Somehow it manages to be worse every day. What’s happening there is extremely sad and the worst thing is that there doesn’t seem to be light at the end of the tunnel.
Even though I take issue with the BBC, I hope they choose to stay on mastadon in the long term. A large organisation like the BBC on a federated platform is sure to spread word and hopefully convince more people to join the fediverse and see it a a feasible alternative to the current big tech landscape.
This is how twitter and Youtube picked up pace. News organizations stsrted slowly creeping towards it and they have a lot of incentive to do so with how twitter is becoming a cesspool of Nazis and CSAM.
Pretty much the same as the US (and I imagine other English-speaking countries) with similar age distribution (i.e. facebook mums, tiktok kids) and of course toxic cesspit behaviour on twiitter.
Same old. Just follow specific users by copying their full ID (e.g. @Teppic@kbin.social without the space) onto the search on Mastodon and follow as normal.
We should perhaps use hashtags more here because that would would be another way for Mastodon users to find/follow kbin content.
Going the other way to contribute to a kbin magazine from Mastodon, If you want the post to appear in a particular magazine, simply mention it in the post content, for example, "@fediverse@kbin.social" (no space) Note it will appear in the Microblog section.
Logical decision on the part of a journalistic medium, given that the fediverse has many more sources of information than a monolithic Big Brother traditional social network with mainstream users.
There needs to be trust in the justice system. Otherwise, there’s no point in having a justice system. If he’s cleared, then there wasn’t enough evidence and he should be considered innocent. That’s how our justice system works. Don’t break the social contract because of your vendetta against rich people.
The problem is that our society doesn’t encourage people to immediately report crimes nor provide sufficient support for people who have been abused.
Do you think OJ Simpson is innocent? Would you want your daughter or sister to marry him?
The are different standards for a reason. Society is perfectly capable of being aware that someone is a giant dickbag without there being enough evidence to justify using the power of the state to remove their freedom and incarcerate them. Those are two extraordinarily different things and you know it.
To suggest otherwise is to imply that the government is a perfect arbiter of dispute that we should all just blindly accept. Something tells me you wouldn't be so keen on that stance when it worked against your interests
I think we need to recognise the moral panic of the situation too. People are out there looking to cancel others, others are out to use the moment for financial gain, and then there is the legitimate ones too. We dont know which they are and for the most part, the judicial system is only OK at separating them.
If you can smear someone and that’s it their life is over, no matter the truth of it, then what justice is that?
What’s the truth here… not very many people know, clearly.
I think we could use a little more moral panic about the actual number of people who are actually raped every year and maybe worry a little less about your proposed miniscule hypothetical
Hahahaha, that's hilarious. Because I'm actually at extraordinarily high risk of that happening. I'm a nurse. That happens all the time to nurses.
Thorough investigations are done. And no, I don't worry about it. You know why? Because I'm not a fucking rapist sexual predator and everyone who knows me knows that.
You gotta wonder about people who are sooooooooooooo worried about being "falsely" accused of rape that they think false accusations are worthy of jail time. What exactly are you doing out there in the world that this is a major concern in your life? That you think it's even possible for your whole life to be ruined over a baseless accusation?
Because this is simply not something I worry about at all.
This is way too close to “if you’ve done nothing wrong, you’ve got nothing to hide” logic.
What exactly are you doing out there in the world that this is a major concern in your life?
Making terrible choices in friends, for one. Never been accused of SA, thank christ, but figured out too late that many people live in their own reality, and rewrite history once the friendship ends. Have also known people who have been in that situation, and even if no charges end up being pressed, it’s still a gut-wrenching situation to be in.
The issue of how to handle SA accusations is such a nightmare that it’s practically inevitable that we have both innocent people convicted, and guilty people acquitted at the same time. Most of the time we don’t have the kind of oversight and institutional procedure you would enjoy if accused.
You're being deliberately obtuse and conflating completely different situations, and I think you're doing it on purpose to muddy the waters. An accusation after a breakup that cause a fight among friends is a very different situation from a report to the police. Even a report to the police often doesn't trigger an investigation. And God knows it rarely triggers an actual prosecution. These are simply not things that you need to worry about, if you're not running around the world raping people. If it causes you anxiety that severe, get therapy.
Because it's not the giant boogeyman that internet apologists like to pretend it is, with data:
Because I'm sorry, but losing a few friends is not a terrible enough consequence for me to get worked up about. Shit happens, friends get in fights and stop being friends over all sorts of dumb shit. I see zero reason why that would cause someone to go through their lives in mortal fear that they might be "falsely" accused of a sex crime.
The issue of how to handle sexual assault accusations is not complicated. I told you, we handle them all the time in the medical field. You default to protecting the accuser, you do a thorough investigation, if the investigation turns up no evidence, you move on.
A "he said, she said" situation that never gets formally investigated, but causes the breakup of some friendships is not as terrible as being actually raped. It's just not.
People, for a whole host of reasons, can be and very much are in different situations than you. Some have very little defense against such allegations, and so it should not be very difficult to understand that they could have their lives destroyed in an instant by false accusations.
For instance, if they engage in non-normalized sexual relations (for their area or country, obviously), be that interracial, same sex, BDSM, etc., particularly if they are not “out”. It’s very easy to go from “he tied me up and we had a great time”, to “that guy did me wrong somehow so now I’m going to press charges and claim he tied me up against my will and raped me”. If you don’t think this happens you’re living in a dream land.
You're living in a dream land if you think going to the police with nothing more than "yes I went over to his house consensually and it turned bad from there" is likely to result in a legal prosecution.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but this has actually happened. The case I know of, personally, involved a bar owner. He was exonerated after a few years being dragged through the mud, but he ended up having to shut down his bar and move out of town to be left alone. This stuff happens.
Do I have a better alternative? No, it’s a complex issue and we definitely don’t want to victim blame, but we also don’t want to destroy people’s lives over just allegations. It’s a delicate balance. I think one thing we could do, at very least, is to actually stand by the innocent until proven guilty ideal and not publish the identity of the accused until a verdict comes out. This is the way it is in most of Europe and a “perp walk” happening like it does in the US would free highly illegal.
I’ve given a lot of thought to this issue in the past and I think it all boils down to one indisputable fact:
“You just believe her” is completely at odds with “innocent until proven guilty.”
“We should believe women” is a laudable phrase, and it makes us feel good to say it, but men are victims as well, especially trans men. “We should believe victims” would be better, but it is a begging-the-question fallacy, it assumes the victimhood is true. The people who made that not possible are specifically the people who have made false allegations in the past.
It is far, far more common for women who allege to be completely ignored, ridiculed, dragged through the mud should they choose to pursue charges. That's a simple fact of the world. RAPE IS A BIGGER PROBLEM THAN FALSE RAPE ACCUSATIONS.
I also express little sympathy for people who worry more about the side effects of the Covid vaccine than they do about the negative effects of actual Covid. Because one of those things is an actual serious problem, and the other is a boogeyman used for political purposes.
Supported by data. You know, kind of like the difference between false accusations of rape and ACTUAL RAPE.
The people who have made false allegations in the past are exactly the reason we can’t just believe every victim that comes forward without proof. They are why we can’t have nice things. It’s not about the odds and ratios either, the state putting a completely innocent person in jail is a travesty of the system. The travesties of what we do to each other are the realities of living on a planet with other humans, we are terrible to one another regularly. We must do the absolute best we can to support victims of sexual assault…untested rape kits are a fucking abomination for instance and I’d be fine with tar and feathers for whoever let that happen. But we still must stop short of allowing even one innocent person to be put in jail.
I recommend watching “The People vs OJ Simpson” on this. It doesn’t really get into guilty vs not guilty, but just showcases just how complicated things got in that case.
The government performing arbitration is a power that society has vested in them. The solution to a flawed system is to fix the system, not vigilantism.
The lack of trust in the judiciary is a failure of government and a failure of society.
NO! That is how the court system, and therefore the state sees him in regards to punishment and treatment. That does not mean, and has never ever ever ever meant, that being declared not guilty means they are proven to be innocent. Just that there’s wasn’t evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
A new justice system? Might as well overthrow the government and start over then, because the common law system is literally the foundation of society.
That’s exactly what we want, yes. And we’ll end up getting it too, with climate collapse, so trying to intimidate me into submitting to a system that is inherently biased and abusive and has done nothing but hurt myself and everyone I know and love personally will get you nowhere.
I will NOT change my mind on this and you can’t make me.
WE will not change our minds on this and you can’t make us.
We can and will make something better and there’s nothing you can do to stop us.
Wow. Reading through those Descriptions is rough. Many of them involve the cop lying with verbal testimony not matching bodycam footage. One I saw was after the guy was already restrained, he bit the cop’s finger, so the cop shot him. Others show that they are looking for (or will make up) any excuse to shoot: one person had a lighter in their hand which caused the cop to shoot and kill them. It’s honestly disgusting that people will go out of their way to defend this system. I guess that’s a level of privelege that I just don’t understand; how can you possibly be sure you’ll never be in such a situation with a lying, murderous police officer?
Huh, looks like this is talking about cops, of which there are millions of in America, and cops lying in reports, and not a about a court of law ruling a lynching was okay.
You’re taking an overly specific definition of lynching and framing the situation wrong, and coming to a bad conclusion.
A court’s refusal to punish it, in nearly every case, is tacit support. They aren’t saying “please, lynch!” but they’re saying they won’t punish lynching.
This also easily fits any definition of lynching that’s not so restricted so as to only include “hanging black people from trees in town squares”.
Obviously, no one should be convicted if evidence is insufficient. The issue that I have is that it’s difficult to believe someone is innocent when multiple people have alleged similar complaints. Does that make him guilty? No. But it increases my suspicion. And I’ll never be able to shake that suspicion. It doesn’t mean I want him locked up. It only means that I’m not comfortable with his art going forward. Which is a shame, because he’s one of the best actors of our time.
I’m not saying to blindly trust the judiciary, but that not trusting the judiciary is an inherent failure in society. We need to fix that, not focus on individual cases that will keep happening if our judicial system is morally and ethically compromised.
Innocence is VERY SPECIFICALLY NOT WHAT COURTS declare. They only ever declare that there wasn’t enough evidence presented to proof guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Right, so the only thing the court states is that innocence could not be disproven. Incidentally that’s similar to how statistical hypotheses are being proven - by showing that it’s unlikely to be false.
The presumption of innocence doesn’t preclude the fact that criminal courts don’t find someone innocent, rather they find someone not guilty.
This is for the simple fact that it’s neigh impossible to establish someone’s innocence, whereas it’s easier to establish that there isn’t enough evidence to consider someone guilty.
This case is, and sexual assault cases in general are, a great example why we can’t expect criminal courts to establish innocence.
These are often cases with little evidence available either which way, because often there are no other witnesses. Even if there would be physical evidence of a sexual act, it’s still challenging to prove under what circumstances those acts have occurred, specifically on the matter of consent.
To expect a court to be able to say with certainty that something hasn’t occurred is unreasonable.
That is not to say that it isn’t good that we have these high standards before we impose punishment onto someone, but it is important to recognize what it means when a court comes to a decision.
Additionally the presumption of innocence is just that, a presumption to establish who has the onus to prove something, there is no additional meaning attributed to it in the legal principle beyond establishing who has the onus to prove the facts at hand.
In that regard it’s rather unfortunately named, as it would’ve been more apt to name it “the presumption of not guilty” but I suppose that doesn’t roll as nicely off the tongue
To add to that, that the presumption is specifically a principle that only has meaning in criminal court, because the burden of proof is generally higher than in civil court.
People can be, and have been, found liable in civil court for the very thing a criminal court has found them “not guilty” on, on the very basis that criminal court can’t establish innocence and that the bar that needs to be met in civil court is generally lower than in criminal court.
As such to bring up the presumption of innocence in a vacuum is kind of like bringing up the generally recognized human right of freedom of speech when a social media company bans someone and removes their post.
Yes, the concept exists, but it’s irrelevant because it doesn’t apply to the topic at hand, because the concept aims to govern a very specific circumstance that isn’t applicable here and withholding the important context surrounding it (i.e. the role it plays in criminal court for the presumption and the fact that it only limits governments for the freedom of speech) masks the limitations of said concept.
None of the above aims to reflect my opinion on Spacey’s innocence (or lack thereof), rather it aims to provide the necessary details to put things into context.
no, we are not part of the government. same reason the 1st amendment does not apply to private property. it protects speech from censorship from the government.
Considered innocent, by the state organs. Considered innocent, in how the state treats them. NOT EVER AT ALL PROVEN innocent by the courts.
Courts are not and have never been concerned about proving innocence. All they care about is guilty or not guilty. Not guilty could mean innocent, but again, the courts don’t care about that.
Considered innocent, by the state organs. Considered innocent, in how the state treats them. NOT EVER AT ALL PROVEN innocent by the courts.
Courts are not and have never been concerned about proving innocence. All they care about is guilty or not guilty. Not guilty could mean innocent, but again, the courts don’t care about that.
What I’m saying is that the basic social contract used to be that you would be considered innocent until proven guilty by your peers. If we abandon we mess with the foundations of society at our own peril.
I think this is exactly what I want to see, news orgs (not just “mainstream” news, but let’s say, professional orgs in an industry) hosting their own instances with closed signups for accounts with JUST relevant topics. I tried to find some journalists on journa.host to fill in tech and local news, and while I found the people, it was way too much personal/personality content and not as much news.
Relying on a third party for your social media presence is a bad idea. Imagine if Elon got a bug up his ass and banned all BBC accounts; they’d be left in a lurch. Or if, as we saw, someone else got a blue checkmark and pretended to be the BBC.
But by running their own site they have control over who posts what, while still able to interact with users on other instances.
With Mastodon being a German non-profit company, it’s natural that Germany is also well-represented with a federal instance social.bund.de, instance for the state of Baden-Württemberg bawü.social (both since 2020), world’s largest public broadcasters ARD ard.social and ZDF zdf.social, and AFAIK the first news publisher to officially launch its own instance, Heise social.heise.de. There are probably loads of other instances and accounts I’m missing.
PS: The production company behind ZDF Magazin Royale (late night comedy and investigative journalism show, think Last Week Tonight ) is also running a private instance edi.social and a public instance det.social, named after the Mainzelmännchen.
Man I wish other news organizations would join. Press.coop had a bunch of accounts that were mirroring their twitter feeds but the API change killed them.
Federation is the future of social media for exactly this reason, especially in the twitter-like realm where who is saying it is as (or more) important than what is being said. These people and organizations need to control their brand outside the scope of commercial pressure from the platform.
bbc.co.uk
Active