Do you remember the video of Tom Cruise (since hosted by Gawker here) that was removed from YouTube? The one that prompted global protests against Scientology?

A key point to remember here, the salient point, is that the removal of a newsworthy video sparked protest.

Well. The same thing has just happened to Mark Bunker of XenuTV fame (the guy that released the Jason Beghe video):

Mark Bunker’s statement.

I didn’t photograph the last anonymous protests in London because I had bad guts and third demonstrations are less interesting than first and second demonstrations. People are usually bored by the third demonstration (see second London demonstration pics by me here).

Removing Mark Bunker’s videos is an almost guaranteed way to reinvigorate the protests and bring in even more protestors.

Heck, even I feel like protesting (rather than just taking pictures) and I don’t even feel that strongly about Scientology. As for YouTube: This is yet another example of how they’ll cave in at the first opportunity rather than give their users the respect they deserve.

Web 2.0 is about making money from the talent of your users and showing them little or no respect over profits.

If this sort of thing is tolerated it could happen to you next. Send Mark Bunker’s video, as linked above, to people. They should know.

Thought of the day

Don’t delete your spam before checking whether it was legit or not.

If you’ve ever been to a country that has a problem with feral dogs, you’ll know that dealing with wild dogs can be a total pain in the arse because they’re unpredictable. They’re mostly scared of people, because, as scavengers, they’re chased away with sticks and shouts. Other times, with children, or if they feel threatened, they’ll bite, and in packs they can attack. They can carry rabies and present a public health issue. Under Saddam Hussein the infrastructure in Iraq was held together with bubblegum, duct tape, and tyranny. After the invasion, the coalition political leaders, those so keen on war, had no decent plan, at all, to deal with the aftermath. Rather depressingly, it’s been repeated by politicians calling for a pull-out of Iraq; with no detailed plans to deal with what happens next.

During the invasion, and its aftermath, all of the pest control, public services, and public service infrastructure, were destroyed, looted, or both, here’s what Donald Rumsfeld had to say at the time:

“Freedom’s untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things … stuff happens”

The destruction of public services was allowed to happen. Simple things like pest control were looted out of existence - and worse was to come. The people who dealt with practical things, the people running ministries, what was left of them, emigrated to neighbouring states like Jordan and Syria, or were fired in the de-Baathification of the Iraqi state. As a result wild dogs are a bigger problem in Iraq today, than they were prior to the invasion. And they were a problem prior to the invasion. Tossing a puppy off a cliff isn’t the best form of pest control, but placed in context, it’s different from someone buying a puppy in a pet-shop specifically to toss it off a cliff. It’s still cruel and it’s still wrong, but given the situation soldiers are in, dealing with the arse-end of geopolitics, it is, to my mind, forgivable. Many people seem to be more incensed at a soldier tossing a dog off a cliff than they are about the situation soldiers have been left to clean up.

Thought of the day

Would your webhost fuck you over?

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. 

28 gun crimes committed in UK every day

and

The shocking truth

The paradox of cracking down on certain crimes is that they rise - it’s a bit obvious that one.  If you crack down on drugs, recorded drug crimes rise, if you crack down on guns, gun crime rises. Note - deaths from gun crime are down and injuries were up so insignificantly the Telegraph doesn’t quote them.  Even as a context free percentage.  I wonder sometimes whether people are thick or whether they want to scare people into conforming to whatever politics of the day they follow (see also the Independent re: recession (not going to be catastrophic in Europe or Asia) or catastrophic global warming (yes, global warming is a major problem, but no it’s not like the movies)).  Maybe they’re just desperately trying to conform to whichever readership they chase.  It’s all very 20th Century.  The Independent is right in this case though.  And people being scared of crime is scary.  It diverts public money irrationally, it creates fear, it demonises people (see The Daily Mail/The Daily Express on Romanians today) and it creates a situation where people cannot debate based on evidence.  Only beliefs and feelings.  Not good. 

See also:

 Risk of becoming a victim of crime at 27 year low

Listen to David Icke and Russell Brand here.

I think one of the great downsides to generation gaps, real or perceived,  is that they can lead to indiscriminate scepticism.  The broad scepticism towards politics and ‘the system’ during the 1960s and 1970s gave rise to many good things. It also gave rise to much irrationalism and muddy thinking.  I believe a similar situation exists today.  There is a generation gap forming under the nose of a political and media establishment that is still firmly rooted in the 20th Century.  Among many young people there is a broad scepticism towards government, politics, and the media.  Much of this is positive.  Many young people seem willing and able to Google and get information from multiple sources.  And savagely mock the absurd.

Scepticism without critical thinking can be dangerous.   Because in those circumstances a rejection of the mainstream can lead to unqualified acceptance of  any ideas regardless of their logical consistency or evidence.  Conspiracy theories - for instance.   People accept them because they do not have critical thinking skills. They don’t have critical thinking skills because our society does not encourage critical thinking outside of fields where it is required.   They’re not stupid people.  There is a paradoxical situation in which people can be deeply sceptical and lack the critical thinking skills to distinguish the things they should be sceptical about.  It’s a real shame.  People that believe in conspiracy theories are seeking answers, which is something that should be applauded, but unfortunately they’re barking up the wrong tree.

An example of this is the rise of David Icke.  He is more popular than ever. I quite like David Icke.  Really.  I don’t think he’s a bad person, but I think his theories are wrong.   Even a cursory examination of what constitutes evidence for many of his theories, parsing his arguments, leads to rejection of them on the grounds of consistency and lack of evidence.  But there exists a situation today whereby those with undeveloped ideas of what constitutes evidence, and lacking critical thinking skills, are led to David Icke and his kind.   Many young people with legitimate scepticism of government post-Iraq/post-Blair/post-Bush  are ambling into the hands of 9/11 conspiracy theories, people like David Icke.  Much in the same way many hippies were led down blind alleys by religion, drug culture, and ill thought out ideologies.

In an ideal world books like Carl Sagan’s The Demon-Haunted World and Darrell Huff’s How to Lie With Statistics would be mandatory secondary school reading material.  If I had the free cash I would by a few thousand copies of each and  give them away.   A basic understanding of statistics and basic critical thinking skills are essential for understanding the modern world and essential for positive changes.  Otherwise people act with scant regard to evidence which, as has been proven time and time again, leads to very bad things indeed.  In an ideal world the revolution would be everyone being able to think critically.  Scepticism minus critical thinking equals wasted energy.

Celebrity news is thought to attract viewers.  Does it represent a net gain in viewers, or temporary gains?    How loyal is an audience attracted by the saga of Britney Spears?  Can main-stream news channels compete with dedicated celebrity news outlets?  Has diversification in the name of popularity increased or decreased viewing figures for all channels that have gone down that route?  Is there an niche for news channels that  provide quality analysis of important news?  Is it possible to diversify to the point that what distinguishes a news channel is gone?  Do Perez Hilton and TMZ do a better job at covering the minutiae of celebrity news than CNN or the BBC?  What happens when they, and entities like Heat Magazine, get their own digital television channels?