Any governments responsibility is to the safety and welfare of their people. If that makes them sheeple in your view then at least they will be alive sheeple.

That would describe DPRK to a tee.

& possibly Spain after Sunday's display of safety & welfare of it's people.

The whole idea is to reduce the risk of terrorism as far as possible and is practicable to do so.

Make sheeple. Got it!

Reducing the causes of terrorism would make for less productive sites. People could then be reporting it - not following it.

People who repeatedly view terrorist content online

Who is in charge of the definitions? Didn't we have an Oh Great Elected One elevate Occupy (or was it an environmental/animal right protest movement)* with Isis not that many moons ago? What is repeatedly?

*Why can't I remember stuff anymore? Too many questions... probably...not enough answers equals ... brain bedlam

"Prof Luckhurst pointed out that in the past, Google and Facebook had been quick to tweak their algorithms when requested to do so by the Chinese government.
"Algorithms are not organic creations - they are the product of very clever software writers.
"They can tweak them when the Chinese government asks them to, they can tweak them to do target advertising, but if you ask them to tweak their algorithms in relation to terrorism or untruths, they say, 'We're not publishers.'
"But they've demonstrated that they clearly can do it, and so they should do it." "

Google - The researcher's friend enemy :-)

"Prof Luckhurst pointed out that in the past, Google and Facebook had been quick to tweak their algorithms when requested to do so by the Chinese government.
"Algorithms are not organic creations - they are the product of very clever software writers.
"They can tweak them when the Chinese government asks them to, they can tweak them to do target advertising, but if you ask them to tweak their algorithms in relation to terrorism or untruths, they say, 'We're not publishers.'
"But they've demonstrated that they clearly can do it, and so they should do it." "

Google - The researcher's friend enemy :-)

US law says they don't have to tweak, shields them with total liability protection, so whatever brings in the most $$$$ just like every other public company. Greed is good.

You might think by putting the word news next to it, it should be news and not fiction. First amendment permits this too.

Winston Churchill wrote:

The United States is a land of free speech. Nowhere is speech freer — not even here where we sedulously cultivate it even in its most repulsive form.

This is what you seek to change. China does not have protections on free speech. Is this your view of the world?

A current case in point:

Tech giants sorry for false news about Las Vegas gunman

Google and Facebook have apologised after their algorithms led to the promotion of inaccurate information about the Las Vegas shooting.

Another area where tech algorithms are active - some would say over-active - is alleged copyright violation. Copyright sometimes to have a higher priority than terrorism or sexual exploitation when the role of 'publisher' is questioned.

This is what you seek to change. China does not have protections on free speech. Is this your view of the world?

Nope. Just a solution to this :-)

EU Data Laws v US Data Laws

This is what you seek to change. China does not have protections on free speech. Is this your view of the world?

Nope. Just a solution to this :-)

EU Data Laws v US Data Laws

Yes https://www.law360.com/articles/698895/3-things-to-know-about-russia-s-new-data-localization-law

Conservative Party Conference
"The joys of a 'sharpened carrot.
Here's the Conservatives' chief whip, Gavin Williamson. Not a high profile public role but very influential behind the scenes.
He reveals some of the dark arts of the whips office.
"I don't like to use a stick but it is amazing what can be achieved with a sharpened carrot.""

All suggestions welcome. (Postcards only)
Houses of Parliament
London
SW1A 1AA

"The party whips, by convention, don't speak in the House of Commons but there's nothing to stop them speaking at a party conference.
Gavin Williamson, the Conservatives' chief whip in the Commons, is giving a speech. He speculates that delegates have heard that politicians are "driven by ego" and "not afraid to stab someone in the back, sometimes in the front, just to get what they want".
Continuing his theme he says he is astounded by the "level of people's ambition to get their hands on the ultimate prize" - being Prime Minister.
Yes, there's a joke coming. He isn't talking about any of his colleagues - of course.
"I am sure that you will agree with me we can never, ever, let Vince Cable into No 10.""

Hmm, what a laugh :-)

1st as Finance Minister & then as Prime Minister he approved the deals, not that there is Brexit...

Drunker now scrambling down the back of sofas for pfennigs

A riveting performance best left off the CV. My condolences to the lady in question.

"And former Conservative deputy chairman Lord Ashcroft said there was an air of a party that did not "know what it is doing"." So nothing new then :-)

Should've had a Hot Toddy :-)

"And former Conservative deputy chairman Lord Ashcroft said there was an air of a party that did not "know what it is doing"." So nothing new then :-)

:-)

Or do they?

One of the hardest questions surrounding the British government’s approach to Brexit is how much of the blundering is down to incompetence and how much to duplicity. Duplicity suggests a plan towards which the lying is meant to contribute. It also requires a basic understanding of the facts: you cannot deliberately lie until you know what the truth is.

So where does the leaked Home Office document on Britain’s post-Brexit immigration policy that emerged last night fall on this spectrum? As legal experts were quick to point out on Twitter, the document not only contains errors; it also misrepresents the current EU arrangements around freedom of movement.

"And former Conservative deputy chairman Lord Ashcroft said there was an air of a party that did not "know what it is doing"." So nothing new then :-)

Or do they?

Nope!

Rule, Britannia as she slips under the waves

Big carrots, little sticks :-(

Seen by whom, one wonders? This reader sees it as a paper that doesn't follow an establishment (or proprietorial) editorial line, and one which publishes free-thinking articles from a variety of points of view.

Guardian

In addition, follow the link to the Scott Trust Limited, and consider the difference from publishing empires controlled by Lords Beaverbrook and Dacre, Rupert Murdoch, Richard Desmond etc.

You've got to love newspapers. The headlines, stories, comments often leads one into providing some good comments oneself.

For example, today's papers led to this:

Welcome pop pickers to this weeks edition of Top of the Flops.

We have a new number one...

Teresa May

"Clinging to Power"

:-)

One trusts when posting to a thread lays waste to one's filter, that one does not also compromise one's inbox here? ;-)


@Sirius B

Nope!

Then I concede, Sir. Yours is the home advantage perspective. ;-)


@Mr Haselgrove

Seen by whom, one wonders?

From every angle of insertion and withdrawal, a visual vantage point deleterious to the backbone does not clarify the vision of those who choose only to be sheep with ill-disposed teeth, Sir. ;-)

In the meantime by their own admission they are dyed in the wool left wing Labour with an on off love affair with the Lib Dems...

I think the Guardian itself would hope that there was a closer link between evidence and conclusion. Where did that 'wing' come from?