worse than a guy getting his head cut off.
Umm. Riiight.
I can't tell -- are you trolling, or is your moral compass genuinely that badly out of whack?

American puritanism in its worse.
Yeah, this was a story about Britain.
But that's okay. I can see how you'd get them mixed up.
Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 07:28 · Score: 0

I know! It's when you cross Jenga with Bingo. Hours of patriotic fun!
Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 08:17 · Score: 0

At least it is consistent in UK. PM is against beheading AND nudity.
Facebook on the other hand is worried about nudity only.
Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by daem0n1x · 2013-10-22 09:35 · Score: 1

Scenes with full frontal nudity are common in European movies and series. There are statues of naked people in parks and squares in all European cities.
Obviously I don't think pornography should be shown to children, that's nuts. Between nudity and pornography there's a whole world of difference. Equating one to the other is indeed being prudish.
Forbidding pictures of naked breasts but allowing videos of decapitations is beyond my understanding. And pretty much everyone around here agrees, so it's not something I have. This thing is all over the news around here, as a sad joke.
Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 10:54 · Score: 0

You Bliar! The "special relationship" English have with the Puritans across the pond means that every prime minister in turn has to cuddle up into the lap of a Puritan, make a soft, cute barking sound and wiggle the tail.
Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by gatfirls · 2013-10-22 11:17 · Score: 1

I think that is probably more of a business decision. If they allow it the site would have been crushed immediately with porn and low value users.
Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by daem0n1x · 2013-10-22 11:27 · Score: 1

I think that is probably more of a business decision. If they allow it the site would have been crushed immediately with porn and low value users.
Voyeurs and psychopaths are more "high-value"?
Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 12:03 · Score: 0

I know their community isn't a very good one but they have built one. Hosting porn would have drown out any decent content.
Hey boss I am watching this youtube video from sony. "You mean that site with all the porn?"
Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 12:35 · Score: 0

so i can record myself having sex and post and it's ok because it's not fiction?
Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by jandersen · 2013-10-22 20:46 · Score: 1

Facebook doesn't post any beheading videos. It's users do.
Hmm, yes, and drug dealers don't ruin lives, people do it to themselves. And so on. If you own a facility - a house or a website - where you invite people in and allow them to commit crimes, then you are an accomplice, especially if you benefit finacially from the activities. The only question here is whether posting videos of beheadings is a crime; IMO it should be. It isn't about whether it is good taste or not - these videos are for a large part posted by terrorists as propaganda. Is aiding and abetting terrorists a crime?

I thought we were allowed to be irresponsible as long as it's legal?
True - but legal is not always right. Even casual glance at what a clever lawyer can get you off the hook for should tell that much. In my opinion the law should be "right" - when you read it you should go "Yeah, that sounds fairly reasonable".
The thing about the attitude you seem to put on display is that you'd probably also say things like "Rules are made for being broken" and that sort of crap. To me that sounds like you are morally corrupt - it's OK to piss other people up and down as long as it is barely legal, and anyway, you just make your own rules as you go along. Who should be ashamed here?
Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by daem0n1x · 2013-10-23 21:46 · Score: 1

Nudity and porn are two completely different things.
Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by daem0n1x · 2013-10-23 21:48 · Score: 1

I can't see how naked people can be considered worse than a guy getting his head cut off.
Umm. Riiight.
I can't tell -- are you trolling, or is your moral compass genuinely that badly out of whack?
WTF?

American puritanism in its worse.
Yeah, this was a story about Britain.
But that's okay. I can see how you'd get them mixed up.
Not about the UK. Facebook is an American company, imposing the warped American sense of morality (illustrated in your previous paragraph) on everyone else.
Re:Won't somebody think of the children... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-24 03:22 · Score: 0

Just start posting porn to Facebook with the description: "This is disgusting, I can't believe people would do this kind of stuff and that other people would like watching it!"

Irresponsible, yes by FriendlyLurker · 2013-10-21 23:21 · Score: 1, Interesting

Irresponsible, yes, but it sure does help sell the whole war on terror. Look, this could be you if your country does not bend over and contribute to the world war on terror (Icelands experience).

Re:Irresponsible, yes by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 00:23 · Score: 0

Iceland got itself in trouble because it lost other people's money and refused to pay it back.
That's nothing to do with the war on terror, it only has itself to blame.

Re:PM? Which country by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 23:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

There's a bunch of countries in the world with PMs. I have no fucking idea which one David Cameron runs. How bout throwing us a bone and just telling us which country we're talking about?

Why not do what everyone else who lives outside the USA is expected to do (when they see the name of some US-based politician) and just Google it?

Re:PM? Which country by flyneye · 2013-10-21 23:27 · Score: 1

Are you really so crippled as to not have heard of Google?

--
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!

Of course.. by dirtaddshp · 2013-10-21 23:29 · Score: 1

Of course.. because David Cameron wants to ban and censor everything.

Re:Of course.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 23:52 · Score: 0

Well, he did invent the Internet after all.

So? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 23:30 · Score: 0

There was also a beheading in Expendables movie...

Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 07:43 · Score: 0

There were two in Braveheart.

Real problem by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 23:31 · Score: 0

They must explain their actions to worried parents.

UK PM "Won't someone think of the children" Cameron can just explain that his opt-in internet policy will naturally prevent children watching YouTube. Or he could ask why those parents aren't supervising their child's internet time.

If the PM really wants to turn the internet into a babysitter, he can fund a law to rent appropriate content and create a walled garden.

so much for common decency by Sterculius · 2013-10-21 23:34 · Score: 1

I suppose it is OK to post rape videos and snuff films on Facebook now as well.

Re:so much for common decency by Thanshin · 2013-10-21 23:36 · Score: 2

I wouldn't mind. I don't have friends who'd do such thing.
If you have many friends who would like to post rape videos and snuff films maybe it's your problem and not everybody else's.
Re:so much for common decency by daem0n1x · 2013-10-21 23:59 · Score: 0

If you're such an individualist that won't mind about anything outside your own asshole, what are you doing posting on Slashdot? Go back to your solitary confinement.
Re:so much for common decency by MROD · 2013-10-22 00:13 · Score: 2

I suppose it is OK to post rape videos and snuff films on Facebook now as well.
Probably is... as long as you don't show any nipples!

--

Agrajag: "Oh no, not again!"
Re:so much for common decency by Thanshin · 2013-10-22 00:45 · Score: 1

"Minding about" does not equal "imposing one's view".
I don't like to live in a world where some people would post beheadings on their facebook for any but a very few reasons. However, I don't believe myself to be the judge of decency with the right to tell other people what they should or shouldn't share with their (and that's the key word) friends.
Re:so much for common decency by Cajun+Hell · 2013-10-22 02:29 · Score: 2

Next thing you know, Facebook will be showing ads to people without any warning. Perhaps even children!

--
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Re:so much for common decency by tibman · 2013-10-22 05:00 · Score: 1

I suppose that is true in an environment where only friends share with each other. But in my experience they are posted to public areas to gather attention. It's always an interesting moment when you scroll down and see that famous goatse image stretching across your screen.

--
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman

Re:PM? Which country by TheP4st · 2013-10-21 23:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

I have no fucking idea which one David Cameron runs. How bout throwing us a bone and just telling us which country we're talking about?

How about that you read or watch news about world events once in a while? Note that by world events I do not mean what Rihanna wore on the red carpet or what Justin Bieber did last night but actual politics as in that stuff that pretty much play an important part in our daily lives. Bone for the search engine impaired and generally ignorant.

--
"I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold

Think of the worried parebts by Chrisq · 2013-10-21 23:35 · Score: 4, Funny

The prime minister said the social network must explain its decision to allow images showing decapitations to worried parents.

I would strongly advise worried parents not to watch decapitation clips.

New Headline! by flyneye · 2013-10-21 23:39 · Score: 2, Funny

Facebook calls PM sissy fop for censoring what the children already see in games, on t.v. and in the backyard with a Barbie and Ken execution playset.

" Who is this irritation and why does he not realize that "I" govern more people than his silly little country and the Catholic Church combined?" said Zuckerburg, wiping the powder from beneath his nostrils and grabbing another turkey leg. " Off with his head!"

--
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!

Re:New Headline! by captainlavender · 2013-10-23 16:02 · Score: 1

I feel like watching a video of an actual human being losing their life is a little different than games and Barbies.
Re:New Headline! by flyneye · 2013-10-24 23:03 · Score: 1

Differentiate between what you feel, think, know and believe.
If you feel like watching one, watch one.
If you think it, is different, you don't know.
If you believe it is different, you don't know
If you know it is different, get Hollywood on it, we're all bored to tears.
If it was good enough for the Romans....

--
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!

Oh... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 23:41 · Score: 0

...I wish the British would leave by their concept of "No sex please."

That way, they'd stop contaminating the gene pool and eventually die out...

Re:Oh... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 23:47 · Score: 0

s/leave/live/

David Cameron... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 23:41 · Score: 0

sounds like a twit.

That is all.

Re:Think of the worried parents by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 23:42 · Score: 0, Insightful

The Taliban doing the beheadings are the tea party of the muslims. The majority aren't like that and prefer to get on with their lives in peace.

Re:PM? Which country by cbope · 2013-10-21 23:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

Nah, he's just a 'Murican!

Seriously, this is a MAJOR problem with the so-called "news" in the US. It's so US-centric (and crime and entertainment-centric) that even the prime minister of the UK is not known by name.

Re:PM? Which country by tapi0 · 2013-10-21 23:47 · Score: 2

There's a bunch of countries in the world with Presidents. I have no fucking idea which one Barrack Obama runs. How bout throwing us a bone and just telling us which country we're talking about

It really needs to be consistently applied, don't you think - there's often a reference to something particularly USian that needs further research. Either concede that it's going to be necessary sometimes, given the nature of a summary, or give the full background detail for all regardless of if it originates in the US

Condemn the content? by W1sdOm_tOOth · 2013-10-21 23:51 · Score: 0

...Facebook doesn't even allow to "dislike" content....

--
If you're not confused, you're not paying attention

Re:Condemn the content? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-10-22 00:07 · Score: 1

Facebook prefers that you refer to that content as "unfriending videos".
Re:Condemn the content? by operagost · 2013-10-22 03:17 · Score: 1

You can report a post. If you have a post on your wall and click the X to get rid of it, it gives you this option. Naturally, some people I know are victimized by moronic friends or friends-of-friends who, instead of just closing the post or even blocking that person, decide to report the post and this results in a summary, temporary ban on posting.

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:Condemn the content? by oobayly · 2013-10-22 04:20 · Score: 1

Quite frankly, if a friend of mine posted a beheading video on facebook I'd report it, just before I de-friend them. Then again, it won't happen as the my "friends" on facebook are actually friends who I see and socialse with. I don't think facebook should ban them, but allow users to police it, because most people will.
Then again, I'd be tempted report a photo of my sister breastfeeding, not because it's obscene, but because she's a breast feeding fascist (who thinks everyone who disagrees with her is an idiot) and it would massively wind her up.
Anonymous - in case my brother in law frequents /. and recognises my handle.
Re:Condemn the content? by lxs · 2013-10-22 07:39 · Score: 1

Breast feeding fascist? So that's what BFF stands for!

Independence..... by nnet · 2013-10-21 23:52 · Score: 1

so what happened last time the British tried to enforce their morality across the pond....

Re:Independence..... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 23:57 · Score: 0

By the looks of it, they're determined to bring the world back to the Victorian period.
Why else would they still make Victorian period costume dramas?
Re:Independence..... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-10-22 00:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

so what happened last time the British tried to enforce their morality across the pond....
I don't remember the American Revolution having much of a moral element.... In fact, while we've done a great deal to get over it, the US was substantially stocked by a mixture of moralizing assholes too moralistic to get along in Britain (ye olde puritans) and would-be feudal lords who couldn't compete with the incumbents at home and therefore went abroad (ye olde slave plantation regions).

Some political discontent, some economic interests; but King George wasn't exactly getting all up in our right to own filthy erotic lithographs...
Re:Independence..... by fustakrakich · 2013-10-22 01:41 · Score: 1

so what happened last time the British tried to enforce their morality across the pond....?
We got the FCC

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Re:Independence..... by operagost · 2013-10-22 03:19 · Score: 1

And Australia is still full of criminals. Shut up, you blithering idiot.

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.

Re:PM? Which country by 91degrees · 2013-10-21 23:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

He's criticising Slashdot. Whether he googles or not, Slashdot should still have provided this information. There's no reason not to say "British PM".

Perhaps he should know. Perhaps everyone should, but for any snippet of information, there will be a non trivial number of people who are not aware of it. Good journalists provide the information concisely withut forcing the reader to get key details elsewhere.

As a worried parent... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 00:00 · Score: 0

...i'd be more concerned to show my kids (a video of) the likes of David Cameron than (a video of) a beheading (as tasteless as the latter might be).

Re:PM? Which country by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 00:00 · Score: 5, Funny

I have no fucking idea which one David Cameron runs.

That's OK. David Cameron doesn't know either.

Damn... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-10-22 00:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

Is there any part of the internet (aside from its utility for dystopian surveillance) that hasn't caused David Cameron to open his horrible, gormless, marshmallow-face and drone on about 'the children' and 'irresponsibility'? It's as though his government has entirely run out of substantive policy or something...

Re:Damn... by king+neckbeard · 2013-10-22 00:18 · Score: 1

In order to run out, he would have to have some in the first place.

--
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

No worries by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 00:06 · Score: 0

Don't worry, it's halal.

Re:PM? Which country by TrollstonButterbeans · 2013-10-22 00:10 · Score: 5, Funny

David Cameron is British. A few years ago, he moved to the US to play soccer in California.

--
Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory

Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 00:12 · Score: 0

A lot of comments in the news article seem to be pro-censorship.

You know what, fuck it. Maybe the British deserve to live in the pro-censorship cesspool they've created for themselves.

Don't get me wrong, videos of beheadings are disgusting and don't interest me in the slightest, but how much more retarded can you be?

Headless breasts? by bradley13 · 2013-10-22 00:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

As pointed out elsewhere, Facebook has the same odd puritanical streak as found throughout the USA. You can watch people being beheaded, but they still firmly forbid pictures of breastfeeding moms. The sight of a female breast might excite prurient passions, whereas watching a murder is just spiffy.

--
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.

Re:Headless breasts? by pla · 2013-10-22 00:54 · Score: 2

As pointed out elsewhere, Facebook has the same odd puritanical streak as found throughout the USA. You can watch people being beheaded, but they still firmly forbid pictures of breastfeeding moms. The sight of a female breast might excite prurient passions, whereas watching a murder is just spiffy.

How about "honor rape" as practiced by the same barbarians going around beheading infidels? I mean, as long as any visible breasts get blurred out, of course - Wouldn't want to accidentally titillate any impressionable young viewers, after all. Where does Facebook stand on that?

I mean, since rape has its basis in power, not sex, Facebook should have no more problem with it than with plain ol' boring murder. So let us know, Zuckhead - The world needs to know where you draw the line on poor taste! I'd hate to get banned from your fine stream of ads for posting the "wrong" kind of torture porn.
Re:Headless breasts? by arthurpaliden · 2013-10-22 00:54 · Score: 1

Right ending life is so cool but creating it, hell no.

--
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo

These are videos of crimes ... by MacTO · 2013-10-22 00:16 · Score: 2

One thing to keep in mind is that these are videos of crimes. That is certainly the case in the Mexican excample that I saw cited.

I'll leave it up to you whether you support the posting of videos of crimes, but I don't see a good reason for it. Even in the cases of political speech and exposing human rights violations, you rarely need to resort to messages that are so graphic.

Re:These are videos of crimes ... by georgeb · 2013-10-22 00:45 · Score: 2

One thing to keep in mind is that these are videos of crimes. That is certainly the case in the Mexican excample that I saw cited.
Is there any case where a beheading is NOT a crime??? Not only should any decent human being consider such videos way outside any TOS for any website, but posting them should be a crime too. How come the same standard apply here as in the case of pedophilia? If owning a pornographic image/video involving minors is a major crime, how can there possibly be any argument that distributing beheading videos should be legal, tolerated, encouraged, anything really...
Re:These are videos of crimes ... by andy.ruddock · 2013-10-22 01:20 · Score: 1

Is there any case where a beheading is NOT a crime???
Where it's the sentence of the court being carried out.

[Pedant mode off]

Although even in this case I'd much rather not see it. Saw one a number of years ago, still haunts me occasionally.

--
God: An invisible friend for grown-ups.
Re:These are videos of crimes ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 01:21 · Score: 0

Is there any case where a beheading is NOT a crime???
Yes. Those cases go under the name "capital punishment". Morally, it's of course still just as wrong, but that usually doesn't stop those writing the laws.

Not only should any decent human being consider such videos way outside any TOS for any website, but posting them should be a crime too.
Chipping away freedom of speach, one piece at a time?

If owning a pornographic image/video involving minors is a major crime, how can there possibly be any argument that distributing beheading videos should be legal, tolerated, encouraged, anything really...
The theory is that people making kiddie porn are in it for the money, and even pirating a kiddie porn video is supporting the content producers, and will get them to produce more (unlike regular videos and music, where pirating it means the RIAA and MPAA member organizations are going bankrupt for the tenth year in a row, and there won't be any more movies and music produced).
The beheading videos, on the other hand, are made for religious reasons.
Religious speech and commercial speech are viewed differently.
Re:These are videos of crimes ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 01:21 · Score: 0

It's not a crime in the Muslim countries of the Middle East, Saudi Arabia especially. As a matter of fact, it's basically a spectator sport.
Re:These are videos of crimes ... by AHuxley · 2013-10-22 01:39 · Score: 1

Try it.
1. Line your home with a few cameras and mics.
2. Take up some cause on Web 2.0 with a visible local press/police stance.
3. Wait till your ip is reported and you get a 'visit' at home.
4. Speak loudly for the mic ;)

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Re:These are videos of crimes ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 01:54 · Score: 0

> I'll leave it up to you whether you support the posting of videos of crimes, but I don't see a good reason for it.
There have been a great many cases where crimes have been posted online (not beheadings, admittedly, but vandalism, reckless driving, muggings and so on) by the perpetrators themselves. The police have then used these videos as evidence against the brainless antisocial braggarts responsible.
Re:These are videos of crimes ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 03:07 · Score: 0

Wait, did you just say that posting evidence of a crime should itself be a crime?
Yeah, no way a law like THAT could be abused by the PTB.
Lol, captch: repulse
Re:These are videos of crimes ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 03:37 · Score: 0

Is there any case where a beheading is NOT a crime???
Where it's the sentence of the court being carried out.
[Pedant mode off]
[Pedant mode on] These beheadings often are the sentence of the court being carried out. The terrorists bring their courts and lawyers with them and justify their actions in Islamic law.
Re:These are videos of crimes ... by ImprovOmega · 2013-10-22 04:50 · Score: 1

Is there any case where a beheading is NOT a crime???
Where it's the sentence of the court being carried out.
[Pedant mode off]
[Pedant mode on] These beheadings often are the sentence of the court being carried out. The terrorists bring their courts and lawyers with them and justify their actions in Islamic law.
[Extended Pedant Mode On] Such punishment is not considered a crime when the actor is doing so as a duly authorized agent of a state whose sovereignty is generally recognized by the other sovereign states of the world community and the subject has been prosecuted and convicted through due process. Where such "court" is authorized by the whims of non-government organizations such as religious communities, terrorist organizations, or organized criminal enterprises, and the actor is authorized by same, such punishment is and should be considered a crime. [Extended Pedant Mode Off]
Now the things that got a person there may seem trivial or stupid, and the method of execution is about as brutal as you can get (short of outright torture) but such is the way of sovereignty.
Re:These are videos of crimes ... by georgeb · 2013-10-23 01:46 · Score: 1

only insofar as one could argue that owning and distributing pornographic material involving minors is should be legal because it's "posting evidence of a crime"

Re:PM? Which country by geminidomino · 2013-10-22 00:19 · Score: 1

When Mr Cameron starts sticking his dick into US affairs the way POTUS shoves his into every pie on the damn planet, you might have a point, but regardless of where you are, someone in your government is either taunting or sucking off the head of USGOV.

How about 'fake' beheadings? by mysidia · 2013-10-22 00:21 · Score: 1

I'm thinking of like: a web application, where you can upload a picture of some random politician of your choice.

And then the site will create an animation where there is a fake beheading, and, through the power of computer graphics; a plain color background is displayed, with the head replaced with a stub.

These fake beheadings could then be virally shared on FB

Re:How about 'fake' beheadings? by wvmarle · 2013-10-22 03:22 · Score: 1

With modern CG it shouldn't be too much asked to take the video of an actual beheading, and have the head of the person being beheaded replaced by someone you'd like to see beheaded. All the blood, gore, convulsions, and other effects are there already.
Bonus points for replacing the heads of the beheaders with another politician.
I think the hardest part of the above will be that to do this properly, you'd have to see those images for a very long time...

Re:PM? Which country by Cryacin · 2013-10-22 00:23 · Score: 1, Funny

Fed the troll, check.

Now to feed the chickens.

--
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck

Posting these videos is irresponsible by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 00:24 · Score: 0

Facebook went too far, and has crossed the line by placing behavior that is either amoral or immoral on public display.

Civilized society can no longer permit this, Cameron is correct.

Re:Posting these videos is irresponsible by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 01:03 · Score: 0

If beheadings are ok then probably other kinds of murder are also ok, I guess, so its high time someone uploads "2 guys 1 hammer" to FB. And let's not stop there, let's go all the way -- rape, bestiality, scat, pedophilia, etc. These are all world events and many of the human rights abuses, so people have the right to know!
Re:Posting these videos is irresponsible by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 01:27 · Score: 0

Cameron is correct in one thing and one thing only, that there should be a warning. But not just for beheading videos, but all videos, detailing what is in the video. I can't tell you how many times I was tricked into watching some elementary school play, or a handegg game, or even the ever-common Rick Roll.

Re: PM? Which country by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 00:27 · Score: 0

Politics is only as important as we let them make it. It's hard sometimes for the politically active to acknowledge, but that's the deal.

Re:Think of the worried parents by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2013-10-22 00:36 · Score: 1

In my country, during socialism, the majority also wasn't like that. They wouldn't imprison or hang people for political reasons. But they didn't do anything against it either.

--
Ezekiel 23:20

Re:PM? Which country by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 00:40 · Score: 0

No mate you're confusing your facts, thats David Beckham, the guy that inspired those two chicks that used to play footie and then went on to be a pirate (the whitey one) and a doctor at the County General in Chicago (the brown one). Good for them, clearly piracy and medicine are much more lucrative than kicking a ball around.

This Cameron fella used to be in the movies, I think, did he not? I loved him Growing Pains, and his ideas these days are so intriguing that I subscribed to his newsletter. His sister is a total hottie as well.

Re: Think of the worried parents by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 00:42 · Score: 0

That's one way of looking at it. Another is that they're the "Organizinag For America" for the Islamic world.

Re:Think of the worried parents by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 00:48 · Score: 0

You mean they stand for limited government and obeying the constitution?

Re:PM? Which country by mcneely.mike · 2013-10-22 00:48 · Score: 0

No mate you're confusing the facts, those two chicks got together with one cup.... and now I'll go be sick again...

--
soylentnews.org Go there to enjoy the people!

Re:PM? Which country by Big+Hairy+Ian · 2013-10-22 00:50 · Score: 1

Wow does that make Tony Blair = Gaza?

--

Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

Re:PM? Which country by JeanInMontana · 2013-10-22 00:52 · Score: 1

He's criticising Slashdot. Whether he googles or not, Slashdot should still have provided this information. There's no reason not to say "British PM". Perhaps he should know. Perhaps everyone should, but for any snippet of information, there will be a non trivial number of people who are not aware of it. Good journalists provide the information concisely withut forcing the reader to get key details elsewhere.

Slashdot did not make the submission. The link provided in the submission gives the reader all the information needed. There is no need for the poster you are defending to react in such a rude way.

--
*Think globally~Dream universally*

Re:PM? Which country by 91degrees · 2013-10-22 01:05 · Score: 1

Point taken about rudeness (although that's not uncommon amongst slashdotters). I do think that Slashdot editors could edit once in a while though; providing the information would be good form.

Most non-US publications will refer to "US President Barrack Obama" for prety much this reason even though it would be pretty astounding to find someone who doesn't know who Barrack Obama is. Adding the word "British" to the headline would have made this more immediately comprehensible.

Re:PM? Which country by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 01:11 · Score: 0

Neah, Blair == Graeme Le Sux.

Solution by vinlud · 2013-10-22 01:22 · Score: 1

Start posting CGI videos of beheading Mark Zuckerberg, I have a feeling he will change his mind

--
Repeat after me: We are all individuals

Re:Solution by operagost · 2013-10-22 03:21 · Score: 1

This is brilliant.

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.

Re:PM? Which country by JeanInMontana · 2013-10-22 01:31 · Score: 1

Point taken about rudeness (although that's not uncommon amongst slashdotters). I do think that Slashdot editors could edit once in a while though; providing the information would be good form. Most non-US publications will refer to "US President Barrack Obama" for prety much this reason even though it would be pretty astounding to find someone who doesn't know who Barrack Obama is. Adding the word "British" to the headline would have made this more immediately comprehensible.

LMAO you criticize Slashdot for not editing, when you don't bother spell checking your own stuff? Not up for an argument but you might want to follow your own advice. Slashdot is not edited, it is user submitted snippets of info with links back to the source, more about the discussion of the subject than journalistic skills. Slashdot has many 'Anonymous Cowards' who are rude posters and trolls. However that is no reason to condone that behavior or participate.

--
*Think globally~Dream universally*

Re:PM? Which country by TheRaven64 · 2013-10-22 01:35 · Score: 1

Slashdot is not edited, it is user submitted snippets of info with links back to the source, more about the discussion of the subject than journalistic skills

Last time I had a story accepted, it was edited. By which I mean they deleted random bits and introduced a typo. If they're going to modify things, they could at least improve them...

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News

Re:PM? Which country by Big+Hairy+Ian · 2013-10-22 01:37 · Score: 1

Ahh spare me the googley challenged :(

--

Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

Re:PM? Which country by metrix007 · 2013-10-22 01:47 · Score: 1

What makes you think the UK is important enough that people from other countries should know the UK PM by name?

--
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.

Oh god... I feel sick by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 01:47 · Score: 0

I'm actually coming down on the side of facebook.I never felt so dirty.

Fuck Cameron. With a rake. Sideways.

Parents? by tompaulco · 2013-10-22 01:48 · Score: 1

Why are parents worried? You have to be 13 to have a Facebook account. Surely parents aren't letting their children who aren't old enough to meet the ToS of Facebook to have a Facebook account?

--
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.

Re:PM? Which country by metrix007 · 2013-10-22 01:48 · Score: 1

LMAO you criticize Slashdot for not editing, when you don't bother spell checking your own stuff?

A single post is not the same as a submission on one of the worlds most popular tech news sites.

Think before you post next time.

--
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.

Re:PM? Which country by g0bshiTe · 2013-10-22 01:50 · Score: 1

I live within the US and regularly have to google to find out which US-based politician the news is talking about.

--
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!

Re:PM? Which country by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 01:51 · Score: 0

Nah, he's just a 'Murican!

Seriously, this is a MAJOR problem with the so-called "news" in the US. It's so US-centric (and crime and entertainment-centric) that even the prime minister of the UK is not known by name.

Bullshit. S/He like so many others, are just plain ig-no-rant. Cameron gets mentioned frequently by the lamestream media, but there's more interest in the size of Kardashian's ass than knowing anything about the world of politics.

Let's test the fairness by Rambo+Tribble · 2013-10-22 01:55 · Score: 1

We should behead Zuckerberg and see if they carry that.

Re:PM? Which country by g0bshiTe · 2013-10-22 01:56 · Score: 1

More a slant on how our media is operating these days.

Growing up I knew who Margaret Thatcher was, she was constantly in our news making headlines. We never heard anything of Sir John, we know who Tony Blair was, Gordon Brown and David Cameron we've never heard of.

Kind of illustrates a pattern in our media. Most likely the only reason we know Tony Blair was the fact he was PM at the time Princess Diana passed.

--
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!

Denial of reality by sl4shd0rk · 2013-10-22 01:56 · Score: 1

These videos are horrific but that doesn't mean we need to "omg think of the children. censor, protect, etc". The real world is horrific sometimes and that's the reality of it. If you don't want your kids affected by the harsh reality of the internet, then get off your ass, turn off the tv and parent. Going for censorship because your too lazy to watch your kid will leave a very sad future for them and in the meantime, d-bags like Cameroon will take whatever liberty they can to construe these edicts into legal activity far-reaching into areas you never though possible.

--
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!

Re:Denial of reality by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 06:04 · Score: 0

Uh oh, watch out. Here come the entitled-know-it-all "Well, you are clearly not a mom/dad. Are you saying I should let my precious little snowflake watch torture porn?" parents. Good luck my friend.

Why don't the parents explain by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 01:57 · Score: 1

Why they let their kids use facebook unsupervised?

Every year following the gay pride parade in Toronto, there are a bunch of articles from "shocked" parents who's children were just exposed to such horrible sights as men kissing.

Every year I wonder WHY THE FUCK DO YOU TAKE YOUR KIDS TO THE GAY PRIDE PARADE?

Re:PM? Which country by g0bshiTe · 2013-10-22 01:57 · Score: 1

For the same reason it's important enough for other countries to know the President of the US by name.

These people make decisions that affect the world.

--
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!

Yeah. Cameron. Calling out "irresponsible"? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 02:02 · Score: 0

Yeah. Cameron. Calling out "irresponsible"? Don't make me laugh.

Look at the shitfest of the Badger Cull. The tranwreck that is HS2, "the greenest government ever" and the new nuke plants operated by government, but just not ours. Or the deliberate shitting on any renewable projects because if they're as successful as elsewhere, their claims of doom-and-gloom if we don't go Big Power will be shown to be as full of shit as they are.

Re: PM? Which country by TheP4st · 2013-10-22 02:06 · Score: 2

Politics is only as important as we let them make it. It's hard sometimes for the politically active to acknowledge, but that's the deal.

How silly of me, of course politics have nothing to do with unimportant things such as that the houses most of us live in are subjected to building codes, whether your children's school curriculum include intelligent design next to evolution or not, minimum wages, military spending and the taxes we pay towards it, infrastructure, health care, accessibility to clean water.

--
"I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold

This Will Not Do! by drainbramage · 2013-10-22 02:08 · Score: 1

How are we to remain in denial if we allow the lowly common public to see the atrocities, the inhumanity?

--
No brain, no pain.

Re:This Will Not Do! by lagomorpha2 · 2013-10-22 02:16 · Score: 1

Exactly this.
Banning the beheading clips would be irresponsible because it helps people look the other way and pretend things like this don't happen. If the media actually reported on things like the FSA's leader eating human hearts and using rape to encourage his troops among other major atrocities it would be political suicide for Obama to continue supporting him in Syria, but as things are the average citizen doesn't know or care.
Re:This Will Not Do! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 02:34 · Score: 0

Cool. Lets have rape, pedophilia, bestiality and random murders on FB as well. It would be irresponsible to ban them because it would help people look the other way and pretend things like these don't happen. Maybe show some animal torture as well, maybe a few dog fights and then showing the aftermath -- the losers being doused in gasoline and burned alive, or clubbed to death.
Re:This Will Not Do! by drainbramage · 2013-10-22 09:51 · Score: 1

Perhaps you have missed broadcast TV?
Have you heard of Cable TV?

--
No brain, no pain.

They made it very clear by Arker · 2013-10-22 02:11 · Score: 2

"I'm not convinced they're actually capable of being principled on these things"

Doesnt look to me like they even tried to pretend otherwise. Rather than taking a stand to censor or allow these videos, they seem to be saying they will censor them - but only if they dont like the reactions that are being posted. I believe that's the least principled stand they could possibly have taken here.

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.

Vicariously by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 02:13 · Score: 0

Eye on the the TV
'Cause tragedy thrills me
Whatever flavor it happens to be, like...
"Killed by the husband"
"Drowned by the ocean"
"Shot by his own son"
"She used a poison in his tea, and kissed him goodbye"
That's my kind of story
It's no fun 'til someone dies

Don't look at me like I am a monster
Frown out your one face, but with the other
Stare like a junkie into the TV
Stare like a zombie
While the mother holds her child, watches him die
Hands to the sky crying, "Why, oh why?"

Cause I need to watch things die...from a distance
Vicariously I live while the whole world dies
You all need it too, don't lie

Why can't we just admit it?
Why can't we just admit it?
We won't give pause until the blood is flowing

Re:PM? Which country by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 02:13 · Score: 0

> Gaza

No, the footballer is called Gazza.

Gaza is something that has caused an awful lot of trouble in the middle east.

On second thoughts, perhaps you are right.

Re:PM? Which country by 91degrees · 2013-10-22 02:16 · Score: 1

Sure, as a non professional, I occasionally make mistakes. It's a comment though, not a front page article.

I have no idea why you think that submitted stories aren't edited.

Re:Think of the worried parents by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 02:19 · Score: 0

That's rather like holding the majority of Christian responsible for the actions of the Westboro Baptists Church.

Re:PM? Which country by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 02:28 · Score: 0

Sounds like British Prime Ministers are following some kind of Star Trek Movie / Windows version rule where only every second on e is worth bothering with.

Re:PM? Which country by JeanInMontana · 2013-10-22 02:29 · Score: 1

LMAO you criticize Slashdot for not editing, when you don't bother spell checking your own stuff?

A single post is not the same as a submission on one of the worlds most popular tech news sites.

Think before you post next time.

I did think before I posted. There are glaring typos in every post from the poster I am having the conversation with. Thus making complaints about Slashdot's editing is hypocritical at best. Besides there is nothing wrong with the original submission in question.

--
*Think globally~Dream universally*

Re:PM? Which country by JeanInMontana · 2013-10-22 02:34 · Score: 1

Sure, as a non professional, I occasionally make mistakes. It's a comment though, not a front page article. I have no idea why you think that submitted stories aren't edited.

There is no editing mistake in the submission. Why should poorly constructed comments be OK when they refer to proper editing? Come on, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

--
*Think globally~Dream universally*

Re:PM? Which country by 91degrees · 2013-10-22 02:41 · Score: 1

There is no editing mistake in the submission.

No. Just poor editing.

Why should poorly constructed comments be OK when they refer to proper editing?

You're quite right. I concede that my comments should also be correctly edited. It's not really relevant though, except as an ad hominem. Even iff i make dozen's f mistakes, it doesn;t effect weather or not slashdot articles should be competiently edited.

Yes in both cases. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 02:42 · Score: 0

Limited Government and the Free Institution of the Church As State. Exactly as the Tbaggers, just a different sect of the same religion.
Obeying the Koran. Just like the TBaggers, just they want the constitution and bible as Holy Book, with the bibble being the first source and only the bits they like out of both (in that sense being just like these taliban).

Re:PM? Which country by metrix007 · 2013-10-22 02:45 · Score: 1

It isn't hypocritical. A participant on a news discussion site is not supposed to be held up to the same standard as the articles posted by the site itself.

--
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.

Re:PM? Which country by metrix007 · 2013-10-22 02:47 · Score: 3, Informative

Yeah, No.

The UK isn't nearly as influential as the US. No country is. (Not American btw).

If you live in Europe then yes, the UK is influential and the name of the British PM should be common knowledge.

If you live on a different continent, I don't see why it's necessary.

The again, I'd say knowing the leaders of all the G8, even G20 countries is basic knowledge most adults *should* have.

--
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.

Re:PM? Which country by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 03:23 · Score: 0

Fox was the last-but-one president of Mexico. The current one is Peña Nieto.

Re:PM? Which country by operagost · 2013-10-22 03:23 · Score: 1

How many people in the world know the American President by name? Just wondering what the results of your survey were.

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.

Re:PM? Which country by operagost · 2013-10-22 03:24 · Score: 1

Fox left in 2012! Nieto is in now.

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.

Re:PM? Which country by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2013-10-22 03:27 · Score: 1

The again, I'd say knowing the leaders of all the G8, even G20 countries is basic knowledge most adults *should* have.

I fear that you ask for too much. It would be nice if the voting population in the US was that informed but I bet most of them couldn't name their current sitting elected representatives to the US congress (house and senate).

--
Time to offend someone

Cameron obviously doesn't understand the web by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 03:36 · Score: 0

Cameron's power ends at the border of the UK.

The web extends all over the world.

And what runs Facebook is not some whining government cunt
like Cameron, but MONEY.

So good luck with your efforts, Cameron, you stupid twit.

Re:PM? Which country by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 03:39 · Score: 0

He's complaining about the editors, not the submitter. That the editors didn't fix the typos in his post doesn't make him a hypocrite. Or do you think that he's (secretly) a Slashdot editor that hypocritically doesn't proofread his own posts?

Cameron is the worst kind of person by kruach+aum · 2013-10-22 03:40 · Score: 1

a politician only interested in power. Additionally, facebook doesn't have to do shit.

This makes Cameron look pro-murder by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 04:29 · Score: 0

It is totally permissible for an Englishman (or anyone else, really) to post an opinion like "The US should keep its drug prohibition laws as-is." But if you post the predictable consequences of people deciding to use government force to create a black market for certain commodities, thereby concentrating wealth (and power) in the hands of criminals, somehow that's crossing the line?

You have it backwards. The guy saying "keep drugs illegal" is the person who is actually partially responsible for the murders, by endorsing the occasional murder (justified by it being balanced out by the positive effects of centralizing drug profits, so that the speaker's donors keep contributing). The person who says "hey, look what the prohibitionists accomplished here, [thunk goes someone's head]" is opposing murder.

It's by publicizing how government policy nurtures Al Capones and what happens as a result of having a bunch of Al Capones, that we end that nurturing. This is how each of us moves from using our political power to accomplish murders, toward using our political power to protect freedom.

By speaking out against the anti-murder side, and silently approving the pro-murder side, it looks like the PM is taking a pro-murder position. If Cameron is so worried about Britain's children, maybe he should worry about them hearing that message! "Please, may the beheadings continue! Just stop showing us, please."?!? WTF dude!!

(BTW, I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to politically endorse murders, thereby sometimes occasionally causing them to happen. I'm just saying we should acknowledge it and own it: we want some occasional drug murders, for the greater good. (In this instance, the "greater good" seems to be to line drug dealers' pockets instead of letting Wal-Mart have these profits (at a lower margin) with the economy reaping the savings. (That seems like a dubious benefit to me, but this is your opinion, not mine, so .. whatever floats your boat, dude.)) If you can't admit what you're advocating, or if you find it repugnant and shameful, the problem isn't with saying it; the problem is with the pro-prohibition opinion itself. Deal with it, coward.)

Fixed that for you by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 04:41 · Score: 0

Icelands [PRIVATELY RUN BANKS] got themselves in trouble because it lost other people's money and refused to pay it back [THEN TRIED TO PASS ON THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE ICELANDIC TAXPAYERS].

Unlike other countries, they thankfully mostly failed...

Getting tired of this buffoon by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 04:43 · Score: 0

Cameron is looking more like a cynical pandering buffoon each day. This is the dope who said the Guardian must be guilty over NSA leaks because they obeyed his jackbooted thugs and destroyed the computer the files were on under threat of prosecution and in the presence of MI-5. A moronic bit of theater to pander to dopes like Cameron if ever there was one.

Re:Think of the worried parents by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 04:52 · Score: 0

The big difference is the majority of Muslims are closer to doing what the Talibans do than say the majority of the Buddhists. This is because it's easier to use the Quran and the Hadiths to justify Taliban style acts than it is to use Buddha's teachings.

So I'd say the Muslims are provably more dangerous by the POPULAR interpretations of their scriptures AND their track record so far.

You can make claims that Buddhists are terrorists and everyone will ignore or laugh at you except people in Sri Lanka.

Don't believe me? Go make some Buddha cartoons and see what happens. Count how many mosques, temples, churches are burnt down as a result, how many people killed, how many death threats.

Try it with various religions and compare the results. This can be done fairly scientifically.

Re:PM? Which country by AlphaWolf_HK · 2013-10-22 04:52 · Score: 1

I live in the US, I don't regularly watch the news, yet I know who David Cameron is. I also know who Francois Hollande is, Stephen Harper...I could go on.

These names are frequently mentioned in the news, though they stick out particularly well to me because of some of the silly things they say, like Hollande wanting a 75% tax on the rich, stupidly not realizing that these taxes have ruined his own country's economy (France even taxes you on money that you don't even have, which has driven a ton of businesses out of the country.)

I think the problem is most people don't even understand what I meant by that last statement, and many like it, so the news is pretty boring to them. So instead they watch The Daily Show for their news, which basically is just news about whatever gaffe somebody made that particular day, real or imagined (most people I talk to think Sarah Palin actually said she could see Russia from her house, as per the SNL skit.) Seriously, that is the actual news source for many people, I'm not joking.

Though that isn't to say national cable news is any good. Really it's mostly crap - if it isn't some piece about how crappy our lives are, or some new threat (killer bees, flu strain, terror threat, etc) then it's Hollywood celebrity gossip (the later of which I think is the most boring news ever - yet oddly enough most people seem to get a kick out of it.)

--
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK

Re:PM? Which country by AlphaWolf_HK · 2013-10-22 04:53 · Score: 1

They do edit it, actually, and for the worse. I've had some key details removed from some of my submissions when they were posted to the front page.

--
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK

Re:PM? Which country by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 05:01 · Score: 0

I think he took over for Tony Blair.

Re:PM? Which country by mcgrew · 2013-10-22 05:15 · Score: 1

How about that you read or watch news about world events once in a while?

So I take it you've memorized the name of every leader of every country in the world? Do you know who's in charge of Brazil? Germany? South Korea (It's a given you know who runs the north). Canada? Look, if you're going to name a country's leader in an international forum it's just stupid to not name the country, even if the country is the US or Russia. And stupidity should not be tolerated at a nerd site.

I should not have to google to find out who King Mswati III is.

--
Free Martian Whores!

and.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 05:15 · Score: 0

And half a boob is not ok on facebook...
this makes sence...

POS by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 05:41 · Score: 0

Facebook is a piece of shit. Like Cameron. Mystery solved.

Re:PM? Which country by torsmo · 2013-10-22 06:03 · Score: 1

I think the reason the American public has heard of Tony Blair is coz he was their government's favourite lap-dog.

Hardly a surprise by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 06:10 · Score: 0

David Cameron is just vile.
We should allow people to see the actions of these mentally ill psycopaths. This is the lesson that should have been learned from the northern european approach to terrorist trials. Let them speak. Let people see them for what they are. There will be only revulsion. It will do more to damage their cause (which is generally totally so twisted, as to be completely incomprehensible to modern civil society anyway), to paint a graphic picture of their vile actions, than to quietly censor, and to hide.
It will only spread opposition to these groups, and to the regimes that support them.
David Cameron is, to me, in the same category as these people. He is a man that seeks to take our liberties, and to instil an authoritarian, and frankly rather nasty kind of government.

Fingersmith - Victorian Constume Drama by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 07:25 · Score: 0

By the looks of it, they're determined to bring the world back to the Victorian period.
Why else would they still make Victorian period costume dramas?

Oh yes! Warning: NSFW :-)

Re:PM? Which country by SleazyRidr · 2013-10-22 08:17 · Score: 1

I'm uninformed and the fact that other people might be more informed than I am is offensive to me. To counteract this, I will yell loudly about how uninformed I am to make sure everybody knows about it.

FTFY.

--
Is 1563649 a prime number?

Terrorists thank facebook for their cooperation. by MrL0G1C · 2013-10-22 08:57 · Score: 1

Well thank god for that, how could terrorists spread their message of hate and terror without Facebook's cooperation, thank you Facebook, from terrorists everywhere.

And that goes for the politicians and the news media too, thank you for scaring the shit out of people, rather than pointing out the low odds of being killed by terrorists, the terrorists would be nothing without you. You help to put the 'terror' in to terrorism.

--
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.

Re:PM? Which country by Zaelath · 2013-10-22 11:29 · Score: 1

Less important to know their local unit, those idiots never come up in conversation and it's not like Rumplestiltskin where knowing it will get you something useful.

Just because they "voted for them" (or against them) doesn't matter, since they were probably just following a party how to vote card anyway, the same as the local unit just votes whatever the leader says. If they went around thinking about everything they'd never get anything done.

Re:PM? Which country by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 11:38 · Score: 0

Good Journalists?! Is there some holiday associated with this concept? Because really they should've used unicorns or something kids could relate to.
I've been a journalist and believe me, we're scumbags. Not the sort you bring home to mama.
Slashdot is fueled by geeks posting links to stories written by the merde..er.. media, which is where you will find information just as fast as they can force it through their lower intestines.
I agree that if I had gave a damn about which P.M. in particular was capable of reacting with a menstrulal cocktail of hormones, then it would've been nice for about 2 seconds, BUT, since the morons running the world provide daily overdoses of just how badly every bureaucrat f*cks up with laser precision, I couldn't be bothered to pretend I care.

Re:PM? Which country by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 13:44 · Score: 0

If Wendell doesn't eat, nobody eats!

Incomplete headline: shouldhave been _British_ PM. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-23 00:36 · Score: 0

TSIA.

Slashdot Mirror

PM Calls Facebook Irresponsible For Allowing Beheading Clips

201 comments