back to article The internet may well be the root cause of today's problems… but not in the way you think

In a predictable but still shocking pronouncement, UK Prime Minister Theresa May has put much of the blame of recent terror attacks in London and Manchester on the internet and internet companies like Google and Facebook. "We cannot allow this ideology the safe space it needs to breed," she argued in a speech following the …

  1. Christian Berger

    The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet

    If you have a youth without any hope, they are going to do such things, no matter what religion or other ideology they believe in. Austerity simply is wrong, and it will look wrong from many viewpoints.

    So create a financial transaction tax, tax capital (at least the one noe invested) and take all of that money to kickstart the economy. Make a "New Deal" or a highly restrained form of capitalism. Invest in schools and universities, scrap tuition fees, perhaps even create a basic income.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Thumb Up

      Re: The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet

      I don't quite agree entirely with what you''ve said in the article, Kieran, but thumbs up from me for a thoughtful analysis of the situation. Now we just need to post a copy to every MP or wannabe MP in the country and ask for their comments.

    2. Richard Jones 1
      WTF?

      Re: The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet

      Claptrap, austerity as you call it is a consequence of overspending until you have no money left and borrowing has been seen for the folly it is. My grandchildren will still be paying off Blair's PFI contracts for most of their lifetime. The problem is no one can be bothered to learn from history so endlessly repeat its mistakes. I went abroad to work many years ago because the socialist government of the time were hell bent on wreaking the joint by funding failure while taxing anything still working until it was starved of funds to carry on.

      Even in this modern world young can get jobs if they discard the web fed clap trap they were fed. I have coached several to forget the false hoods they were told by antisocial media, they obtained jobs within weeks after months of web folklore inspired failure.

      Many things can be a force for good or evil. Some of the internet is good, some OK and some is frankly rubbish. Antisocial networking, is a great way to make money for a few and perhaps they should pay back something the harm they permit by encouraging bullying and other 'dark arts'.

      When they filter out a celebrated anti war image from > 40 years ago, yet allow torture videos from terror groups even you should be able to understand that their balance is doubtful.

      While YouTube has some helpful, interesting stuff, educational, or entertaining stuff, quite what is the value of something instructing the feeble minded to go and kill <insert your personal object of hate here> or commit suicide? Please explain their value?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet

        Hmmm. Do some dead-end shouldn't-even-exist job for no wages, or violently overthrow the bourgeoisie. Difficult choices ahead for every young person.

      2. Mark 110

        Re: The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet

        I disagree. Austerity was implemented to use the recession/deficit to justify the right wing ideology of lower taxes for the rich and less public services for the poor. The Blair/Brown government did not overspend, they ran a much lower deficit (and a surplus at times) than subsequent or previous governments.

        They were stuffed up by mistakes (to be polite - it could be called criminal fraud) the banks made, not their own.

        We are now in a situation where the Tory cuts to services are starting to impact everyone, not just the worst off. And Theresa May keeps standing up and saying nothings been cut when everything clearly has and services have improved when they clearly have not.

        Liar liar.

        1. lorisarvendu

          Re: The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet

          "I disagree. Austerity was implemented to use the recession/deficit to justify the right wing ideology of lower taxes for the rich and less public services for the poor. The Blair/Brown government did not overspend, they ran a much lower deficit (and a surplus at times) than subsequent or previous governments."

          If you want some facts to back that up...

          http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/03/13/the-conservatives-have-been-the-biggest-borrowers-over-the-last-70-years/

        2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          Re: The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet

          "They were stuffed up by mistakes (to be polite - it could be called criminal fraud) the banks made, not their own."

          The banks were operating within the environment created by government policy. Part of that policy was to exclude house prices from the rates of inflation used to determine interest rate policy.* The result was a long period of artificially low interest rates and a house price bubble that drove the rest of it. Surely any responsible economic manager should have looked at the situation and realised it was a threat. But the electoral advantage of cheap goods and cheap loans was too much to resist. When the inevitable happened the banks had to be baled out to fend off an even worse disaster.

          *Another part was globalisation leading production to migrate to low wage areas, particularly China which reduced or held down prices of many items which were used to measure inflation.

          1. Stuart Castle Silver badge

            Re: The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet

            "Surely any responsible economic manager should have looked at the situation and realised it was a threat. But the electoral advantage of cheap goods and cheap loans was too much to resist. When the inevitable happened the banks had to be baled out to fend off an even worse disaster."

            You forgot to mention various government ministers touting rising house prices as a sign of a healthy economy while neglecting to mention that due to the fact that people need to live somewhere, and that prices for other houses have also risen similarly, people haven't gained much apart from more debt. I know that people can move to cheaper areas, but that may not be an option due to work, family etc.

        3. BebopWeBop
          Devil

          Re: The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet

          May I commend -

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxN1STgQXW8&feature=youtu.be - (c/o my kids)

        4. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet

          The Blair/Brown government did not overspend,

          My, what a selective memory you have. A major part of why the bank failures screwed us so much was that Brown was running a (huge) deficit during the boom part of the economic cycle. He believed his own hype about ending boom and bust and thought the good times would roll forever.

          When the banks came cap-in-hand there was already a nice big debt piled up so we had to borrow even more. Brown could have sold some of our gold reserves at this point to help. oh, wait the 'economic genius' had already sold that off at a historic low in gold prices.

          Don't get me wrong, as far as I am concerned, letting the banks fail would have concentrated bankers minds towards better govenance. As it is, bailing them out means nothing much has changed in the industry.

          One thing doesn't change with British politics: the Labour party buy votes dishing out 'free' money until they kill the economy. Then the Tories are voted back in to fix the economy and they are then labelled the 'bastards' for having to cut the 'free' money flow to balance the books. Once the books are balanced enough, people vote for the 'free' money again and the cycle repeats.

          1. Mark 110

            Re: The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet

            At AC: So you are saying the US banks bundling up bad debt and then selling it to UK banks as good debt was Gordon Browns fault? Or that the UK banks not doing due diligence on what they were buying was Gordon Browns fault?

            Bailing out the banks was Gordon Browns fault - I would have been (and I'm sure he was) tempted to throw them to the wolves.

            As for the huge deficit - there wasn't one. Thats Tory spin. There was a surplus prior to the crash.

            7 years of Tory austerity, tax rises on ordinary people, cuts to services, and tax cuts for the rich don't seem to be having much of an effect on the deficit. If I hear Theresa May c laim they are a low tax party one more time . . low taxes for the rich maybe. Every time they win an election the first thing they do is raise taxes on ordinary people.

            I'm not a Labour voter by the way. Just Tory lies and deceit need to be called out. They are funded by the very rich. They implement policies that benefit the very rich. And then they lie in the face of every scrap of evidence and say that the policies are benefiting ordinary working people like us.

            Its the lies that get to me. If they could just be honest with us . . .

            1. Commswonk

              Re: The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet

              @ Mark 110: If I hear Theresa May claim they are a low tax party one more time ...

              Even as a conservative voter (cue downvotes!) I am becoming more and more uncomfortable with this mantra. Ignoring "benefits" because they are too emotive a subject there is no escaping the fact that the requirement for public expenditure can only be reduced so far, and if we as a country are to deal with increasing life expectancy, better healthcare, and care for the elderly (along with all the other things we expect like defence, policing and so on) then shouting "low tax" from the rooftops will very soon become a vote loser, that is if it hasn't already.

              I am truly astonished that the Conservative Manifesto contained the suggestion about elderly care that it did; it shows all the signs of having been concocted by an inner circle detached from life's more difficult realities and there is every possibility that this blunder could cost the Conservatives the election. Some might say "good" but I won't be one of them.

              I feel very sorry for candidates who have to go out and sell the unsellable; that of course applies to both of the major parties at this election, albeit for different reasons.

              Just another indication that a major requirement for political ambition is basic ineptitude.

              1. Mark 110

                Re: The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet

                @Commswonk - gave you an upvote for a rational post!!

                But if I could give you a down vote as well for intending to vote for things you disagree with I would.

              2. Pompous Git Silver badge

                Re: The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet

                "Just another indication that a major requirement for political ambition is basic ineptitude."
                The other being lack of conscience.

        5. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

          Re: The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet

          "They were stuffed up by mistakes (to be polite - it could be called criminal fraud) the banks made, ..."

          Not as such (I know what you mean, though. I think.):

          1. From their (limited) point of view, the banks did not make any mistakes at all.

          2. A big part of the problem is that a lot of what the banks did wasn't illegal.

          Systemic failure.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet

        Overspending to run a country like England may have much to do with tax cuts to Corporations and the Wealthy and Globalization. Thanks Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.

        I can't help but think that there is a great of corruption, or what would have been corruption 40 or 50 years ago, but since legalized. That allows/enables huge overspending on Government projects of any type.

        1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          Re: The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet

          "Thanks Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan."

          Are you the same A/C that touted the same garbage on an earlier thread? You were out by decades then; you're out by decades now.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet

      You fail to notice that not all terrorists are poor people. For example, in European terrorists in 1970s-1980s were often from middle or upper class families. Nor all Muslim terrorists are poor people. Look at Bin Laden - and how rich it was. Sure, the expendable one may be got from the lowest people.

      Even populist leaders, are often not from poor families, but from upper class ones.

      Increasing taxes too much usually cripple the economy, doesn't fuel it. Just look at Italy - high taxes, high state expenditures, high tax evasion, high corruption, high debt, stagnating economy, high unemployment.

      People don't invest if they can't see a good outcome. Money will go elsewhere. The more you have the easier is to move them wherever you like - just look at Apple & C. It's those who can't that then must bear the burden of a hungrier and hungrier state.

      When if you spend too much, one day you find your pockets are empty, and the comes the austerity - debts need to be repaid as well, or no one will lend you anymore. Yes, you may print money, and end like Venezuela.

      Agatha Christie told she could have written two books a year, but the revenues of the second would have been eaten by taxes (then very high), so she didn't bother. Bookstores would have liked more books easy to sell too.

      Don't get me wrong, taxes are necessary, but increase them too much and you obtain the opposite of what you're trying to achieve. People don't like to work hard and then being left a fraction of their earnings.

      Also don't believe those who will be paid for doing nothing being grateful - there's just the risk of creating a dangerous mob, totally controlled by those who are in control of their "basic income". After all, it's how all authoritarian states control people, and build their supporting militias.

      1. Mark 110

        Re: The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet

        "Increasing taxes too much usually cripple the economy, doesn't fuel it. Just look at Italy - high taxes, high state expenditures, high tax evasion, high corruption, high debt, stagnating economy, high unemployment."

        I have been regretting using the word poor in my post since I made it, though I think youre post might not be aimed in response to mine. Anyway - I meant ordinary.

        Anyway in response to your Italy example I give you Norway/Denmark:

        High taxes, high state expenditures, low tax evasion, low corruption, low debt, growing economy, low unemployment, high standard of living and quality of life.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet

          Norway has five million inhabitants, a tax rate a just little above the Italian one, and a lot of money from oil/gas. Still it nursed a Breivik.

          Denmark is about the same size. Countries so small can aim at a high-end economy, with little unemployment, and generous subsidies to a small minority of the population. It's also easier to deliver services.

          Both have an higher suicide rate than Italy.

          Nations with 60M+ citizens face very different challenges, especially when they have large parts of the country in bad economic and cultural conditions.

          For the matter, in Italy, Lombardy which has about 10M people - the whole Norway/Denmark population combined, and good GDP per capita, would be able to sustain the same kind of economy (even without oil). The problem is the large part of the country which can't, and drain resources.

          Be very careful when you compare countries, size and natural resources matter a lot. If you believe you can manage 5M people like you manage 60M+, you'll just create big disasters. UK too can't work like Denmark or Norway - it looks to me it already tried to raise tax at a very high level in the past, and it looks it didn't work at all.

          1. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

            Re: The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet

            "Both have an higher suicide rate than Italy."

            That's mostly to do with the weather, less with economics/society. Not joking here, one of the branches of the family tree is Norwegian.

          2. Stork Silver badge

            Re: The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet

            Denmark (where I was born) also has a relatively homogenous population (has been described as a tribe) which tends to give a high level of trust and thereby acceptance of high taxation. Also, power distance is low.

            In DK the state is seen as "us" - it is still our money. Here in Portugal it is "their" money - when you pay tax it is lost and not in any way linked to what you get in services (that is how it is seen). Power distance is high, politicians are "not" the ones we elect to take care of our money.

            The pattern is fraying in DK, immigration and benefit abuse has put pressure on it.

            1. werdsmith Silver badge

              Re: The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet

              I love all the pub-talk politics and specious crap and propaganda that is spread all over the web and social media.

              It is mostly amusing. The only thing wrong with the internet for these purposes is that there are actually a lot of people out there who are thick enough to believe what there confirmation bias likes and they actually take it all seriously.

    4. TheSkunkyMonk
      Thumb Up

      Re: The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet

      It was the only thing that Thatcher actually got right, when she decided that breweries should only be allowed to own a certain amount of pubs. This idea should be taken a step further and be implemented with property and cash. We don't need people owning hundred of flats and houses and it does nothing but increase prices for everyone else(I do see how that can be a benefit if you already have property, and yes I do and id rather see the loss). The same for money, it is not an unlimited resource we only have so much in circulation, so why on earth should people be allowed to hoard large percentages of it? I'm not even going to get started on the way it is created and paid for.

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet

        "The same for money, it is not an unlimited resource we only have so much in circulation"

        You're confusing money with the stuff it represents. Take flats and houses. There are indeed only so many at a given time. But money can be printed by governments or, in effect, by banks giving credit and the result is inflation. Apply that to the limited number of houses and you have the house price bubble that got us into this mess.

        There's absolutely no way you can solve the legacy of that era by sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "La la la". That's what Brown & co did while the problem was developing.

        1. Cynic_999

          Re: The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet

          "

          You're confusing money with the stuff it represents.

          "

          No, it is you who is confusing money with currency. Currency can be printed. Money cannot.

          The total amount of currency in circulated *must* equal the total amount of money a country has. If more currency is printed, or if the country's money is sold off, it therefore follows that the value of each unit of that currency diminishes. Which is essentially what we call "inflation".

          It was a huge mistake to abandon the gold standard.

      2. John Smith 19 Gold badge
        Unhappy

        "his idea should be taken a step further and be implemented with property and cash. "

        The problem is not large landlords.

        It's the obscenely expensive flats bought as investments by foreigners who will never live in them but want a bolthole in case their best mate "El Presidente, " or WTF he's called gets deposed and they want to run to where they've stuffed the money he's helped steal from the state Treasury.

        You might think this is irrelevant but the prices they will pay jack the price up for every other would-be home owner in every city where this happens.

        1. L05ER

          Re: "his idea should be taken a step further and be implemented with property and cash. "

          "The problem is not large landlords." if it isn't now... give Airbnb a few years unchecked.

          "You might think this is irrelevant but the prices they will pay jack the price up for every other would-be homeowner in every city where this happens." it's not irrelevant, but not a big factor... Airbnb is a much bigger threat to most people. they allow even your regular homeowner to have the same effect on the market by inflating the value of a home... if you can rent a nice home for $2k/mo or list it on airbnb for a potential $4.5k/mo (assuming fully booked @$150/day) or you could have it sit empty for half the month and make the same money... that's smart business, but it creates the scenario you talk about EVERYWHERE.

          1. Glenturret Single Malt

            Re: "his idea should be taken a step further and be implemented with property and cash. "

            Your argument ignores the idea of supply and demand. At present only a small proportion of property is available for rent through Airbnb. If everyone tried to let their home, there would probably be a huge oversupply and asking the high prices currently being asked would no longer be sustainable.

    5. fruitoftheloon
      Stop

      Christian Berger: Re: The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet

      Christian,

      economics 101:

      Earn £100/month

      Continually spend £100 month and another £20 'borrowed' from someone, at a cost of £25 a month.

      You're fucked.

      At some point the money going out needs to kind of match that which is coming in, otherwise the kind folk that are funding the disparity will demand such a premium that the house of cards will come crashing down, which in the UK is pronounced 'A Labour Government'.

      There are a few choices for any government:

      - spend less

      - tax more

      - do both

      FYI companies do not pay taxes, their shareholders, employees and shareholders do, if the government takes an ever increasing amount of other peoples money, there is always a point of diminishing return.

      It would appear that the Rt. Hon. Jeremy hasn't quite figured that out yet...

      Cheers,

      Jay

      1. BoldMan

        Re: Christian Berger: The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet

        Repeat after me "Government finances are not the same as Personal Finances"

        1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          Re: Christian Berger: The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet

          "Government finances are not the same as Personal Finances"

          No, governments can print money in order to delay the inevitable and make it worse when it happens.

          1. lorisarvendu

            Re: Christian Berger: The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet

            One of the main reasons why Government borrowing should not be compared to Personal borrowing is that a Sovereign State lives a lot longer than a person. It is correct that when a person borrows more money than they can pay back then they will be in trouble. But this is because they have to pay it back within the terms of the loan. Of course you can take out another loan to pay off the first loan, etc (as people often do), but it can't go on forever. Eventually you will run out of income (by retiring, or losing your job), and the piper will come a-calling.

            However this doesn't happen with a Government. They don't generally lose their job, retire, or run out of money. So National Debt can just get passed on from one Government to the next. As long as the country in question has an excellent credit rating (which the UK currently has) then it can borrow indefinitely, printing more money or issuing more bonds as and when. The current National Debt is probably a couple of hundred years older than me (if not more), and yes it does get bigger with time, but it's been like that for centuries and quite frankly it doesn't matter. So what if the Debt is 10 times what it was a decade ago? Sterling is probably worth half as much, GDP is correspondingly larger, and wages are higher. So long as we don't borrow too much, lose our Credit Rating, or turn into Greece, the UK (and other countries) can continue to do this forever. So no, it's not the same as Personal Finance, and you should not apply the same critical analysis to it.

            1. cambsukguy

              Re: Christian Berger: The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet

              All true, but the closer you sail to the wind, the more chance there is of a wreck.

              The UK is fairly strong but there are some bad signals and some serious risks ahead, Brexit - a risk we did not need to take - being one of the largest.

              Brexit is not an opportunity as much as a risk because all of the flux and change, seriously expensive change, none of which help the economy, which will (literally) tax the nation.

            2. fruitoftheloon
              Stop

              @ lorisarvendu: Re: Christian Berger: The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet

              lorisarvendu

              right, I'll type really slowly....

              Have you heard of the IMF? Do you know the reasons why they have been called in in recent decades to help countries get out of deep, dark, fiscally sharp holes?

              They have been called quite a lot in Euroland in recent decades - the UK included, do you know what party was in charge then?

              Which party kindly left a note for the Exchequer [somewhat in jest] recently saying 'there is no money left'...?

              You're also half right in that HMG can usually assume to be rolling over debt as it matures, but our children and grandchildren will be funding it out of general taxation, for debts that are being accrued NOW...

              There is no such thing as a free lunch matey!

              Cheers,

              Jay

        2. Tim 11

          Re: Christian Berger: The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet

          Repeat after me "Government finances are not the same as Personal Finances"

          and whatever you do, just keep repeating it, don't ever stop to think about it

        3. John Smith 19 Gold badge
          Unhappy

          "Repeat after me "Government finances are not the same as Personal Finances""

          Damm right.

          For example could you imagine coming to an auction to buy an IOU from me. Unlike normal auctions however the winner is the one nearest to the face value of my IOU. So if yours is the highest bidder for, say £1000 of my debt for say £950 payable (by me) in say September. I get £950 to spend for the next 3 months.

          Nobodies like us can't do that but Treasury Bill auctions are SOP for most countries with relatively stable governments.

          And then there's there's the selling off of assets that they only might own, like the TSB sale, which was (debateably) a mutual organization and therefor owned by its members.

      2. PapaD

        Re: Christian Berger: The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet

        @ fruitoftheloon

        Just a quick question, if companies don't pay tax, what is corporation tax?

        1. fruitoftheloon
          Happy

          @PapaD: Re: Christian Berger: The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet

          PD,

          it's a tax on economic productivity, for money which could otherwise have been passed onto shareholders [increased dividends] staff [higher salary and/or more employees] and customers [reduced prices].

          And yes, I have worked for myself for years, and done my own sole-trader/ltd co accounts.

          And no, I certainly don't think that it shouldn't exist, but no matter what ideology one believes or which party you do or don't follow, simply hiking CT will not result in a corresponding increase in actual money coming in, but some politicians never learn...

          Thanks for your input.

          Jay

          1. Mark 110

            Re: @PapaD: Christian Berger: The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet

            @Jay

            Or alternatively it is how companies pay for a secure environment to operate in, how they pay for the physical infrastructure they need to provide goods and services, how they pay for their share of the public services their employees benefit from.

            You can argue that personal taxes are also a tax on productivity. You can argue that corporate taxes are a tax on productivity.

            But you can't argue that a safe secure environment, with good infrastructure, within which people and companies can be productive comes free of charge!!

            1. fruitoftheloon
              Thumb Up

              @Mark 110: Re: @PapaD: Christian Berger: The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet

              Mark,

              yup! I agree with you completely.

              May I also point out that I didn't state that CT should be canned?!

              Thanks,

              Jay

        2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          Re: Christian Berger: The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet

          "Just a quick question, if companies don't pay tax, what is corporation tax?"

          A tax corporations pass on to whoever they can - employees, customers or shareholders.

          1. Jaybus

            Re: Christian Berger: The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet

            "A tax corporations pass on to whoever they can - employees, customers or shareholders."

            Of course. And why should they not? It is essentially a cost of goods sold item, just like materials, wages, etc. I'm sure that a CT increase causes corps to foot the bill early on, but the burden will fairly quickly shift to the consumer. Net effect: yet another tax on the consumer and artificially increased price of domestic goods vs. imported goods. In fact, I would argue that it never makes sense to increase CT without a corresponding increase in import tariffs. It likely makes more sense to increase taxes on individuals, not businesses.

        3. Commswonk

          Re: Christian Berger: The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet

          @ BoldMan: Repeat after me "Government finances are not the same as Personal Finances"

          Hopefully you will soon realise that the statement is essentially bollocks, perpetuated by those who believe that there is an infinite source of money mysteriously available. It was that attitude that ratcheted up the deficit and the accrued debt that had to be addressed in 2010.

          @ PapaD: Just a quick question, if companies don't pay tax, what is corporation tax?

          Companies have no money, whatever you call any tax on them. "Company money" is simply income from doing business; it is actually customers' money.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Christian Berger: The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet

            "Hopefully you will soon realise that the statement is essentially bollocks, perpetuated by those who believe that there is an infinite source of money mysteriously available."

            Unsubstantiated opinion and a straw man argument.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Christian Berger: The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet

            Companies have no money, whatever you call any tax on them. "Company money" is simply income from doing business; it is actually customers' money.

            Wrong.

            Let's assume you're using the British meaning of "company" limited to incorporated companies.

            Corporations are legal entities. They do indeed have money - with their own bank accounts, their own debts and loans, and their own checking and savings accounts. Even if they aren't considered to have their own money, then the money must belong to the company's owners - e.g. stockholders for stock companies and members for non-stock companies.

            If you're using the American English meaning of "company", then that includes partnerships and sole proprietorships. It the case of the sole proprietorship / partnership, it is not necessarily a separate legal entity, and the money belongs to the owners.

            In no case would "company money" belong to customers.

          3. L05ER

            Re: Christian Berger: The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet

            "Companies have no money, whatever you call any tax on them. "Company money" is simply income from doing business; it is actually customers' money."

            i get what you are trying to say, all costs trickle down to the customer... ALL COSTS. that doesn't mean companies don't have money. in your scenario, all apple users should have access to that immense cash horde.

          4. Jaybus

            Re: Christian Berger: The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet

            @ BoldMan: Repeat after me "Government finances are not the same as Personal Finances"

            @ Commswonk: Hopefully you will soon realise that the statement is essentially bollocks, perpetuated by those who believe that there is an infinite source of money mysteriously available. It was that attitude that ratcheted up the deficit and the accrued debt that had to be addressed in 2010.

            Nonsense! There is one very glaring difference. When an individual borrows money, it must be paid back from the individual's resources. When a government borrows money, it is paid back from "other people's money", frequently from the future earnings of those who have not even been born yet.

        4. Cynic_999

          Re: Christian Berger: The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet

          "

          Just a quick question, if companies don't pay tax, what is corporation tax?

          "

          You need to ask yourself where the company gets the money to pay corporation tax, and who would get the benefit if the company were not paying tax. Because that's who is really paying the tax. A company does not make money out of thin air!

          If by some magic it would be possible to abolish corporation tax and not recover it from elsewhere, the result would be cheaper goods and/or higher salaries.

          1. Alan Brown Silver badge

            Re: Christian Berger: The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet

            "A company does not make money out of thin air!"

            Banks do. The whole deposit/loan/deposit/loan thing gears the supply up and as a result the banks are responsible for far more "money" in circulation than the treasury.

            When treasury was trying to pump liquidity into the economy, banks were sitting on it and reducing their gearing. Conversely, when treasury was frantically trying to do the opposite in stagflation days, interest rates kept climbing because more and more money was circulating.

    6. naive

      Re: The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet

      It is doubtful is the typical socialist approach just to toss money at each social issue helps in this case.

      The real solution is to get society organized. What we do now in most western countries is allow millions to be idling around, making them feel useless. We give them social benefits, put them somewhere in a bad neighborhood, and hope they won't be too much of a nuisance to the rest. All bills to make that happen are footed by the working middle class.

      Internet censorship is for sure not the solution to random terrorist attacks. Stopping social benefits, and introduce a national wide work duty will help, this includes introducing permits for taking leave, which have to be carried so they can be checked by police officers on the street. Why not offer every unemployed man or women a job as police officer, soldier or as maintainer of public areas. Society would blossom, integration issues with minorities would evaporate over night.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet

        I've applied for such cleaning jobs. I was turned down due to lack of experience of being a cleaner.

        1. cambsukguy

          Re: The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet

          Good cleaners are hard to find, although I think it is not training as much as mind-set really.

          For instance, I have too much attention to detail and would take too long without quite a lot of pressure to do otherwise.

        2. Pompous Git Silver badge

          Re: The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet

          "I've applied for such cleaning jobs. I was turned down due to lack of experience of being a cleaner."
          What? Your mother/wife/sister [delete whichever is inapplicable] wouldn't give you a reference? Shame...

      2. Bernard M. Orwell

        Re: The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet

        " Stopping social benefits, and introduce a national wide work duty will help, this includes introducing permits for taking leave, which have to be carried so they can be checked by police officers on the street."

        Fuck off, brown shirt.

        My forebears fought and died to prevent this kind of bullcrap being imposed on us, and I'm certainly not going to stand idle if nobbers like you decide to try and impose it anyway.

    7. nijam Silver badge

      Re: The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet

      > Austerity simply is wrong, and it will look wrong from many viewpoints

      You could make a much better case to support the view that profligacy is what is wrong.

    8. ecofeco Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet

      Just stop with the tax and spending arguments right now.

      The very wealthy are dodging billions in taxes and the average punter is getting screwed. And that's the long and short of it.

      https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2016/apr/08/global-inequality-may-be-much-worse-than-we-think

  2. SwordOfEnlightenment
    Coat

    Internet to blame in 1970s and 1980s bombing campaigns?

    Interesting article, thanks. I just keep wondering why nobody blamed the Internet for the Provisional Irish Republican Army bombings in the 70's, 80's and 90's. After all in those days we started to see things like token ring, X.25, HDLC, uucp, Ethernet, bulletin boards, analogue mobile phones and even TCP/IP. I'll get my coat .... feeling old now ;-).

    1. Charlie Clark Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: Internet to blame in 1970s and 1980s bombing campaigns?

      Until the IRA started bombing on the mainland it was seen as sufficient to send troops to Ireland for extra training. As long as only people in Belfast and Enniskillen were being blown up it wasn't really considered to be a problem. Same with Afghanistan except that there the US also supplied a lot of the weapons. As it is doing again in Yemen…

    2. Daniel von Asmuth
      Flame

      Re: Internet to blame in 1970s and 1980s bombing campaigns?

      You had SNA, JCL and Rexx. Enough to turn anyone into a terrorist.

      Why have so few (attempted) attacks been blamed on the El Reg community?

      1. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken
        Coat

        Re: Internet to blame in 1970s and 1980s bombing campaigns?

        "Why have so few (attempted) attacks been blamed on the El Reg community?"

        Because whoever it is who would do the blaming knows that:

        a) Technical people are usually too rational to resort to terrorism.

        b) The commentariat can't be asked to leave their keyboards other for minimum requirements of nutrition and personal hygiene.

        Take your pick...

  3. Mark 110

    How does breaking encryption monitor people in parks?

    As I understand it one of the London attackers was reported to the anti terror hotline for his activities in his local park. I fail to see how breaking internet encryption could have helped monitor his activities in the park. You would need a police or intelligence guy in the park.

    This is just a distraction tactic by Theresa May. She cut police numbers making it more unlikely there would be a police / intelligence guy in the park. Lying to cover up her mistakes as usual.

    1. Redstone

      Re: How does breaking encryption monitor people in parks?

      She cut police numbers making it more unlikely there would be a police / intelligence guy in the park.

      The guy was investigated, but as Jihadis know how to play our laws so they stay just inside the law, he was let go without charge, so in this case police numbers would have made no difference.

      Also, yes she may have cut funding (cutting officers - rather than pet schemes - was the local choice by regional forces) but those officer numbers were cut from an all-time high. At the moment the numbers are the same as what we had at the beginning of the 2000's. I don't remember us having to resort to vigilante policing due to lack of numbers then.

      1. Mark 110

        Re: How does breaking encryption monitor people in parks?

        I don't remember us having a permanent terror level of serious for several years back then.

        But then that was before we decided to bring half the stable governments in the Middle East down through military force (or support for armed rebellions), causing the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians and creating a power vacuum for the bereaved relatives to arm themselves and attack us.

        1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
          Big Brother

          "bring half the stable governments in the Middle East down "

          Yay. Let's hear it for dictatorship.

          Because if you want "Strong And Stable Government (c Lyton Crosby 2017)" that's the Gold standard.

      2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: How does breaking encryption monitor people in parks?

        "At the moment the numbers are the same as what we had at the beginning of the 2000's. I don't remember us having to resort to vigilante policing due to lack of numbers then."

        The threat levels were different then.

      3. collinsl Bronze badge

        Re: How does breaking encryption monitor people in parks?

        The population is larger than it was in 2000, and crime is becoming more complex and paperwork demands on police are higher as well.

        So instead of an officer breaking up a domestic where the wife is hitting the husband with a frying pan (as a hypothetical) and writing up a one page report on the crime, the officer now has to do the crime report, a victim impact statement, a use of force report (for arresting the woman), a referral to social services for ongoing support, an injury report for the man (including photos), a prosecution recommendation statement to go to the CPS, and a whole other set of forms and photos because the woman hit him with the frying pan and he now has a bruise on his arm which has to be reported.

        And on top of all that he then has to go and deal with a report of "someone insulted me on facebook and now I feel concerned for my safety" which almost certainly wouldn't have happened with the prevalence that it does in 2000.

    2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: How does breaking encryption monitor people in parks?

      "As I understand it one of the London attackers was reported to the anti terror hotline for his activities in his local park."

      And it now turns out that he'd been investigated and the investigation dropped and also featured on a TV documentary about radicalisation.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The more politicians and media outlets railed against Brexit, the more voters saw the issue as an opportunity to give the powerful and the prevailing bloody noses.

    Except that the powerful and prevailing are still exactly where they were before, and will use the brexit and the terrorist scares to extract even more power and wealth for themselves - all at the expense of those same voters.

    1. nijam Silver badge

      > ... the more voters saw the issue as an opportunity to give the powerful and the prevailing bloody noses

      Yes, none of us believes it was an actual opportunity, though... it was just marketed to the electorate as such, which is why it was *seen* as such.

      1. lorisarvendu
        Happy

        "Yes, none of us believes it was an actual opportunity, though... it was just marketed to the electorate as such, which is why it was *seen* as such."

        I'm reminded of a recent phrase from across the Atlantic..."draining the swamp". Can't remember exactly who said it, but I hope that's going well for him...

  5. Mark 49

    Monsters from the Id

    Some interesting points, though the personal prejudices as to what are good and proper views to hold don't do the article any favours.

    The analogy I like to give to people when discussing online behaviour is based on Forbidden Planet and the demise of the enlightened Krell. A civilisation of a million years destroyed overnight by the creation of a mind linking device. The primitive part of the brain suddenly let uncontrollably loose to destroy in madness.

    It seems a fair analogy for the Internet. Human personal interaction had just about developed to be civil - after all, a punch in the nose for being obnoxious is a great teacher of manners. Humans had more or less learned to control the urges and impulsed from the more primitive parts of the brain. The Internet has let all that loose, there is no punch in the nose for being a cretin behind a keyboard. Instead, all the monsters from the Id can be released in to cyberspace. Humans are just not evolved enough to cope with the Internet.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Monsters from the Id

      "[...] after all, a punch in the nose for being obnoxious is a great teacher of manners. "

      The punch was usually administered by someone who was losing a verbal argument. Resorting to violence is the stock in trade of those who are intolerant of others through prejudice or insecurity.

      Accepted manners are taught by example.

    2. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

      Re: Monsters from the Id

      As far as analogies go, this is a good one.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    People are stupid.

    There's your answer as to why the world is the way it is. Don't get me wrong I'm from the Socrates school of "I know that I know nothing" meaning in my opinion that there is always a capacity to learn or change opinion.

    May and her ilk are moving the country down a path to a totalitarian regime with the controls they want and will get.

    Were doomed I tells ya.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "Were doomed I tells ya."

      There is a standard psyops speech that used to be given to new employees of a company.

      "When I have convinced you that there is nothing you can do that will make a difference, that you are powerless, I have won.

      So whenever someone tells you 'You can't do this. I'm just being honest, as I don't want you to be hurt, or we shouldn't be doing this, it's not for the likes of us' ask yourself are they helping you, or helping themselves? Whose feelings are going to be hurt? Theirs or yours. Usually it's theirs that they are thinking about."

      In the UK in the 60's 80% of both the young and the old voted. Today retirees still turn out strongly but the young don't. As a result governments have become quite generous to the retirees and quite stingy to the young. Why? They know they can because the young are convinced their votes cannot make a difference. They convinced themselves (or were convinced?) that they were helpless.

      And until the young start voting again in large numbers their votes won't matter.

      Have an election where the young turn a virtually certain Labor/Conservative/SNP/Lib Dem/UKIP victory into a shock defeat and suddenly "the young," and their specific problems, are now a group who have to be dealt with again.

      You are not "doomed," if that were the case Blair would have had his way with ID cards decades ago. But it takes effort to stop the actions of career civil servants sleep walking the British people into a full on police state in the name of "security." The price of freedom is external vigilance against these a*holes.

      The English seem to love Dystopian SF, from Milton to Wells, from Orwell to Moorcock (even Hugh Laurie's character in "Tomorrowland") nothing is quite as good as an unhappy ending. The inevitable failure of everything. Nothing is so comforting that in the end you're doomed.

      This is bullshit. A product of weather, a fucking horrific school system that treats eighty percent of a class as expendable vermin, along with the untreated PTSD of withdrawal (in the addiction sense) from the British Empire. No wonder Dr Who was created by a Canadian.

      Now wake the fuck up.

  7. frank ly

    The May Way

    "What is the solution? Well, the end of religious wars came about largely because of two things: greater personal and economic freedom and better education."

    So, let's reduce personal and economic freedom and cut the education budgets. Er, .......

    1. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

      Re: The May Way...

      ... starts to look more and more like an "Hey, let's give totalitarism a try! After all, we've missed out in the 1930ies and never got to test it. Who knows, it just might work for us!" approach.

      Seriously, don't.

    2. fandom

      Re: The May Way

      Except it was exhaustion that killed the religion wars, when Felipe II of Spain asked parlament for more money for the wars he was told "If they want to go to hell let them"

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "Well, the end of religious wars came about largely because of two things: greater personal and economic freedom and better education."

    Teresa May says she is going to allow new faith schools to select all their pupils by their religion. That will overturn the 50% cap imposed not many years ago.

    No new Catholic schools have been opened since the 50% cap was imposed. They say that once they are allowed to select all their pupils by their religion - then they will aim to recruit thousands of new pupils who currently would go to non-denominational schools.

    The children selected for these faith schools will be particularly those whose home environment puts their religious identity above anything else. They want their children's school to reinforce that religion and its views about society. Indirectly they segregate them from their peers who have different views - even in their leisure time.

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/nov/29/should-new-schools-be-able-to-select-children-by-faith

    1. Dan 55 Silver badge

      That and grammar schools. If you wanted to completely segregate society, that's the way you'd go about it.

      And what's the reason, just because certain religious organisations have got the funding to build new schools that the state is unwilling to build.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Wow, exactly the opposite of the direction that schooling should be moving. That'll guarantee civil strife and then considering that there is in reality no God(s)/god(s) and that religions are human constructs, the long surviving ones simply covering more of human nature than the shorter practiced, that have become nothing more than control mechanisms. Religion should be banned from all schools and only taught in Universities and Colleges.

      I'm also of the belief that there should be no private schools. Surely, the schools that we plebs sends our children to are as good as the expensive private schools the wealthy send their children to. Right?

      Perhaps if Corporate and Wealth taxes were increased and Government incompetence/corruption was great decreased the schools for us plebs could be made to be much better.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        The best way to sort out the NHS and schools in this country would be to ban all MPs and their families from going private.

      2. Charles 9

        "Wow, exactly the opposite of the direction that schooling should be moving."

        But some won't take no for an answer. They're SO anti-social they'd rather live completely apart than integrate. If forced upon them, they'll push back tooth and nail. But since they were BORN there, you can't just exile them, so you have born-here malcontents who hate you simply because. Haters gonna hate. How do you solve that?

        "I'm also of the belief that there should be no private schools."

        But that will also be impossible to enforce. Not only do you have the above who'd rather pull their children out of school and enforce their parental duties to the death, but you also have to deal with specialty and trade schools that pretty much HAVE to be privately run because anything else would be hopelessly inefficient.

        "Perhaps if Corporate and Wealth taxes were increased and Government incompetence/corruption was great decreased the schools for us plebs could be made to be much better."

        Corporate taxes will never work because they'll just pass the costs on. As for corruption, that became intractable with the rise of transnational corporations who can play sovereignty against you ("Shame if I decided to just up and move...").

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Teresa May says she is going to allow new faith schools to select all their pupils by their religion. That will overturn the 50% cap imposed not many years ago.

      So on one hand, she condemns terrorism, and on the other is advocating for allowing the set-up of jihadi training schools.

  9. Guus Leeuw

    Optional religious wars were ended?

    Dear Sir,

    can you please provide a citation as to when religious were ended?

    Isn't this "terror because Islam/Muslim" a religious war? How about the ban on flying to the US from anywhere in the Middle East? Can Indonesians fly to the US? Why?

    It is all and always religious wars... They started 2017 years ago by (according to gospel / rumors) Herod the Great. Reason? Personal benefit: Herod did not want to lose his seat as Roman-appointed King of the Jews.

    The theme really hasn't changed in those 2017 intervening years. Whether people wore red-crosses-on-white-garments, chased and killed all cathars, broke free of the roman catholic church into protestant churches, started the church of England... It's all the same stupid thing.

    Removing religion isn't going to help - I have come to believe, because there will always be people who will find the next best to improve their own personal situation over that of others. So removing one case of "my-dick-is-bigger-than-yours" isn't really going to help society at large.

    Regards,

    Guus

    1. Dave Schofield

      Re: Optional religious wars were ended?

      Religious wars started much further back than 2017 years (+/- whatever the current error on the dates is). Religion is just a handy excuse to kill people you don't like.

      1. Primus Secundus Tertius

        Re: Optional religious wars were ended?

        @Schofield

        No, religious wars were not "a handy excuse". They were deadly serious efforts to save the immortal souls of those who lived under mistaken regimes. They were led by anointed Kings who ruled by the grace of God (Latin, dei gratia, as noted on British coins). That applies not only to European Kings: Chinese Emperors ruled under the mandate of heaven; some Arab Kings claim descent from the Prophet.

        No, I don't accept that religious posttion. But it is mighty difficult to argue with somebody who does.

        A moslem said to me once: "We have the Jewish religion, Christianity, and Islam. Why do people not just accept the latest version?"

        But why should they accept any of those, in this scientifdic age?

      2. John Smith 19 Gold badge
        Unhappy

        "Religion is just a handy excuse to kill people you don't like."

        Or feel threatened by. No actual cause, just a vague, amorphous fear of "them."

        Or whose economic success you are jealous of.

        Or whose lifestyle you followed and it didn't work out for you and you blame for the subsequent failure of your life.

    2. Bloodbeastterror

      Re: Optional religious wars were ended?

      "Removing religion isn't going to help"

      Apart from the fact that I don't understand your first sentence, I disagree with you. Societal ills (poverty, injustice) may be the cause of a great deal of social unrest and crime, but if you want mass murder of unknown innocent people you will find that in almost all cases the cause is religion. Yes, there are psychopaths out there (Brady, for example) who have mental problems way beyond what any of us can imagine, but if you look at these worldwide bombers, child kidnappers and knifemen, all of them, all of them are motivated by their phantom god and his promise of virgins. What a pity that these criminal imbeciles will never know the fallacy of their stupidity.

      So you're wrong. The sooner parents stop whispering the filth of religion into their children's ears the better. It's child abuse. As the late great Christopher Hitchens said, religion is a force which makes good people do evil things. Look no farther than Manchester and London for the proof.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Optional religious wars were ended?

        if you want mass murder of unknown innocent people you will find that in almost all cases the cause is religion.

        I always knew socialism must be a religion. The Soviets, Chicoms, Pol Pot, GDR, et.c industrially murdered millions in the name of the socialist utopia... I think the worlds other religions (even Islam) have a lot of catching up to do.

        1. Sir Runcible Spoon

          Re: Optional religious wars were ended?

          ", but if you want mass murder of unknown innocent people you will find that in almost all cases the cause is religion. "

          I think you'll find deeper causes should you look. The ones that spring to mind are:

          1. Fear

          2. Greed

          3. Jealousy

          Everything else seems like window dressing to me.

          1. horse of a different color

            Re: Optional religious wars were ended?

            You missed one - resentment. I doubt Islamists are either jealous, greedy or fearful.

            1. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge

              Re: Optional religious wars were ended?

              And let's admit "hate" plays a part, hate for what people are and what they do, whether that's genitally mutilating girls, abusing children, oppression, or killing the innocent.

              And there's hate for those who stand idly by and allow such things to flourish.

              There's a non-religious aspect to "they hate us for what we are".

            2. Charles 9

              Re: Optional religious wars were ended?

              Resentment actually goes to envy/jealousy. Resentment is malcontent over being in a worse situation than someone else. That falls right into the definition of Envy as a Deadly Sin: coveting that of another which one does not have.

              1. Mark 110

                Re: Optional religious wars were ended?

                So a few bits on the above:

                I agree that resentment is an issue. And I also agree it is an aspect of Envy/Jealousy. However theres more to it than that. We have caused the deaths of their relatives by our governments actions. The poster that spoke about hate's post was a little weird - FGM isn't considered within the community as harmful its a normal thing, not hateful, but he is right in that they hate us and our hedonistic society. They hate us because we turned up with lots of bombs and guns and killied their relatives and friends. We all (those of us over 40 anyway) grew up with residual hate for Germans for similar reasons (AND YES I AGREE, not the same, similar).

                On the whole Judaism, Christianity, Islam thing. Mohammed actually says in the Koran that we are all 'people of the book' and followers of Islam should not attack people of the book except in self defence. Mohammed does dictate some other stuff regarding 'polytheists' and needing to attack them in the Koran which explains the endless conflict with the Hindu religion. But then the bible says some pretty weird stuff in Ezekeiel. Ignore it, get over it. Most of my Islamic friends have.

                1. Charles 9

                  Re: Optional religious wars were ended?

                  "And I also agree it is an aspect of Envy/Jealousy. However theres more to it than that. We have caused the deaths of their relatives by our governments actions."

                  That's just plain Wrath. They hate us for killing their families and want revenge. And some of them don't care about the whole Vicious Cycle thing.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The internet is to blame.

    Whoever wins on Thursday will be blamed on the internet and gutless voters who were scared by the terrorists into voting the way they did.

    Never mind that they got out and voted in spite of it making them less safe, they were bowing to terrorist fear by voting for the people we didn't vote for, dammit! They were brainwashed into thinking wrong thoughts! What? No, I'm not brainwashed and neither are you, everybody else is.

    1. Dan 55 Silver badge
      Meh

      Re: The internet is to blame.

      As a form of brainwashing, Church of England is probably the best. Schools get marched down to church once or twice a year to half-heartedly sing a few hymns, and maybe the most fanatical it gets is tea with the vicar.

      1. Bloodbeastterror

        Re: The internet is to blame.

        "Church of England is probably the best"

        I'm guessing that by "the best" you mean the least harmful. If so, then I refer you to Jainism, an order devoted to the sacredness of life, whose monks reputedly brush the ground before them as they walk for fear of treading on an ant.

        To paraphrase Sam Harris, it's not extremism in religion that we should fear, it's the fundamentalist perversion of religion. In the case of the Jain monks, the more fanatically extremist they are the better.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The internet is to blame.

        "As a form of brainwashing, Church of England is probably the best. "

        While historically I would agree - that is no longer necessarily true.

        The evangelical branches of the CofE are more "fanatical". They tend to have "literal" biblical dogma that encourages abuses of human rights.

        I stopped supporting the maintenance of our ancient CofE church a few years ago. It was inadvertently revealed that the community funding was going to be used for evangelical missions into the local non-denominational schools.

        An elderly cousin is married to a CofE vicar. She was quite appalled recently to hear that I am an atheist. She said that she couldn't countenance any of her five children becoming atheists.

        In my limited experience - the Quakers, with their emphasis on individual responsibility and no clerical hierarchy, seem to be the most benign.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: The internet is to blame.

          An elderly cousin is married to a CofE vicar. She was quite appalled recently to hear that I am an atheist. She said that she couldn't countenance any of her five children becoming atheists.

          Yes, the CofE I remember was quite happy with agnostics or atheists, especially if they showed up at church a few times in their lifetime. Nowadays CofE won't even put up with agnostic bishops.

      3. Primus Secundus Tertius

        Re: The internet is to blame.

        The C. of E. is a wonderful institution, because it somehow promotes such apathy.

        "Sing to the Lord with cheerful voice"?? Not at the weddings and funerals I have attended, not unless they decided to hire a choir.

        Apathy may not make the world go round, but it prevents it from grinding to an acrimonious halt. Every country needs a C. of E.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: The internet is to blame.

          I've often though that a M. of E. might be the solution to reaching a more reasonable form of the religion. But there is an issue of how to get through the required reformation, which would involve a fair degree of unpleasantness.

  11. Tony W

    Nuance

    The Internet does allow very fragmented groups of people to get together and reinforce each other's views. But demagogues and dictators got elected before the internet. What they did have was the backing of forces with money and power, which will use the Internet just as they do other media. You don't need to invoke the Internet even to explain the Brexit vote, when there were years of misleading propaganda from several popular mainstream newspapers.

    But advocating killing people because they belong to a particular group is not just part of ordinary discussion and debate, and I would be happy to see that stopped. Can that be done without losing the freedom of discussion that is essential If society is to develop? That debate is part of a long continuing conflict between freedom and stability that has gone on at least since the arrival of the printing press.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Nuance

      IMHO the Internet unluckily helps to build "distribute clans". Often violence is the effect of a tribal structure - you see it in sport hooligans, organized crime, terrorism, antagonists groups, even organized parties when they overcome a democratic state structure and becomes the real rulers.

      Democracy is an attempt to weaken clan/tribal groups, often organizing them in larger "parties" which has to work withing a defined set of rules, and at a more granular level assert citizens are equal regardless of what group they belong to.

      Public instruction and adopting values which are established outside the clans is another way to try to break clan structures and ties. In larger group made from different people, it's more important to find compromises and avoid unacceptable behaviours.

      Everywhere you see clan structures well alive, life quality decreases quickly, violence increases and economy worsen (unless there are easy sources of money) because the main aim is protecting and impose the clan, even at the price of worse conditions overall - it's Milton's "Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven."

      The internet is a very powerful media which allows for building tribes quite easily, outside the old constraints. Actually, bad ideas like Facebook are exactly built on the tribe idea - not a surprise since it comes from those stupid tribal groups which are US university fraternities or whatever they are named.

      Still, Freedom of Speech has limitations even in the most democratic countries. Because there are values with higher priority - like Life. Inciting to kill people - and thereby deprive them of the fundamental right to Life, can't hide behind the right to speak freely.

      It would also be important to avoid to use different way to judge freedom of speech. For example, we're discussing if hate speech about killing people should be censored or not, but if an old Australian tennis player speaks against same sex marriage, it's just a barrage of blame and requests of censorship.

      If we believe there are values that above the right of speak against, we have to treat them equally, and not pick each time again what is OK for our tribe.

      1. ecofeco Silver badge

        Re: Nuance

        Well said, LDS.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Nuance

        @LDS - as a side note, on our recommended reading list is Cory Doctorow's "Eastern Standard Tribe".

        And yes, he does wear goggles and a red cape, at least when I met him he did.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Nuance

        I think what also makes it worse is that, in terms of social scope, humans as a species are most comfortable with the tribal structure: large enough to have strength in numbers, but small enough that everyone knows everyone else.

        One of the biggest complaints about larger social structures is what I call disconnect: the feeling the people up top don't understand what the people down below are experiencing.

        "If we believe there are values that above the right of speak against, we have to treat them equally, and not pick each time again what is OK for our tribe."

        Until you end up with two that are fundamentally at odds, where they CAN'T be treated equally because each takes an all-or-nothing mentality. They must be supported wholly or you're considered against them. It's like two tribes fighting for the same watering hole, and there's not enough to share. Sadly, there's no clean answer to such problems.

    2. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

      Re: Nuance

      Well, the internet is the open form of the closed ward.

  12. mythicalduck

    the decision by the UK to leave the European Union despite the clear and obvious logic in staying

    ... in your opinion.

    Yes, there were valid reasons to vote remain, but there were valid reasons to vote leave. It depends which reasons you thought were more relevant as to which way you voted. Stop pretending it was just an act of rebellion

    1. tiggity Silver badge

      You had better tell me some valid reasons to vote leave

      .. Please do not say "less red tape" (just wait until we are out of the EU and back to the mass of "paperwork" needed for imports / exports)

      .. Please do not say "take back control" either

      On recent history, the 2 "main" UK parties have both been useless & screwed things up massively with the powers they already have, so IMHO quite a good thing that some things are EU driven, as with large group consensus, less likely to get "extreme" policies (of whatever flavour) enacted.

      With an IT slant, given this site, both main parties happy to take away all our online privacy / let our personal data be moved around everywhere, the EU has been a prime mover (albeit not too effective yet, but at least trying) in making a belated attempt to limit the abuses of our personal data

      I'm old enough to remember foully polluted rivers and areas of coast being very common, without EU environmental directives I doubt the (costly) improvement in water quality would have happened if UK left to its own devices.

      In the Life of Brian style "What did the Roman's ever do for us", there's plenty of good things came from the EU & I'm not going to list them all

      Still, when we leave the EU, ignoring trade, plenty of EU states will still benefit from us financially as huge chunks of our rail, power network etc. owned by European countries and the high prices we pay go to subsidise their economies, if we want some control how about the exorbitant infrastructure profits being limited to UK investors (and then, not spirited away from UK economy via tax havens)

      1. Redstone

        Re: You had better tell me some valid reasons to vote leave

        OK, off the top of my head:

        1. Not waving goodbye to a net of £13 billion of our tax money per year

        2. Having boarders that the UK are allowed to control

        3. The possiblity of returning to the superior British Common Law

        4. along the same lines, No EU courts overruling our own.

        5. Not having an unelected, unaccounatble EU commission make all our important decisions for us.

        6. Vacuum cleaners that are allowed the power to actually pick up dust

        7. Setting our own tax rates without a by-your -leave from the EU (c.f. VAT)

        8. Stop the rape of UK fisheries

        9. Bin subsidyfarms, sorry I mean Windfarms

        1. Anonymous Blowhard

          Re: You had better tell me some valid reasons to vote leave

          1. Not waving goodbye to a net of £13 billion of our tax money per year

          Given that the UK GDP is 1.86 trillion pounds (for 2016), then the devaluation of sterling is costing us at least 186 billion pounds a year (assuming a conservative 10% devaluation). Anything that we buy overseas (e.g. medicines and medical devices for the NHS) is already costing at least 10% more, so if there's an expensive cancer drug we're buying from Europe or the USA then we either spend more pounds or treat fewer people.

          We might get an increase in exports, if we can capitalise on the exchange rate; but that might be a big "if" if we don't get proper access to the European market.

          I was at a fund-raising event the other day, for a US made precision radio-therapy machine; it costs over 2 million pounds, so add another couple of hundred grand to the price of Brexit...

        2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          Re: You had better tell me some valid reasons to vote leave

          Let's take a few:

          "1. Not waving goodbye to a net of £13 billion of our tax money per year"

          I remember the morning after the result was declared one MP who'd campaigned for Leave demanding that the government make up for the special EU funding that his constituency receives. I wonder where those special EU funds come from.

          "2. Having boarders that the UK are allowed to control"

          What boarders are those?

          "3. The possiblity of returning to the superior British Common Law"

          Are you thinking of English (and Welsh) Common Law. Scotland has its own legal system? No matter, Common Law still applies - just about. May wants to dispose of bits of it; that presumption of innocence is so inconvenient, so let's ignore it, treat everyone as guilty and spy on them.

          "4. along the same lines, No EU courts overruling our own."

          I'd rather like to have had the EU courts continue to overrule May's diktats.

          1. mythicalduck

            Re: You had better tell me some valid reasons to vote leave

            "4. along the same lines, No EU courts overruling our own."

            I'd rather like to have had the EU courts continue to overrule May's diktats

            This isn't a refutation of the argument, it's just your preference... And of course, May isn't here to stay, you can vote her out. Good luck in voting out Junker though...

            1. werdsmith Silver badge

              Re: You had better tell me some valid reasons to vote leave

              . Good luck in voting out Junker though...

              What is Junker? His is a symbolic role which has no useful effect. The de facto head of the EU is the German Chancellor. Not officially of course, but in reality.

      2. Charlie Clark Silver badge

        Re: You had better tell me some valid reasons to vote leave

        .. Please do not say "less red tape"

        It was more money for the hostiples, innit. Plus that Mr Farage looks like a good bloke.

      3. mythicalduck

        @tiggity Re: You had better tell me some valid reasons to vote leave

        Redstone has given you some. I don't agree with some of them, but they are none-the-less still valid.

        But I'll give you one : The free movement of people. You might think this is a great thing, you can go work where ever you want, but look at some of the eastern european nations. I think I read that Lithuania lost a quater of it's population as they moved around Europe. What does that mean for the home nation?

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31488046

        As I also mentioned, I never said "nothing good came from the EU", I appreciate that there are, I'm just saying it's not all one way.

        You can downvote me all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that there are actually legitimate reasons to leave, even if you don't agree with them.

        1. nijam Silver badge

          Re: @tiggity You had better tell me some valid reasons to vote leave

          > Redstone has given you some.

          Even after correcting the spelling, only one of them had a hint of accuracy about it, unfortunately.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @tiggity You had better tell me some valid reasons to vote leave

          If/When we lose free movement on 1/4/2019, then British-born children of Brits will have fewer rights to work than British-born children of EU-citizens, who will probably still retain dual nationality through their parents. Lots of us on here currently work in roles that cover the EU region, and once FM goes, either the job roles will proportionally move into the EU (meaning redundancies in the UK) or the native-Brits will be pushed out for EU-born workers who still retain the rights to work overseas.

          For the record, I'm not talking permanent working overseas, I'm talking jump on a plane on Monday and fly to a customer site for 1-5 days then fly back home.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: You had better tell me some valid reasons to vote leave

            I voted remain, but Brown's stunt with the Data Retention Bill made me think twice.

            You'll remember that Parliament voted against it so he took it to the EU to overrule his own government?

            More significantly there were a bunch of obvious lies coming out of both camps, but since both camps only noticed the lies coming out of the other side, of course it was polarising.

          2. mythicalduck

            @AC: Re: @tiggity You had better tell me some valid reasons to vote leave

            For the record, I'm not talking permanent working overseas, I'm talking jump on a plane on Monday and fly to a customer site for 1-5 days then fly back home.

            If you're not talking permenant, please can you explain why a dual nationality makes the slightest bit of difference?

            One global company I worked for sent me to Budapest and Memphis for a week each. Guess what, Memphis isn't in the EU, and I didn't have any issues, nor did I have to become an American citizen or anything.

            I, honestly, don't get what you're saying. I could see it possibly making a difference if your office was based in the EU, but just flying over there to do some work and fly back, not so much...

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I dowvoted you not for the view that brexit had / has its merits, or that some people voted on merit, I merely pointed out that a huge majority of those who voted out, did so, on lies, not on any real merits (the proverbial 350 milion bus).

      I would have been happy with people voting out because "when we entered the EEC, we entered an economic zone, not a superstate, which it's trying to turn itself into, we don't like that!". Regardless of what I think beneficial for the UK, in or out of a super(lame)state, such frog-boiling is the same as weasel wording of any mobile phone contract. But that's not what made a vast majority vote out. They just believed in that rosy picture of the past, when the UK was milk and honey cause we didn't have those f... foreigners crawling all around us. Well, too bad, we can lock ourself in and throw away the key and put our heads under the pillow and pretend it's 1970 again, but the world around won't just pause for this little United Kingdom (currently still including Scotland and Northern Ireland, but who knows).

      1. mythicalduck

        @AC

        I dowvoted you not for the view that brexit had / has its merits, or that some people voted on merit

        So, you downvoted me not because there was anything wrong with my post, but rather other people doing other things that are totally unrelated... Gotcha... Makes perfect sense

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    economic or personal freedom

    aka "bread and games". And yes, I would argue, that personal freedom is just an excercise, an illusion of having any influence. No bigger for an average joe now than in Roman times. As to bread... well, you can't have us all being winners, eh? I mean, somebody's got to profit from somebody else's loss, perhaps from that (Polish, per chance?) labourer from Middlesbrough who works twice as hard for half the money (hurrah, saved myself a few bob with that, thanks mate!). Or, looking further afield, a cheap factory worker in China. I mean, I personally don't mind them being exploited, I'm not a hypocrite, I buy what they make and congratulate myself on this "amazing piece of technology at reasonable price!"

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Mushroom

    When people band together governments start worrying

    You do realize that at one time in history governments also tried to ban the formation of unions? Because those would be bad; shifting the balance of power where it should not belong, according to the powers that be of course.

    This is not much different. They're not targeting the Internet, they're targeting us humans banding together. Because in a sense we could become a threat to their existence. Because when politicians tell lies, and people debunk those and place their findings on the Internet for all to see...Then only 1 single individual could start a (virtual) riot (with riot I'm not referring to violence, only verbal violence of some sort).

    I would have been much more impressed if the British police had actually been monitoring the recent attackers, but the story is that they were not. Another thing which the government would rather keep quiet I think.

  15. fruitoftheloon
    Stop

    Eh what?

    'Clear and obvious logic in staying' [in the EU]?

    I mean, horrific youth unemployment, lots of screwed economies - which are hamstrung by the EU and ECB policies, a refugee policy which INCREASED the horrific plight of those already in desperate situations, many folk across Euroland being none-too-happy with the performance of their leaders...

    Yup, why would anyone possible want out of that?

    And for the benefit of the inevitable mute downvoters, I have no problem whatsoever with folk from overseas choosing to move to and live/work in the UK. BUT I understand why others may not share that viewpoint.

    Love the rest of the article tho!

    Jay

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It's hard to discuss things like adults

    When the players act like children.

    I see you Miss May and Master Trump!

  17. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge

    Old school radicalisation

    If we removed the internet people would simply go back to being radicalised by what they read in the papers, in campaign pamphlets, or see on the news or in documentaries, they would go back to organising responses in person, by phone or by mail.

    Of course "radicalised" has these days been redefined from being "motivated into wanting to do something about it" to "wanting to kill because of it". It's a jump from protesting, writing letters, egging politicians, to murder, but that in itself is not entirely new; it's just the most extreme direct action.

    There are three parts to "the internet is to blame"; providing the evidence and propaganda which radicalises and motivates a response, providing justification that an acceptable response includes murder, allowing the response to be organised, coordinated, even financed.

    The internet is not however responsible. Its only crime is that it allows people to be 'better informed'; be that rightly or wrongly informed.

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    TWOTTER

    if YOU can't spell a POLICY IN 14o lettahs THEN YIU SHULD AKS YOUSE,F whether it's Worth BEUNG MADE A LOR or not. TRUMO TWEETS THE LAWH and because HIS BRIAN IS string, HE GETS HUS POINT ACROSS. ID MAKE every one of aTrumps tweets a LAW ALL OBER THE WORLD, EVEN FRANCE AND GERMAMYN where MACRO and MERKIM are ALLOWING 1000,00,000''s of TERRIERISTS IN everybody Second. The INTANET IS GUD, it's where i FOIND MY TRAILER Andy its WHETE I BUY MY BEER. AND look at pictures of LADY MARMALADE. Nakid. ((Her not me]]]}.

    1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Trollface

      "if YOU can't spell a POLICY IN 14o lettahs THEN YIU SHULD AKS YOUSE,F"

      Another classic piece of work.

      You've totally got the inbred SEL thick-as-s*** motherf***er vibe down.

  19. Potemkine Silver badge

    Shoot the messenger

    It's a kind of tradition: From Sarajevo's assassination of Franz Ferdinand of Austria leading to WW1 to 9/11 used to justify Iraq's invasion, each time a terrorist attack occurs someone uses it to push his/her agenda.

    Trump or May are no exception.

  20. Charlie Clark Silver badge
    Pint

    Nice article

    Reminder me to buy you one of these if our paths should ever cross. That's if Mother Theresa and Donny Boy haven't locked us up beforehand!

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    This article proves its own point

    By using the Internet to promote a rabidly left wing agenda.

    Theh author is clearly one of the people he warns you about

    1. Potemkine Silver badge

      Re: This article proves its own point

      rabidly left wing

      Meaning being left of Trump, Farrage and al, that is whoever is not a a racist and/or a xenophobic clown.

      1. naive

        Re: This article proves its own point

        Good point, lets hope the lefties are mentally fit enough to keep count of the deaths caused by their policies.

    2. Primus Secundus Tertius

      Re: This article proves its own point

      Well said, sir or madam AC.

      I am not a natural sympathiser with the policies and values of the government of mainland China. But this article made me feel they have a point: that one should actively defend one's position. Indeed, the Chinese government seems to adopt the Dalek(*) policy to those whose opinions are different. They don't seem to have as many terrorist incidents as western countries.

      (*)Dalek policy: exterminate them. BBC Children's Hour programme, but suitable for 90 percent of grown ups.

      1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

        Re: This article proves its own point

        They don't seem to have as many terrorist incidents as western countries.

        Well, when it's the state doing the terrorising, how do you do the counting?

  22. Rob D.
    Stop

    You can tell it's an election

    How much moronic political claptrap is being posted in the last few days? This article itself was interesting enough to be worth a read and there are some considered responses here but wow, just pick a choice one and watch it fall apart under its own internal inconsistency: "Austerity was implemented to use the recession/deficit to justify the right wing ideology of lower taxes for the rich and less public services for the poor."

    Maybe I'm expecting too much in an election period. Moving on ...

  23. joeldillon

    'The election of both leaders'?

    May hasn't even been elected, yet, anyway.

    1. druck Silver badge
      Facepalm

      @joeldillion

      May hasn't even been elected, yet, anyway.

      Shame that complete ignorance of the British electoral system is no bar to voting.

      She was elected to parliament just as every MP is, and was elected leader of the party by the parties MPs as every leader has been. If that party is in government, the leader becomes the Prime Minister.

      We do not directly elect the Prime Minister in the UK, perhaps you are getting confused with the US presidential system.

  24. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Credit where credit is due. Identify the rot and cut it out

    The problem isn't ideologies spreading on the Internet, it is incompetent candidates for high public office being led to believe they be bold leadership material with a significant presence of being, rather than their realising they be just as terrorised sheep being led through markets for eventual ritual media slaughter and/or putting out to pasture in arid fields of ignominy.

    And here be a presently active, super prime, subprime tale of catastrophic deceit and monumental cowardice which would certainly rightly disqualify any and all involved, should they have even just a titter of wit, from even thinking about themselves as strong and stable persons of interest to anyone …….. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-05/dear-great-britain-–-blame-your-intelligence-agencies-government-not-internet

    And does media rule and regulate your existence, for certainly without it and IT would you all be in the dark about everything and prey to anything with more intelligence than power can ever provide and maintain?

  25. uncommon_sense
    FAIL

    Is this article an example?

    The author of this "article" has never been objective IMO, but now he appears to live completely in his own bubble!

    This is what the radical lefty internet does to our society!

    I can't be sure he didn't mean to exemplify it, and the article is therefore a joke..(?)

  26. Stevie

    Bah!

    Religeous wars are mechanically no different from any other type - political ideology or land-grab being the two broad classifications I can immediately call to mind - in that the reason they collapse is when the money needed to prosecute them dries up.

    You can talk about The Will To Win or Public Opinion, but they both boil down to sources of funding in the end.

    If you think carefully there are any number of relatively recent examples of the phenomena in action.

  27. Bucky 2

    It seems to me that money, religion, and all those things that government officials are fond of talking about are all emergent properties of the power of self-determination, not fundamental properties in and of themselves.

    If you don't address self-determination, then manipulating any of the other things is just putting lipstick on a pig.

  28. sisk

    Not to defend Trump or May or to deride the main point of the article but damn that's a lot of bias.

    Mind you I don't actually disagree with anything that was said here (Trump's a blight, I don't know enough about May to have an opinion - yes, that's embarrassing typical 'Merican of me, and I do indeed think that taking care of people is a much better solution to the current problems than clamping down on them), but more hard fact and less opinion in news - especially news involving politics - is usually a good thing.

    1. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

      "Not to defend Trump or May or to deride the main point of the article but damn that's a lot of bias."

      And that's why it was cleary marked as a 'comment' = an expression of personal opinion.

  29. Nick Kew

    Ban Coffee

    A historical perspective: much of the Enlightenment happened in the revolutionary social hotbed of Europe's coffee houses, where people would meet and ideas were developed. The powers-that-be at the time felt threatened, and tried to ban the dangerous new drug at the centre of it.

    Nothing new in the idiocy of today's rulers.

  30. Florida1920
    Pint

    @Kieren McCarthy

    Well said.

  31. nilfs2
    Devil

    Same old problem

    Religions have killed people since we as specie have memory, the only way to stop it for good is educating people how stupid the concept of religion is, we have all the evidence in the world to prove it as well as the technology to settle the debate, but fear of the almighty, dinosaur, zombie, ghost and a bunch of old dusty documents written by people that didn't have the capacity to think that those documents could be used to wipe their asses effectively and invent toilet paper, is better evidence for most people.

    As long as we keep planting the "religious chip" in our kids, it will never stop.

    1. Charles 9

      Re: Same old problem

      Then it will never stop, PERIOD. Haters gonna hate, after all, and as long as there are haters, there will be victims, revenge, and anything that goes with it.

    2. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

      Re: Same old problem

      Ah, yes. Let's replace religion with another*, secular, science-based ideology and stomp out those religious nuts!

      (Has been tried, didn't work.)

      * Religion, ideology, pretty much the same from where I sit.

      1. Primus Secundus Tertius

        Re: Same old problem

        @allthecool

        My remedy is different. Replace religion with apathy.

        I would make speeches promoting apathy if I thought anyone would listen.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Same old problem

          "[...] the only way to stop it for good is educating people how stupid the concept of religion is, [...]"

          Organised religion is always used as social control of the masses. What constitutes the "religious" ideology often boils down to a leader cult. We are hierarchical social animals. Once an ideology reaches a certain critical mass, backed up with social penalties, then people quickly learn to pay at least lip service. Conscious that their deviance could be discovered - they can go to lengths to advertise their loyalty to whatever shibboleths the group imposes.

          It is part of human nature to want to believe that someone has answers, preferably simple, to life's problems. You can educate people to think - but it is possible that may not protect everyone against themselves.

        2. Pompous Git Silver badge

          Re: Same old problem

          "I would make speeches promoting apathy if I thought anyone would listen."
          Bit isn't apathy supposed to be a problem. Anyway, who gives a fuck?

          Typed by someone who used to hand out cards with the words: "Vote 1: Informal" on them in the 1960s...

  32. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Sex

    I've seen convincing arguments elsewhere that a core spur to disillusaned young males turning to violence is inability to get nookie. Teach them how to get a women to let them shag them and you could address a large part of the problem. I certainly remember in the 1970s/80s there was pressure on young potentially violent males from their elders in NornIron to get spliced as it was seens that being nailed down with familiy responsibilies and access to nookie would deter them from shooting and bombing people.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Sex

      "[...] as it was seens that being nailed down with familiy responsibilies and access to nookie [...]"

      Too often they had to commit to marriage before tasting those forbidden fruits. Two quick kids and then they were often stuck in a loveless relationship. 20th century Irish fiction is often of the genre called "miz lit"***. The common violence towards wives by husbands - and towards their children by both - was not a good life.

      *** "miz" = "misery"

      eg

      "Angela's Ashes"

      "the arrival of fergal flynn"

  33. Phukov Andigh Bronze badge

    the "problem" with the internet

    is that those lies and mistruths and beliefs you hold so sacred, are not ascendent. Other peoples' needs, perspectives, beliefs and lies can get the same attention.

    So when your corrupt liar, even with protection of Media who simply doesn't report or spam headlines 24/7 with their lies, failings, and errors loses because other outlets make up for that shortcoming, then the "internet" becomes a dangerous thing.

    A presidential candidate who failed to secure her nomination because her statements made at one rally, were on Youtube before her next whistlestop, and the crowd can judge for themselves that what she's saying NOW doesn't match, even though her allies didn't decide such things "newsworthy" is really disruptive.

    Its easier to blame the technology than the actions that the technology brought to light.

    Like a robber blaming home security cameras and not the fact he's burgling homes for his arrest.

    Even those who benefit from such exposure, fear it when their turn come around. Chump may like Twitter now, but I guarantee you if it becomes a Hazard to his puppet masters, suddenly Twitter will be "the Enemy".

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: the "problem" with the internet

      Then how come the same thing that became sauce for the goose HELPED the gander, DESPITE the fact neither of them had very clean pasts?

    2. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

      Providing 0Day Opportunities and Vulnerabilities for Future Builder Enjoyment is No Internet Problem

      Quite so, Phukov Andigh. And such a Novel Age of Fruity Enlightenment has Advanced IntelAIgents in Creative Command and Cyber Control of Communications and Computers which lead the Masses with Media Programs which Present Virtual Realities.

      Would anyone care to disagree and share their Alternate Reality Analysis of and/or for Earthly Existences?

  34. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Personally I would just like to get paid what it takes to live.

    All this is very informative, interesting and ultimately not going to change a thing.

    I work for less money then I did 10 years ago, I have more "job" then I have ever had.

    My Grandparents saved up several hundreds of thousands of dollars for their retirement, they also bought and paid for a large farm and ranch, raised 6 kids, provided them education and so on. My parents they tried and failed to do the same thing, distracted by themselves, they spent a lot more then they had.

    Today, Business in general expects me to pay, 20 to 100 (dollars, Pounds, Euros insert your favorite) here, there. and everywhere, plus all those common things like housing and food. God help you if you don't have the latest doodad, app or box as society led marketing will shame you out of the room. Plus, certain more well off individuals whom can't actually do the tasks they pay people like myself to do, blame us for failing to achieve and then force us to accept lesser pay and shame us for not being grateful. All while claiming their taxes in currency is to much, even though as a percentage is significantly lower then people that get paid less then those supposed too high tax rates.

    When did being able to put some money aside each month, have a home, some kind of reasonable vacation once is awhile, food on the table, clothes to wear become the dream unattainable for so many?

    Yes social programs are expensive, but those that work full time at one job for rent, and another job for food, can't work third job for all the toys that are marketed at them all day and night. If they want to keep selling all that crap they either had better pay ALOT more wages or more TAXES to support social welfare. The alternative to all this will be devastating even to those riding in their golf carts in secure private golf courses every weekend.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Personally I would just like to get paid what it takes to live.

      "The alternative to all this will be devastating even to those riding in their golf carts in secure private golf courses every weekend."

      I don't know about that. I think they feel if worst comes to worst, they can close off the walled garden and send in the killer drones.

  35. Danny 5
    Thumb Up

    Where's the upvote button?

    I feel this article needs a "thumbs up"

    that was an excellent read. The article went a bit too far in certain areas, but in general I agree wholeheartedly!

    I see these things happen on social media on a daily basis, people simply dismiss the truth and perpetuate the notions echoed by their social inner circle. very few have the ability to look beyond, which is really startling when you see it happen first hand. Although I pride myself on my incredible objectivity, I'm most likely guilty of this behavior too, people can't help but be human.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Where's the upvote button?

      "I see these things happen on social media on a daily basis, people simply dismiss the truth and perpetuate the notions echoed by their social inner circle. very few have the ability to look beyond, which is really startling when you see it happen first hand."

      They don't WANT to look. What's getting worse is the idea that people will refuse to look facts even when it stares them in the face. According to some accounts, some religious adherents simply refused to see the evidence even when looking directly through Galileo's telescope. A case of "I reject your reality and substitute my own," you could say. An irrational but perhaps instinctive defense of their own worldview that would otherwise drive them mad. When it goes that far, it's hard to continue since, as they say, you can't win an argument with an irrational person.

      1. Pompous Git Silver badge

        Re: Where's the upvote button?

        "According to some accounts, some religious adherents simply refused to see the evidence even when looking directly through Galileo's telescope."
        Careful... Galileo was a religious adherent too and rather more famous for his sermons than his science in his day. His telescope was rather primitive and other astronomers (Jesuits) were rightly sceptical and thought that what was being seen were artefacts in the telescope's lenses.

        Three drawings of Saturn by Galileo

        Today we know that Saturn doesn't have ears.

  36. Eugene Crosser

    Good and clever, until you stumble upon something..

    Can we please have some journalists who are capable of analysis, but are not as blatantly partisan as this:

    There are large groups of people in the United States who believe a range of views that are clearly and obviously wrong: dinosaurs existed at the same time as Jesus; there is no such thing as climate change; people's sexuality is some kind of deity-imposed punishment; anyone should be allowed to buy a gun.

    No? Oh...

    1. Danny 5

      Re: Good and clever, until you stumble upon something..

      Sure, but not on el Reg.

    2. Pompous Git Silver badge

      Re: Good and clever, until you stumble upon something..

      "There are large groups of people in the United States who believe a range of views that are clearly and obviously wrong: dinosaurs existed at the same time as Jesus; "
      Looking out the window at my feathery dinosaurs. They aren't laying at the moment, but hopefully will start again in spring...

      Downsized Dinosaurs: The Evolutionary Transition to Modern Birds

  37. EnviableOne
    Boffin

    Fully agree with the sentiment of the article, the internet isnt broken society is.

    the uber elites control far to much of the control and deny learning to the and security to those they deem less, this situation is not new, it's what lead to the fall of monarchies and the class system, but has now been replaced by a wealth system. where class used to matter now wealth does.

    The only way to solve this is a mass upheaval of the status quo, and a major change in human nature. this will not happen overnight, and will not be without cost, but ultimatley leads to a better world for everyone.

    There are visonaries that have realised this, but they are few and far between (e.g. Dan Price, Richard Branson) but as they continue to succeed this will influence others, and monetary wealth becomes less of a measure of success.

    Every person should be valued for there particualr skillset and everyone should have the opportunity to do everything. But also people need to realise that not everyones skillset is built or enabled in the same way, some are good at logic, some good at analysis, some fast, some strong, some resilient, some empathetic, but all these are valued and all have value.

    there is no difference between a time served bricklayer and a degree certified chemist, each in theirown field is qualified and capable, and each capable of amazing the other eith their specific skill.

    if we can get to a point where this is the default, then people will feel valued and empowered and will be lees prone to adopting extreme views for a sense of belonging.

    1. Charles 9

      I disagree. Somewhere along the way, someone's gonna cheat. It's damned human instinct: get a leg up on the neighbours, and so on. Even if there were such an upheaval as you describe, pretty soon someone's gonna cheat, take advantage, and we'll be back in it all over again. We're just on the tag end of the current cycle, with the added caveat that people are showing a willingness to kill 'em all and not even bother with the sorting. Perhaps that's why we haven't found any other civilisations in space...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "It's damned human instinct: get a leg up on the neighbours, and so on."

        Human society would not function if that was the case. We are hierarchic cooperative social animals who band together for mutual benefit. Too many free-loaders and that society would break down. What happens is that they gradually get ostracised by the rest of the group. They either conform or are on their own.

        Humans function best in small groups. Introduce any pressure on environmental resources and there will be competition between groups.

        1. Charles 9

          "Human society would not function if that was the case."

          What do you think's happening RIGHT NOW? With social structure strained, things are getting rather dicey.

          "Humans function best in small groups. Introduce any pressure on environmental resources and there will be competition between groups."

          Those "other tribes" become the "neighbours" I mentioned, so my argument still holds. When the basics aren't so hard to get (read: you don't have to hunt everyday just to have dinner), the necessary size of the "tribe" shrinks until it's down to family units (houses, neighbours, etc.). Especially when a larger social structure creates a disconnect between the top and the bottom. Instead of food and water, it's spouses, good schooling, connections, and so on. It's the same thing as the jungle, only structured a little differently.

  38. Paul

    I sent a polite form of this to my local MP

    Dear Theresa May and minions,

    1/ just because you keep saying these things doesn't mean you are making them possible

    2/ every time you repeat the mantra of "no safe place", "backdoor encryption" etc, we

    roll our eyes and think "you're a bunch of feckin' muppets"

    3/ we've explained encryption so many times and you haven't understood it, so please shut the feck up and find someone to take your place who actually understands at least something about communication systems

    4/ yes, we really do think you are morons, and what few vestiges of respect you might ever have had are long gone

    5/ our previous response still applies, see the last 20 times you made these stupid statements and they were rebutted, and every lame argument you made was refuted

    6/ repeat after me: communications are secure for everybody, or secure for nobody

  39. peterm3

    Good article

    More redistribution of wealth would help, as would better access to free education. Uneducated people also fuel extremist views as they don't have the tools to gain a greater understanding.

    1. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

      Re: Good article .... introducing for Real IT, GIG Economies for Epic Scaling.

      More redistribution of wealth would help, as would better access to free education. Uneducated people also fuel extremist views as they don't have the tools to gain a greater understanding. .... peterm3

      More distribution of secret intelligence and shared information would be of greater help, peterm3, but as is all too often witnessed and propagated by media, does it immediately fuel the extremists opining views for more and more tools to keep everyone less educated so that the ignorant and inquisitorial masses, do not discover and uncover the simple secrets that effectively enslave them to virtual systems of exclusively rewarding executive administration via elite forces and sources of operation.

      However, that formerly extremely exclusive facility has rapidly become a catastrophic vulnerability with myriad remote renegade rogue accesses discovered for exploit which is requiring a whole new masterplan from established systems which will both embrace and enrich all such greater force and novel intelligence source discoverers and disruptors, for any further sort of leading establishment participation in continuity of safe and secure universal service/strong and stable governance.

      Of that should you be in no doubt for I Kid U Not.

      Nothing is as it seems and never at all like the Present is portrayed for reality shows and mass media set programs into sublimely controlling the ..... well, Void of the Mind is the Universal Stage for Grand IT Master Plays/ Greater IntelAIgent Gamesmanship Economies and Idiotic News Programming Programs, is it not?

  40. Mike 137 Silver badge

    "The internet may well be the root cause of today's problems…"

    It is not.

    The Internet is the physical infrastructure - the international network of networks of routers, switches and server racks, and it is entirely neutral (except insofar as it carries the bulk of the world's financial transactions without us noticing). The World Wide Web is what we (and they) are talking about here.

    It pays to get your ideas right and use the correct words in expressing them.

    1. Charles 9

      Re: "The internet may well be the root cause of today's problems…"

      No, the Web is just an application of the Internet. The Internet ITSELF (as in the network) is the thing that enables this mass communication; the Web is just the favored method of using the Internet. If it had never existed, the Internet would almost certainly still be an enabler: only replace the Web with IRC chat rooms, MUDs through telnet/SSH, etc.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "The internet may well be the root cause of today's problems…"

        " If it had never existed, the Internet would almost certainly still be an enabler:"

        There was a time about 1996 that distributed news groups were the melting pot of discussions on all topics - both moderated and unmoderated. It was a jungle - especially the ALT groups. You quickly learned about your own comfort zone.

        It took a few more years for the Web to take over that role.

        I remember a colleague coming into the office circa 1999 saying he had followed a lorry down the motorway - and it had a company's web address on the back doors. That first sighting signalled that the Web had made its breakthrough into public consciousness.

        1. Charles 9

          Re: "The internet may well be the root cause of today's problems…"

          "There was a time about 1996 that distributed news groups were the melting pot of discussions on all topics - both moderated and unmoderated. It was a jungle - especially the ALT groups. You quickly learned about your own comfort zone."

          I guess I'm more used to Usenet as being the file sharing channel of choice before Napster appeared along with all the evolutions of P2P sharing. For me, the discussions were all realtime on IRC using Efnet and Dalnet servers.

  41. John Savard

    Thoughtful

    This is indeed a very thoughtful article about a serious problem. The Internet does help people isolate themselves from reality, by listening only to the views of the like-minded.

    One could jest that obviously we need to get people watching TV instead. The television licence fee that Britain has obviously should be abolished to help that along.

    As for government finances and personal finances: paper money is like a cheque; what corresponds to real money for a government is foreign exchange - or gold. Our current treaties for encouraging international trade make it hard for governments to prevent the nation from spending more than it earns except by contracting the economy and throwing people out of work.

    If money good for buying imported articles had to be counted separately, you could stimulate the domestic economy no end, and keep everyone employed, without endangering the balance of payments. This system has even been tried successfully on occasion, although it does come with its own set of problems.

  42. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    She doesn't give herself enough credit

    "We cannot allow this ideology the safe space it needs to breed".

    The British government has not so much "allowed this ideology a safe space to breed", as GIVEN it such a safe space.

    And a bloody big safe space, too.

    Most of Libya, a lot of Syria, a lot of Iraq... Courtesy of the RAF and the rest of NATO.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like