Google Exec Says Isis Must Be Locked Out of the Open Web (theguardian.com) 208
An anonymous reader writes with this story about Director of Google Ideas Jared Cohen and his talk with the Royal Institute of International Affairs about stopping terrorists online. Cohen contends that the best way to fight them online is to keep them confined to the dark web. The Guardian reports: "Google's head of ideas, tasked with building tools to fight oppression, has said that to stop Isis being able to publicize itself on the internet requires forcing Isis from the open web. During a talk with the Royal Institute of International Affairs at Chatham House, Jared Cohen said that it will not be possible to stop terrorists such as Isis from using Tor and the dark web. The key to stopping the terrorist group from propagating online is therefore to hound them from the traditional web – that which can be indexed by search engines. Cohen said: 'What is new is that they're operating without being pushed back in the same internet we all enjoy. So success looks like Isis being contained to the dark web.'"
Seems really stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems quite stupid to me to keep anyone off the "open web" (whatever that is), because you gain a lot more from operational slips as to what they are up to, than you lose from recruiting value the group in question gains from running a website.
Re: (Score:3)
It seems quite stupid to me to keep anyone off the "open web" (whatever that is), because you gain a lot more from operational slips as to what they are up to, than you lose from recruiting value the group in question gains from running a website.
People can slip up in the dark web too. "Hiding" them from the open web just means that you can't find their media so easily in a search. You have to get smart to locate their public conversations and since so many younger readers are inherently dumb, this would exclude the majority of their recruits.
Re: (Score:2)
Damn sorry, misclicked. Posting to remove incorrect moderation. Damn touchpads.
Re: (Score:2)
Google Ideas ©®*
* (Patent Pending)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, Google's hiring process has clearly failed. If your "idea" is just basic censorship, how do you rise to be a company director?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True, but they can screw up just as quickly on the dark web...
Meanwhile, Google can do a whole hell of a lot about that *right now* - Google can de-index their sites, then urge Bing, Yahoo, etc to do the same thing. For at least 98% of the Internet using population, that act alone pretty much wipes them off of any public consciousness. Toss in Facebook, Twitter, and etc actively looking for the same, and it bumps to at least 99%.
There's even a bonus - since its only private companies doing this, there's no
Re:Seems really stupid (Score:4, Interesting)
No first amendment issues, but plenty of personal liberty issues.
Sure, with this particular group most of the internet/world is willing to say they are evil and silencing them is good. But is that the test we want controlling who gets to voice their views on the internet? Would the suffrage movement or the civil rights movement have been silenced at the time? Bet yer ass. It's not googles place to determine what staff SHOULD be found on the internet, just what CAN be found. Policing content is not their job. They're a search engine, not a morals enforcement group.
Re: (Score:2)
Some might respond that ISIS is world's different than Martin Luthor King, Jr., but it's the same general concept. If companies or governments decide what people/groups get to say what online, they'll start with groups like ISIS - which I'm sure we can all agree has violent speech. Then, they'd gradually shift until they get to people who don't post violent stuff but just repugnant stuff. Before long, you'll get banne
Re: (Score:2)
Violent speech? You think the problem with ISIS is violent speech?
Stop right there. Slippery slope arguments are so much horseshit. Purposeful violence against civilians i
Re: (Score:2)
Slippery slope arguments are so much horseshit. Purposeful violence against civilians is a breaking of the basic social contract and deserves a forfeiture of rights.
Do you consider the willing acceptance of (well understood risk of) civilian "collateral damage" in ostensibly legit military operations as "purposeful violence against civilians"? If so, should US Gubmint messages be censored? If not, why not? (serious question)
PS: Happy MLK day. That man is an American hero and deserves a nice statue to go next to his big fountain downtown. The leaders of the possibly-fictional ISIS entity do not. That doesn't mean we should censor their words.
Re: (Score:2)
If they're fictional, then how are their rights being violated?
Re: (Score:2)
In every country a person can be arrested and held before a trial. They still have a set of rights, but it's a smaller set.
That's one theory. Again, every country has laws against inciting violence. There is no place on Earth - there has never been - where there is an absolute right to freedom of speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Seems really stupid (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hate speech, tho hateful, is speech. Either you support freedom of speech or you don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Way to miss the Forrest for the trees. They both were pitching a message that wasn't entirely well received by a lot of people at the time. If a company or a group of companies can ban together and stop the messages that people in power do not like to hear, well,we would still be in the 1960s with separate water fountains, separate entrances, and lynchings because they looked at me the wrong way.
This! (Score:2)
As it was, we had US Government spooks trying to silence people pushing for equality. Look at Mockingbird and COINTELPRO if you don't know or don't believe. Yes, people would be silenced. In fact I'll argue that a tremendous amount of silencing happens today. Censorship already happens all the time, because it benefits people in power to control the narrative. People should try to count how many clips of audio they hear everyday in the "News" which are intentionally taken out of context so that you hav
Re: (Score:2)
That's not the same as saying Google has a legal responsibility to include all links in search results or allow all videos on YouTube.
I'm pretty sure you see the difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Be careful with that, because you are attempting to invert the problem. Giving Google Government approval to modify and remove content from views is the complaint.
While the initial discussion is always something small, it never ever ends up that way. The US did not become corrupt and full of cronies in a flash, it was incrementally done. So this time they want to remove content from ISIS. What happens when they want to remove content from "Tea Party", or an organization you may agree with? You should p
Re: (Score:2)
The slippery slope argument is fallacious.
Do you know how Encyclopedia Britannica is made? Of course they remove content and rewrite history as they see fit.
Re: (Score:2)
Try telling that to those who were denounced to the secret police in totalitarian states. Oh wait, most of those people died.
tl;dr: Fuck you and your libertard ranting.
Re: (Score:2)
Now THAT's an interesting argument. "Free speech hurts people living in totalitarian states, 'cuz when people speak freely the state goons beat them to death." Huh. Seriously dude, I never even thought of that one. Good on you.
Re: (Score:2)
Now that's an example of complete fucking illiteracy.
Re: (Score:2)
You lack the capacity to differentiate action from words. No matter how you slice up your statement, the problem is in the ACTION and not the WORDS. If I write "John is a spy" and hand the note to the KBG the action is intended to harm John. Since you gave a pathetically inept appeal to emotion I could take the statement the opposite direction. People talking results in a Totalitarian Government killing them. Which then makes your statement mean that talking is the problem, not that an entity is silenc
Re: (Score:2)
It's a bit late to close that barn door. Google already demotes/censors based on various criteria, including:
1. Spammers
2. "Adult" content, based on some definition derived from perceived local values
3. Court orders (mostly music and movie industries attacking P2P)
4. Sites that are just one giant Flash animation
5. Sites carrying malware
6. Sites without mobile versions
etc.
Re: (Score:2)
For at least 98% of the Internet using population, that act alone pretty much wipes them off of any public consciousness.
98% of the internet using population are not the target market for $YOUR_FAVORITE_EVIL_GROUP's recruitment efforts. Hyperlinking still works very well for people who are actively looking for something.
De-indexing will have little impact on reaching serious recruits, as opposed to idle dilettantes. The main effect will be silencing or at least stultifying public debate. This is not a win.
Re:Seems really stupid (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The people in power don't need "operational slips" to find out what ISIS is up to.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems quite stupid to me to keep anyone off the "open web" (whatever that is), because you gain a lot more from operational slips as to what they are up to, than you lose from recruiting value the group in question gains from running a website.
Not if you can monitor them on the 'dark' web anyway. Let spies be spies and infiltrate as they're supposed to do.
Part of any war is propaganda and stopping the propaganda of the enemy is desirable.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems quite stupid to me to keep anyone off the "open web" (whatever that is)
It's not the "open" web if it is closed to certain classes of people. That some of these classes, for instance the semi-fictional ISIS entity, are extravagantly repugnant is irrelevant to the issue of openness vs closedness.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You left a few out:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/w... [wikimedia.org]
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/stati... [guim.co.uk]
https://desertpeace.files.word... [wordpress.com]
The Newspeak is heavy with this one (Score:5, Informative)
Plus Plus Ungood for putting ban controls on the 'open' web. If it's 'open' anyone can play. As soon as you ban something from 'open', it is by definition 'closed'.
Re: (Score:2)
Plus Plus Ungood for putting ban controls on the 'open' web. If it's 'open' anyone can play. As soon as you ban something from 'open', it is by definition 'closed'.
You already agreed to this when you denied drugs and pedoes from the web. Terrorists is just another one to hate on.
Re: (Score:2)
They couldn't effectively ban them from setting up their own websites, what he's saying and is his major point is that the major internet companies, google, facebook, twitter, et all could effectively remove them from the internet by blocking their use of their resources.
ISIS entire recruiting effort is via facebook and twitter. Take away those two resources and you'd effectively handicap them. They realize this, when Twitter discussed shutting them down ISIS publicly threatened their executive staff with m
Surprise (Score:3, Informative)
Genius (Score:3, Interesting)
So now all a "Blackhat SEO" company has to do is spam ISIS content all over competitor websites to delist them from Google.
Google has an obligation to shareholders to be an impartial/unpoliticized search engine. The second they start playing nanny state with their customer's searches is the second the advertising gravy train stops and they have to learn how to make a profit the old fashioned way. DuckDuckGo already has "scroogled". This asshatery sounds like a great way to further shitify a good product(result relevance has already been negatively impacted by attempts to combat clickfraud/blackhat SEO).
Re: (Score:3)
So now all a "Blackhat SEO" company has to do is spam ISIS content all over competitor websites to delist them from Google.
Pretty sure that's a tall order. What are you going to do, load down the comments section of $competitor_site with pro-isis propaganda? Pretty sure that, it being the only place you can spam any part of it, it won't get too far - at least not with moderators and CMS censorship software already in place.
As sibling said, you can do that already, right now, with offers to, say, sell drugs and/or kiddie pr0n... yet for some odd reason it doesn't seem to happen.
Now one thing that can happen as a result would be
This isn't going to end well (Score:5, Insightful)
This is going to be applied to people who speak out against feminism, BLM, etc. They will make unpopular opinions disappear in the name of terrorism.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is going to be applied to people who speak out against feminism, BLM, etc. They will make unpopular opinions disappear in the name of terrorism.
Dunno. Private companies do have one big check on their behavior - competition. If Google decided to turn the SJW dial to '11' one day and stomped out all references to anything not personally approved by Ms. Sarkeesian, folks would start gravitating over to Bing, using it instead. If Bing joined Google in this act, DuckDuckGo (or some as-yet-unknown competitor) would pick up the slack.
Capitalism has a lot of problems, but rampant censorship ain't one of them.
Re:This isn't going to end well (Score:4, Interesting)
This doesn't apply for some companies. My only source for wired, high-speed Internet is Time Warner Cable. Suppose they decided that Slashdot was an extremist group (based on reading the titles and spotting the string "ISIS" in a few articles) and banned access to the website. I wouldn't have the ability to vote with my wallet by going elsewhere. In fact, they could raise my rates due to "increased costs due to website filtering" and I'd actually be forced to pay more for worse service.
Re: (Score:2)
1) An ISP is way different from a search engine.
2) Time-Warner decides to censor your internet? Time to evaluate whether or not you need "wired, high-speed Internet" more than you need your personal freedom. If the latter is a higher priority to you, there' s the local DSL (or cable if you use DSL), Satellite Internet (with at least two major providers that I know of), Fixed-tower Wireless Broadband (there's usually one or two in a given area), 3G/4G Wireless Internet (at least three major carriers), etc.
Re: (Score:2)
My point was that it's harder to switch my local ISP than my search engine. If companies start filtering the Internet, how long until the ISPs get in the game.
As for my "options":
DSL: Verizon will sell me a DSL line that's the same price as my current TWC access, but that's less than half the speed. (And I'm on a relatively slow 15Mbps right now.) They also will require me to get a home phone line which I don't want but would add to the cost.
Satellite: I'll admit that I haven't looked into this much bu
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing that will stop a bad man with a pen (Score:4, Insightful)
The only thing that will stop a bad man with a pen, is a good guy with a pen.
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing that will stop a bad man with a pen, is a good guy with a pen.
Unfortunately the bad guy wrote "Don't read what the good guy wrote" and the angry youth will not read what the good guy wrote.
Re: (Score:2)
How unamerican of you.
*reloads shotgun*
It'll be easy! (Score:4, Funny)
All we have to do is check to see if the evil bit [ietf.org] is set!
Google Higher-Ups (Score:2)
Maybe we can use these same techniques to force Top Googlers off the open web. It sure seems like, a lot of times, after they've opened their mouths it's apparent they would've been better served keeping them shut.
First its the "terrorist" (Score:3)
then the criminals and finally the regular citizens who will lose their voice on the open web.
Re: (Score:2)
Open web = "anything found in a search engine." (presumably)
The definition of Dark is laughable to people who know that IRC etc exist, but the vast majority of people can't find things if they aren't in Google.
Re: (Score:2)
Alternately:
Dark web = "shit that doesn't resolve in DNS"
Open web = "shit that does resolve"
I don't think I want this happening to DNS either.
Mock the insanty. Don't hide it. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd much rather we continue to show people what these cavemen consider normal in graphic detail.
They're lunatics, hiding them won't help. We need to out this insanity, and it helps that they're doing a great job of demonstrating what religious fanaticism is capable of.
Censorship is evil. Period.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd much rather we continue to show people what these cavemen consider normal in graphic detail.
Yes, and then troll them and harass them like they're on 4chan/b/ every time they post something. Make them look as stupid as possible to as many people as possible. That's why I was OK with Anonymous deciding to harass them on Twitter. Not sure how that's going though. In my opinion the best way to defeat these Sunni extremists that laughingly call themselves the 'islamic state' is to discredit them and make them a laughingstock online as much as possible, which might also have the added extra benefit of m
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's possible to mock groups without being racist. If your mocking implies that all Muslims are ISIS members, then yes you are being offensive about it. However, when people mock the Westboro Baptist Church folks, they don't imply that all Christians are WBC members. It's possible to mock a small subsection of a group without insulting the whole.
Alternate idea (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When you consider that their main recruiting approach is to remind young muslims of how humiliating their life can be in the West, and how crude and debased our culture is, I sincerely doubt that this tactic will work. They are immune, now, to being belittled or shocked.
We have to assume that most active participants in the regime (as opposed to people who merely live under it through accident of geography, misguided loyalty or family ties) are unreachable and unconvertible, and make it clear that the road
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly this. When your group's videos frequently include chopping the heads off of people, I don't think photos of people's genitals (no matter how disgusting they are) will shock them. That's like trying to shock an American man by showing him a "lewd" photo of a lady's ankle.
so, what Google is saying is ... (Score:3, Interesting)
So, what Google, the company that is 'informs me' with every other click about more 'great products and services' is saying, is that I am too dumb to interpret information myself, to stupid to know the difference between right and wrong and to gullible to even be confronted with this information. It should be kept far from me.
And that company thinks it is responsible behavior to expose such an incompetent person to a continuous barrage of advertisements, which will entice this person to waste all his money on unneeded goods, thus pushing this mentally weak person into bankruptcy
I think Google needs different idea-man.
Eric Schmidt (Score:3, Funny)
Always confused at the doubling back... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm always confused at public statements made that require the speaker to double-back on themselves.
In Cohen’s opinion, Isis is “not a tech savvy organisation”, resorting to tactics commonly associated with fraud or spam, but it should not be underestimated.
I realize this is slightly semantic-nitpicking, but I see this a lot with statements from the US government and from US based companies about any online threat/problem. They walk this fine line between acknowledging and convincing people that the threat is big enough to require attention (which the Government/the companies are always able to handle), but simultaneously try to downplay the severity of the threat. Here we have ISIS using social media as a terrorism tool, with members (or at least fans) using fairly new software, services, and technology to spread their message to a world-wide audience, yet Google's spokesperson is very careful to play up the idea that ISIS is not tech-savvy. I'm not sure what to make of this, because it certainly seems like ISIS has a better handle on technology that the majority of the average US citizen. Heck, most ISIS productions and their use of modern software/services is far better than a good number of US businesses, old and new alike. Again, I'll grant maybe Cohen has a different idea in mind when saying tech savvy, but for as crooked as the organization is, I wouldn't suggest that they don't know what they're doing when it comes to Tech.
This just creates a really weird narrative juxtaposition in my head where it feels like the speakers are trying to create a "safe threat" for the audience. By that I mean it's a threat, but it's not really, because the mighty, powerful, and benevolent organization is here to protect the audience. It feels extremely manipulative as it tries to vilify and glorify in the same sentence, like a weird form of jingoism. It scares the audience just enough to think of how dangerous everything else, and the intended result seems to be an attempt to create a dependence on the organization. The lack of actual technical details, or even specific examples of what the org is doing to help or how it's controlling the attacker are almost always omitted in favor of vague platitudes.
I've seen this with quotes about cyberattacks attributed to Russians and Chinese as well, and its always the same foci: "it's dangerous! but we have it under control! but we had to take extreme measures! but it was never a problem! but it's a major threat! that we have under control!"
I get that the interested parties don't want to appear weak, but the lack of any substantial information always just strikes me with that weird sense that we're getting a story, not information or news. I realize that this is a very long post to say that governments/corporations are selfish and manipulative, but it's just really off putting for me.
Re: (Score:2)
"These N+1 issues are our number 1 priority." I've always wondered how you can have more than one number one prioirty.
Re: (Score:2)
I am afraid you have no future in the sales department. Collect your cards on the way out.
Gonna be fireworks at TGIF this week (Score:2)
There are going to be some fireworks at Google's internal company-wide TGIF meeting tomorrow (yes, TGIF is on Thursday). Lots of Google employees are going to be really unhappy about this statement, and Larry's gonna get some really angry questions.
I'm going to make sure I get there early. With popcorn.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that Google is arguably significantly more powerful than most nation states on earth it seems very reasonable of them to be discussing the topic in the open. Perhaps they are being asked to sign up to something the NSA has asked for and are seeking a public response before responding.
There are some public issues to be discussed which I would hope will get discussed in the meeting
- Whether censorship of an enemies propaganda during the time of war is a reasonable thing to have on the open web.
- Does co
Re:Gonna be fireworks at TGIF this week (Score:4, Funny)
Shouldn't it be:
"Some software engineers just want to watch the world Halt and Catch Fire..."?
Re: (Score:2)
Some software engineers just want to watch the world burn...
[all the ones at Google]
The basis for that claim? You certainly couldn't get it from my post.
Today Daesh, Tomorrow Pirates, Day After *you* (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google Slips further to the Dark Side (Score:4, Insightful)
If a country's people are so disaffected they would join nutbags like ISIS, the problem isn't ISIS the problem is the country.
Re: (Score:3)
hmm, while there may be some iota of truth to this statement, most people join without reading the EULA and don't actually know what they are subscribing to
Daesh (Score:5, Interesting)
We should call them Daesh. Out of respect for the millions of girls name Isis. And because they hate it to be called Daesh.
Re: (Score:2)
Daesh is the plural/organization name. Individually, I believe they're called Daesh-bags.
Re: (Score:2)
Good. I've been wondering why we've been using the name of the Egyptian Goddess of wisdom [wikipedia.org].
just honeypot the shit out of everything (Score:4, Insightful)
you catch murderers and hitmen by
1.the police answering the ads of "hitmen" (morons, but so are most ISIS supporters)
2. police posing as hitmen and picking up the losers that contract for their services
you can do the same with ISIS
1. answer real ISIS broadcasters with fake supporters who proceed to sabotage operations and outreach in all sorts of ways
2. pose as ISIS and hoover up the social retards who answer the call
but you can only do this if the idiots operate out in the open
drive them underground and you can still do it, like with child porn douchebags. but you've made the job harder and some sympathizers go uncaught
Re: (Score:2)
we are talking about isis supporters. "everyone else" is not the topic
weak troll
Which protects us best, ignorance or knowledge? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Which protects us best, ignorance or knowledge? (Score:4, Insightful)
That SHOULD be the way things are done, but increasingly the message isn't how to protect yourself. That's considered "victim blaming." Don't teach women self defense, we need to teach boys not to rape. Don't teach kids how to defend themselves, we need to teach kids not to be bullies. We can't teach people not to listen to radicals, we need to make sure they never speak from radicals to begin with.
It's all about keeping people's heads in the sand, not taking care of themselves but depending on [Government/Organization/Corporation] to project them from every ill in life. Because if bad things happen, it's not your fault, somebody else is to blame.
Re: (Score:2)
Protect, not project...
Better yet, and more effective; (Score:2)
Lock them up and throw away the key.
Orwell said it first (Score:3)
Confine the evil... (Score:2)
I think we already know how this is gonna end.
We've have countless fantasy stories where the evil antagonist was somehow confined to a crystal/underground jail cell/dimension/etc only to later escape and wreak havoc on the earth.
Think, man!
Idiotic (Score:2)
It's not an 'open web' if someone can be locked out.
As workable as having 2 garbage bins. (Score:2)
I'd like to have the idea extended to a full set of classifications for content so that I can sort and filter out all the other garbage on the web that is just as harmful to my kids.
So long as adults can find anything by controlling those sorting filters I see no problem with the idea, just don't tell me what I as an adult have a right to read or know.
A pretext for carrying out SJW's will? (Score:2)
The question remains whether they will stop at terrorism, but to enforce the will of certain left-leaning interest groups.
Facebook already censors (yes, it's not just a government thing, Virginia!) in this way to enforce the leftist narrative in Germany.
then it ain't an Open Web (Score:2)
You would think this would be freaking obvious. And who gets to decide what is evil enough to be banned from the Web? On what grounds is the determination made? This leads to something much worse than the actual danger ISIS poses. It leads to putting the power to stroke out sections of the global brain, to limit the connectivity of humanity and puts that power in the hands of a few. No thanks. This once again is letting terrorists win.
"Head of Ideas" Fighting an Idea With... (Score:2)
ISIS is, ultimately, an idea. Google's "head of ideas", Jared Cohen, can't come up with any counter ideas.
The solution: Suppress ideas.
What an idea!
Re:Censorship, again (Score:5, Insightful)
But if we build in censorship as a fundamental part of the web to stop ISIS, that doesn't sound so bad. What's the worst that could happen? I'll bet the politicians are even willing to swear that they'll never abuse it.
Re: (Score:3)
If private companies are the only ones doing the censoring, then politicians don't get a mechanism to abuse. ;)
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks, I needed a good laugh.
Re: (Score:2)
So what legal mechanism would politicians get out of this? Government would still be hampered from doing anything substantial along the same lines.
Here's the neat part: If Google (or whoever) got stupid about it, competition would quickly rise up. It's not like Google could stop folks from spreading the word about competing search websites, no matter how hard they tried.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to have misunderstood what they are calling for. It's not for search engines to refuse to index them. It's for them to be banned from the sort of websites that search engines index. For example, if someone posted a pro-ISIS message on Slashdot, they're asking for that message to be deleted, because Slashdot is the sort of website that gets indexed by search engines.
Re: (Score:2)
Here is how it works in the real world. Politicians make a law saying all telephone metadata must be saved for X amount of time. Then they make a law saying they can take it and sort through it and do anything they want to it for as long as they want. But interestingly, the government is the only ones allowed to do this because of you know, privacy concerns. So when challenged on constitutional grounds, it is claimed that it's business records that belong to businesses and not individuals so no civil or con
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But if we build in censorship as a fundamental part of the web to stop ISIS, that doesn't sound so bad. What's the worst that could happen? I'll bet the politicians are even willing to swear that they'll never abuse it.
Taking the extreme and obvious counter, do you support no censorship of child pornography?
In war, stopping recruitment for the enemy military by eliminating their communications is desirable. That in this case the enemy's communications happen to be on the Internet does not change the fact that eliminating enemy communication remains desirable.
Re: (Score:2)
Taking the extreme and obvious counter, do you support no censorship of child pornography?
Do you support jailing minors who take pictures of themselves (ie, jailing producers of child pornography)?
Do you support jailing minors who send pictures of themselves (ie, jailing distributors of child pornography)?
Do you support jailing minors who own pictures of themselves (ie, jailing owners of child pornography)? How about their parents, if they own eg baby pictures?
Do you have any evidence that an adult looking at naughty pictures of minors is likely to result in said adult abusing minors, as opposed
Re: (Score:2)
You clearly have no understanding of the effect of exclusion from society has on people. Even if the exclusion is largely largely your "own" fault because your religion is different or as we would say out of sync with the modern world.
Daesh is like any other cult - it finds the excluded and pissed off and gives them a feeling of belonging. That is all it takes to radicalize young people who have not found themselves.
The awful irony is that our western society with its abundant freedom of choice and opportun