Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Social Networks

Social Media Plays Key Role for Domestic Extremism, FBI Director Says (wsj.com) 120

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
Social-media companies play a central role in disseminating the messaging of domestic violent extremists in the U.S., FBI Director Christopher Wray said Wednesday, likening the role platforms play in the spread of extremist thought to foreign-backed online political disinformation. From a report: "Social media has become, in many ways, the key amplifier to domestic violent extremism just as it has for malign foreign influence," Mr. Wray said in an annual worldwide-threats hearing held by the Senate Intelligence Committee. "The same things that attract people to it for good reasons are also capable of causing all kinds of harms that we are entrusted with trying to protect the American people against."

Mr. Wray's comments came as the Biden administration jump-starts efforts to combat domestic terrorism, which took on greater urgency after supporters of former President Trump stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 claiming falsely that the 2020 election had been stolen from him. Mr. Wray's remarks were among the most strident comments from a senior U.S. intelligence official about how social media fuels the problem. Mr. Wray stopped short of blaming Silicon Valley companies for aiding domestic extremism, instead urging Americans "to understand better what the information is that they are reading" and approach it with a "greater level of discerning skepticism." The nature of social media -- an "echo chamber" in which like-minded people rarely hear from outside voices and are isolated because of the Covid-19 pandemic -- has contributed to the problem, he said.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Social Media Plays Key Role for Domestic Extremism, FBI Director Says More

Social Media Plays Key Role for Domestic Extremism, FBI Director Says

Comments Filter:
  • When people talk theirs a chance they can influence one another. Ohh no!
    • Since social media is involved in almost everything, "Social media plays key role in " is almost always true.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Z80a ( 971949 )

      The biggest problem is not people talking, but people not talking.
      Internet bubbles of self affirmation creating incredibly stupid and loud bubbles of all political sides.
      Sane people quietly leave the bubble until things like sex change surgery or nazi indoctrination in children become acceptable in that group.

    • Re:When people talk (Score:4, Interesting)

      by scamper_22 ( 1073470 ) on Thursday April 15, 2021 @12:53PM (#61277634)

      You're probably not going to get many votes with a sarcastic comment like that, but that is actually a big problem.

      If you look at history and the world, it is actually OHHH NO!
      Social cohesion if I can use that term is an extremely difficult issue for societies to solve. It just is. Sunni/Shia. Catholic/Protestant. Hutu/Tutsi. Capitalist/Communist. Hindu/Muslim. Serbian Vs Bosnian...

      In my view and I've lived in North America for a long time now, one thing people don't understand is that fake news IS the norm. Fake news is humans in their natural environment. Tribalism is humans in their natural environment. I grew up in Africa, but of Indian origin. I grew with fake news and tribalism from birth.

      If anything, the 'white' news is the abnormal. Your old school BBC, CBC, ABC... the so called 'good journalism' where we all got THE TRUTH is absolutely abnormal. How did we get even a large chunk of people to believe 'THE NEWS'. I don't know.

      The point is, you destroy the establishment, you open up the 'news', you have no unifying culture... it is actually OHHH NO! You may have grown up in North America and think everything is nice and dandy and what's the harm. All I'd suggest is humble yourself to history. There is a hell of a lot of OHHH NO! that we should be absolutely terrified of in the current environment. There is nothing special about western people or white people that would prevent them from becoming any other country with tribal conflict.

      And social media just en flames it. I don't think it's a new thing. Before, I'd get my fake news from people I knew. Now it can be pushed online. But it would be irresponsible of the government to not be concerned.

      I really don't take a position on things, but I can tell you this for almost certainly:

      Freedom + no unifying culture + no authority + no respect for establishment = BIG FRIGGIN OH NO.

      The left in general wants to avoid this OH NO, by restricting freedom of speech and such measures. Maybe it's the way.

      The conservatives wants to avoid this OH NO by bringing back an establishment or unifying culture. Maybe that's the way.

      But I think they both see the inherent big OH NO.

      • .Re:When people talk (Score:2, Interesting)

        by rickb928 ( 945187 )

        I disagree. The Left is happy to take full advantage of the OH NO and leverage it to gain power. Look carefully - the Left in America uses every crisis, especially those of their own making, to gain and expand power.

        The Right seems impotent and disorganized by comparison, and has no direction in response, with one exception. And that exception is notable for the rejection if it by the Establishment Right.

        The OH NO we see, the many of them, are a tool. You doubt this? Ask CNN.

        • It may be the case. I just don't get too involved in politics any more. I've lived under both extremes at different points in my life. I just vote on issues that I see as crossing a line.

          I just really take of myself and my family. It may sound bad, but I'm more banking on being mobile and moving to a new country if things go bad than going down the political rabbit hole :)

        • I disagree. The Left is happy to take full advantage of the OH NO and leverage it to gain power

          Found the right winger. It's not personal, if it was a guy saying the exact same thing as you but with the word right instead of left, I would have said the same thing, with the word left instead of the word right.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Lordfly ( 590616 )

          What? Conservatives in America control most state legislators and routinely control national politics. Where are you possibly coming up with them being disorganized?

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by invid ( 163714 )
        Society is held together by tribal markers. Belonging to a religion is a tribal marker. Listening to certain music is a tribal marker. Having a certain haircut is a tribal marker. Reading certain books, liking certain movies, eating certain food, all indicate to others your tribal affiliations. For the last few hundred years, there's been a tribe that called out its allegiance to reason, truth, and individual freedom. This tribe has been embedded in larger tribes, less rational tribes, tribes that had more

        • While all true, to understand reason.... Truth as a tribe is to still understand it is subject to the same issues as all tribes. A tribe cannot be all inclusive and diverse. What do u want to do with those not belonging to that tribe? Subjugate them as in other societies? I genuinely ask that as a valid option. Subjugate religion?

          Break off into your own country?

          Standard historical tribal things.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by invid ( 163714 )
            Contained within the twin ideas of democracy and capitalism is to have various tribes compete without violence or force. Here, the word "tribe" is used in the broadest sense possible. Companies as tribes, political parties as tribes. To have a "truth, reason, and freedom" tribe, it would have to compete within the fields of politics and commerce, and ultimately, within human minds. It may fail. Depending upon your optimism or pessimism about human character, you may think it is destined for failure or victo

    • The same was said about Beatles records back in the day

  • That's more accurate. The blatantly partisan media and the "if it bleeds, it leads" mentality has a lot more to do with it.

    But I'll tip my hat to the social media cabal for playing their part by openly putting their thumbs on the scales when it comes to reporting news and influencing elections. I can't imagine why that would rub people the wrong way.

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Ritz_Just_Ritz ( 883997 )

      And one more thing. When it comes to guns and gun crime, the media is always blaming the tool, not the operator. So they want to ban guns.

      When it comes to tipping elections, it's "bad actors" leveraging big tech social media platforms. In that case, they're all about keeping the tools out of the fray and blaming the "bad actors".

      If it wasn't for double standards, the left would have no standards at all.

      Go ahead...mod me down. shrug

      • Re:Try "Mainstream Media" (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Ksevio ( 865461 ) on Thursday April 15, 2021 @12:09PM (#61277468) Homepage

        From what I've seen, the people are usually blamed primarily, but the tools are blamed for facilitating or making the problems worse.

        For a car analogy, we used to take the position that car crashes are all due to the nut behind the wheel, but once we started tracking accidents, cars started to get new safety features like crush zones. We still place blame on the drivers, but since we looked at the vehicles, we were able to greatly reduce injury and death.

        We shouldn't remove the blame from the people in these cases, but we could look at how social media (or guns) are making the situation worse and what we could do to improve it.

        • We design cars with crush zones and seat belts to reduce risk, minimize injuries, not to eliminate or even reduce accidents. If we found cars as we find social media, first, we would be getting the car someone else decided we ought to have, and it would function differently depending on our perceived views, and those on a number of topics. And we would not be told how that car was actually designed, not even perhaps how it worked in all respects.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by Ksevio ( 865461 )

            There are other features like mirrors and backup cameras, as well as braking standards and inspections that reduce accidents to name a few. Of course the car analogy isn't direct to social media, just that we've been able to regulate tools in the past to reduce accidents and risk

          • Not those specifically but lane assist, ABS, automatic braking, collision warnings and all those camera systems are now in cars specifically to reduce accidents.

            That said the idea of making a "safer gun" is a bit of an oxymoron. The issue in America to me is more one of gun culture and fetishization of the weapon. You can kill a person with any number of everyday tools but we don't use them as props of manliness and fashion accessories. I don't know exactly how you tackle that problem but I don't think a

            • And, sadly, you react to the perceived gun fetish culture, when guns are not the predominant weapon of choice for murder... Knives, hammers, bare knuckles all are more common, so far as I've known.

              Not that it matters, for it is never the weapon, it is the murderer. And no weapon is convenient or even desirable unless the act is so. It's not the guns. It's the people. The numbers tell you that.

              • No, guns are the preferred weapon, at least according to the FBI.

                From 2016 homicide rates:

                Total Firearms - 11,004

                Knives/Cutting - 1604

                Blunt objects - 472

                Bare Hands - 656

                Even adding up every other method outside of firearms you are left with 4066 vs the 11004 for firearms, so it's the preferred weapon of choice, which makes sense, it's very good for killing things. Doesn't change the calculus on gun control though, there are just too many out there already in the US to control the tool so help the people.

                A

                • Oh. We're including inner-city violence... Yeah, you're right, guns are the favorite of gangs.

                  • Oh I'm sorry, do cities not count as part of America now? You practically snapped your neck with that pivot.

                    Also according the FBI:UCR for that same period "gangland" homicides accounted for a little over 800 of those homicides, even with only 50% of the victim/killer relationships known. Even if you double that you are looking at a 10-15% being accounted for by gang activity.

                    What notably missing is a potential solution, I laid out some of mine.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Ksevio ( 865461 )

                And, sadly, you react to the perceived gun fetish culture, when guns are not the predominant weapon of choice for murder... Knives, hammers, bare knuckles all are more common, so far as I've known.

                Just checked the stats for 2019 [fbi.gov], out of 13,927 murders, 10,258 (74%) were with guns.

              • It's a minority of incidents, but there are cases of young children using guns to accidentally kill people. Your average 6 year old has the strength to lift, point and pull the trigger on a gun - and has seen movies that tell them it's cool. By contrast, a child would have a difficult time killing someone with a bat or fists.

                Guns are expertly designed ranged weapons that kill efficiently with little skill or effort on the part of the user.

                Thinking about the whole issue, weapon and wielder, is importan

            • > That said the idea of making a "safer gun" is a bit of an oxymoron.

              Depends on how you look at the idea. For example, if we mandate that all guns must be single-shot muzzleloaders they will certainly be safer. Is it a practical solution though? Not really...

              • That is kinda true actually.

                I did read an interesting article that proposed instead of gun control we simply tax ammunition at a high rate, like $75 per cartridge (with certain exceptions like purchasing at a shooting range for consumption there). It fits effectively within the bounds of the second amendment and operates similar to how we approached cigarettes.

                Do I think it's workable? Probably not but interesting nonetheless.

                https://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/02/07/why-not-tax-bullets/ [the-americ...terest.com]

      • > When it comes to guns and gun crime, the media is always blaming the tool, not the operator.

        Dr Park Dietz, has said for over 20 years that the media is partially to blame for these tragedies by drawing attention to "anti-heroes". In Charlie Brooker's Newswipe 25/03/09 [youtube.com] interview he recommended:

        1. Don't draw ANY attention to the shooter (otherwise you make him an anti-hero)
        2. Don't keep showing the same clip over and over

        So what does the MSM do? Exactly everything they shouldn't be doing -- all in the n

    • Media that doesn't confirm your bias, got it.

    • Re:Try "Mainstream Media" (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Thursday April 15, 2021 @12:19PM (#61277514)

      Try "Mainstream Media"
      That's more accurate. The blatantly partisan media and the "if it bleeds, it leads" mentality has a lot more to do with it.

      Effectively, media companies have found how to keep the attention of humans that are susceptible to emotional manipulation. Your attention means they get advertising money and while this is disturbing, it is the means not the core of the problem. The ultimate issue is that they have to continually push further into an extreme to ensure the manipulation is effective. These extreme perspectives are disconnected from reality and that is where you have people going on the internet and latching on to absurd conspiracy theories that satisfy that extreme emotional state. Conspiracy theories are one method that enables con artists (domestic and foreign) to push radical ideologies.

      I think you correct in that we should instate something like the Fairness Doctrine as well preventing the broadcasting of disinformation.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by swell ( 195815 )

      I'm really tired of hearing the complaints against 'mainstream media'. How many of you whiners actually read it? Can you really tear yourself away from your screen long enough to read a newspaper? Do you actually watch an hour of network news every day?

      I do. I read my sunday paper every week. For years it was accused of being too conservative, but now I think most actual readers are happy with its neutral tone. It is published by the same company that does LA Times and Chicago Trib. I don't read them, but I

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Cederic ( 9623 )

        Before you repeat the meme 'mainstream media bias', show me your research

        I don't need to research, I see it every day.

        But hey, there are also studies. Try this one:
        https://iea.org.uk/media/iea-a... [iea.org.uk]

        Or perhaps your highly balanced neutral Sunday paper will mention this week's revelations about CNN intentionally lying to try and influence US politics, to promote racial division and to try and smear public figures its employees perceive as damaging to their interests?

        How many of you whiners actually read it?

        Well, I don't know about the whiners but I read news from the BBC, the Independent, the Times, the Guardian, the Tele

      • If a news outlet's chief political editor began their career working for a particular political party, either for members of Congress or a President, would you expect that outlet's reporting to be biased or unbiased? What if they were also married to someone whose job was to manipulate the press in order to promote the policies of that party? What about a political reporter who was married to a high ranking White House official? Or one whose sibling was a high ranking official in a State or Federal admin

    • Good, good... let the hate flow through you. Now delete all your social media accounts.

    • The problem with the "if it bleeds, it leads" mentality being to true cause, rather than bias, is that it doesn't being to explain why reporters in Minneapolis insisted to the police chief that there were no riots [youtu.be], when he was there and we have video. If it bleeds it leads, why are reporters attempting to minimize the bleeding and minimize the story?

      It also doesn't explain why news stories focus on say, black police victims, but not police victims of other races, which are much more numerous.

      No, for most cu

    • I find it pro-corporate / anti-worker. Whether it's Fox, MSNBC, WaPo, you name it you might find a left bent on a handful of social issues but when it comes to economics they're all pro-corporate / anti-worker. The only exceptions are a handful of late night TV hosts (Colbert, Meyers, Oliver) and independents like Mother Jones.

      Even Politico & The Hill are leaning right on economics lately, after having been bought out by larger conglomerates.
      • How does "pro-corporate" mean you're anti- the- people- who- make- up- corporations? That doesn't make any kind of sense. Unless you're promoting some kind of Marxist interpretation, in which case it wouldn't matter that it makes no sense because Marxism is all lies and bullshit anyway. (odd spacing due to retarded ascii art filter)

  • Think that's bad (Score:3)

    by bobstreo ( 1320787 ) on Thursday April 15, 2021 @11:49AM (#61277388)

    You should have some Zoom work meetings.

    Pure domestic terrorism.

  • Sure, state actors can engage a lot of people to simulate US text and astroturf social media to continuously seed (just seed and fertilize, not overrun) propaganda or divisive/disruptive content. But if they engage a lot of programmers to do the same thing ... frankly, you could overrun a lot of social media to the point where it's difficult to tell that >50% of the content isn't personally generated by humans.

  • Banning the popular social media platforms wonâ(TM)t solve this problem, it will make it worse. Sounds like people are annoyed with social media so they are not looking at this issue objectively, statistically, overall. A lot of extremism is caused by peopleâ(TM)s anger and annoyance with their situation in life.

    You can silence a voice but you can shut down a thought. People used to organize just fine before social media. In fact before social media we had a civil war, a revolution. Same thing in

    • Except today social media means civil war in 40 states all over the U.S.A. instead of only four neighbouring states.

    • You can silence a voice but you can shut down a thought.

      People are free to dream about lynching black folk. I draw the line at them actually doing it. There is a gray area in between of them saying they'll do it versus inciting violence, a problem for the courts to decide on the legality. For myself, I won't do business with racists. They have a right to free speech and I have a right to cut them out of my life. I am fortunate to have the freedom to turn down work, not everyone can vote with their dollars.

      • And therein lies the issue.

        You and I may draw the line at physical acts taken against another. But there's an awful lot of people on all sides willing to justify locking you up or murdering you for wrongthink. As you get older, will you always be a rightthinker? What about your past, previously accepted opinions. What of those, and the retroactive repercussions when they stop being accepted and we've all moved on, but you're still judged and punished for them?

        It's an enormous amount of "justified" violence

  • Agreed (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by i'm probably drunk ( 6159770 )

    Antifa terrorists are quite active on Twitter

  • Time to break them up (Score:3)

    by GrassMudWhores ( 6570822 ) on Thursday April 15, 2021 @12:03PM (#61277452)
    The problem here is that social media companies have invested billions of dollars to be able to direct your attention span, chop it up and sell it to advertisers. Psychological manipulation is their stock in trade, and a cornerstone of their business model. So it's not really surprising that the negative effects of that are becoming more severe. Their censorship and biased enforcement of their use policies is essentially a bribe or underhanded campaign contribution to politicians to hold off in bringing antitrust action against them.

    • Didn't seem to work too well, as it caused the President to start Tweeting (imagine that) about "repeal section 230", which would unleash a tsunami of lawsuits every bit as bothersome as an antitrust.

      More broadly it caused the Republican party, after a years-long love affair, to finally turn the ship around and start scrutinizing social media. The bipartisan antitrust suits we're seeing today would never have been filed without the "censorship".

      • I'm not optimistic that anything will come of those. Filed lawsuits might be a small glimmer of hope, but the ultimate measure will be what settlements are negotiated.

        I agree that self interest may be the only motivating factor that causes Republicans to see past their faulty heuristics, but I'm more worried that self interest will also cause Democrats to override what would be a good heuristic in this case. The cultural winds give me no hope about this though, seeing stuff like Noam Chomsky catching

  • It's verified that agencies of various countries (including the USA) are using Facebook to propagate misinformation in the same manner that the mainstream media has been since the 50's (hell - you can go back in History and see examples of News as Misinformation delivery as far back as the written record exists).

    This what happens when a social media platform stops being Users sharing things with their friends to Platform where people other than users can pay Facebook for 'advertising' - ie misinformation.

    Wh

    • oh - BEST EXAMPLE of advertising as misinformation - ' New Knowledge' and their faking of 'Russian election inteference' to sell their own social media monitoring product..

    • You seem to think advertisements are the issue - they're not. Besides, FB's already put a fig leaf over that, banning political advertisements during the last election cycle in 2020. The problem is "users", some of which are real, paid humans, and some of which aren't.

      You also seem to think manual manipulation of feeds is the issue - it's not. Even assuming it happens, there is a more fundamental, everpresent, immutable issue that turns the site into a cesspit. Algorithmic manipulation that floats "engaging

  • In other news (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 50000BTU_barbecue ( 588132 ) on Thursday April 15, 2021 @12:12PM (#61277478) Journal

    FBI Director wants bigger budget. Drive that fear! Russians under your bed!

  • social media (Score:3)

    by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Thursday April 15, 2021 @12:48PM (#61277624) Homepage Journal

    social media and anti-social behavior.

    There is irony in there somewhere I'm sure.

  • I am old fashioned, but that's the same thing as what "talking" used to mean, right? Just fyi, I have followed some pretty extreme accounts (not your bogus "alt-right", but people with actually extreme views). And talking things is out is how people come to reason. This whole notion that silencing people whose ideas we don't like is exactly how things are done in Russia and China. I don't think succumbing to this wave of totalitarianism, that is being pushed by the "modern" voices, is the same as fighti
    • There's a difference between arguments based on true facts and science then wild unproven nonsense. What happens with social media is the latter is often the norm and needs to be refuted. Many folks don't believe the truth for what ever reason and continue to spout this nonsense.

      Free speech, like most "freedoms" has limits. One can't shout fire in a crowded theater when there is not fire or the ability to own guns doesn't mean one may go around shooting people.

      • There's a difference between arguments based on true facts and science then wild unproven nonsense.

        There is no such thing as being right the 1st time you start thinking about a subject. Ideas are hashed out. Social media is a medium for conversations. Conversations is how ideas are explored.

        Free speech, like most "freedoms" has limits. One can't shout fire in a crowded theater when there is not fire or the ability to own guns doesn't mean one may go around shooting people.

        Looking for extra ways to restrict speech is a good tell of a fascist mindset. There are others.

      • any folks don't believe the truth for what ever reason and continue to spout this nonsense.

        The cancel culture is a result of people who are mediocre at explaining things trying to engage with people with whom they disagree. The frustration that result from not being able to explain your point causes them to think that the others can't possibly understand what they say. It is an unwillingness to improve your ability to explain things and a demand that you are believed even when you are not convincing.

        • > The frustration that result from not being able to explain your point causes them to think that the others can't possibly understand what they say.

          To some extent yes, but you also have to realize that what some conspiracy theory or fake news people believe in is akin to a faith, trying to reason with them is like trying to convert a religious person to atheism by explaining to them that god doesn't exist. It doesn't matter how you reason or frame that argument, it will only make them hold on to their f

          • Are you suggesting that no conspiracy theorist has ever abandoned their views? Religious people abandon their faith from time to time. I am very certain that people do change their views. And it doesn't happen because they are silenced and not allowed to speak to anyone. If you don't know why you aren't "understood", you may wish to re-examine how you present your ideas.
      • I don't need an explanation, btw, about the difference between speech and incitement. I have a pretty good track record of reporting accounts on Twitter which advocate violence or racism. I can tell the difference between pushing ideas and exploring ideas. Only about 10% of the accounts, which I got banned, were on the right. Overwhelming majority of racist and antisemitic accounts which I have seen banned are on the political left. The problem that I see with the right is that they complain about the
      • Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater poses a clear and present danger to the lives of the other people in the theater. Unless someone's speech could immediately and directly cause deaths, it must be permitted. Doesn't matter if it's blatantly false, like what you're saying, doesn't matter if it's unproven, like what you're saying, doesn't matter if it leads people to reject what you want them to believe is true.

        I don't know why you're so keen on limiting freedom, but historically nobody does so for goo

  • Isn't this news from 2015?

  • What a relief (Score:3)

    by Sloppy ( 14984 ) on Thursday April 15, 2021 @01:31PM (#61277822) Homepage Journal

    It's so nice that people are finally blaming stuff which actually sucks, instead of blaming Judas Priest, Dungeons and Dragons, and h4xx0r warez such as Linux.

  • Of course for this administration only one group is considered "domestic terrorists" and that is anyone who doesn't agree with their propaganda. BLM and Antifa are not considered to be a problem. It's funny how Mr. Wray stopped short of blaming Silicon Valley companies for aiding domestic extremism since they have been anti-conservative for a long time even thought they conduct censorship and directly influenced the last election. Looting, rioting, attacking police, destroying private property are all just

  • I say... let Facebook have a shot at being a 3rd tier search engine or similar ... turn into google #3, but delete Facebook as we know it. Turn off all "social media" aspects of it. It has done worlds of harm, time to pull the plug.

  • "domestic terrorism" (Score:3)

    by oldgraybeard ( 2939809 ) on Thursday April 15, 2021 @03:30PM (#61278310)
    and nothing said about Antifa and BLM, the ones doing the real destruction and damage.
    • It's fine for their leaders to go out and encourage violence, riots, arson and grand larceny, becuase they're clearly the good guys. Only good people support beating up innocent people for disagreeing with them, right? Only the decent folk burn down local businesses because of something they heard happened in another State, right? These are hallmarks of civic virtue after all.

  • Surely given the immensity of the internet something better than this could have made Slashdot.

  • extremism.

    By the FBI's own admission, the FBI repeatedly lied to the FISA courts to get fraudulent warrants to spy on candidate, and then president, Trump. Never before in American history has such a thing happened (the FBI of a president of one party committing federal crimes to oppose a presidential candidate of the other party). In any normal scenario, these criminal acts would have been punished, but in Christopher Wray's world, he could not even find a single person to prosecute, and in hearings into t

  • Really? When Antifa, BLM, and the like have been organizing violence and riots on Facebook and Twitter for years now? Not to mention other idiots like White supremacists and Islamic extremists? Something we've all been screaming about for ages? Holy hell, it took them long enough to admit it. Now, maybe they'll actually get around to DOING something about all these loonies, but I doubt it.

Slashdot Top Deals

Nothing ever becomes real till it is experienced -- even a proverb is no proverb to you till your life has illustrated it. -- John Keats

Close