subreddit
stringclasses 11
values | text
stringlengths 246
28.5k
|
|---|---|
technology
|
That reminds me of graduation when they shook down kids at the school before we left to the stadium and we had to come back after to get them. SO many people couldn't meet up with their parents after the ceremony ended because they couldn't contact them. Just imagine hundreds of graduates having to return back to the high school instead of immediately going to graduation parties. The principals' cars all got vandalized that night.
|
technology
|
I only went off once when a teacher tried to take my phone. Lady, I text my mum throughout the day about important things. I have a special needs younger sibling, and I had two regular kids I looked after, like actual fuck if you think you're saying something more important than the duty of care I have over those kids and receiving updates regarding them, or hearing that arrangements at home have changed or I'm needed. Get your head out of your actual entire ass.
I'm all for paying attention in school and respecting educators and stuff but an authoritarian approach and a pedagogy of poverty isn't conducive to anyone's best interests. And sometimes there are just more important things going on than you. The vapid gape when I'd take a call from home and step outside quietly, it was like I'd spat in her face.
Kids aren't always just hurrr durr Instagram. They work, they have extenuating home circumstances, they *exist in a world where interpersonal connection and accessibility are an integral part of their fucking lives*.
|
technology
|
We weren't allowed electronics either but if they were found during a search (we were never directly searched FOR them, it was only if the search was being done for other reasons) then teachers ignored the fact they were there. That is because they technically didn't catch you with it or found it by accident.
Otherwise if they saw it because of your own fault then you got a 3 hour Saturday detention.
|
technology
|
The school I teach at have a blanket ban on mobile phones. Students can either leave them at home or deposit them in the office on their way in, the sanctions for having a phone on you at any time during the day are harsh.
Conversely, I trained at a school that not only allows students to have their phones on them all day, but actively encourages teachers to use them as an educational tool for research and as a mechanism for praise, allowing students who are working on longer tasks to listen to music while they worked quietly, for example.
During my PGCE, I developed a system using QR codes that link to school-hosted files which students scanned using Snapchat from the projector. Rather than having to print hand outs each lesson students would read the information from their phones. The printing budget for the department effectively halved.
I'm currently working on an Augmented Reality solution I can use to embed homework and other reminders into an image unique to each class, allowing parents and students the ability to see class requirements by pointing and clicking on an app. As well as this, I'm working on a set of lessons that *heavily* use AR to embed videos, images and other interactive media into the classroom walls themselves. I'm hoping to use this to influence school policy on technology by either allowing phones in class (cheaper, but could cause behavioural issues), or invest in a tablet programme where families can "pay off" the tablet over a number of years (more expensive but grants far more control).
Technology is the future of education and instead of stiffling a teacher's ability to bring these programs into place just to avoid possible behavioural issues, we should be teaching students to be responsible with their technology.
Don't punish kids for using technology, punish them for using it unwisely.
|
technology
|
Listen, it doesn't have to be a fight between arts and other shit. This teacher is clearly making use of a tool that students already have anyways, and in the process reducing their departments expenses. If more teachers impliment this sort of thing, it might help to free up some money for arts. It isn't a dichotomy. Of "give arts money or give everyone else money." And if you're angry, be angry at administrators.
|
technology
|
> Technology is the future of education and instead of stiffling a teacher's ability to bring these programs into place just to avoid possible behavioural issues, we should be teaching students to be responsible with their technology.Don't punish kids for using technology, punish them for using it unwisely.
This is the way forward, and it's unfortunate that older teachers are bringing about changes like this. The education system is still stuck in the colonial age, this will just make things worse before they get better. Not many people understand this, however.
|
technology
|
This this this this.
This ban is regressive. When I was in school there was a no phones policy, but since then the head of the IT and Computing department did a lot of work to encourage the use of phones in learning. It’s like banning gum - if you ban gum kids just sneak it and stick it under the table rather than being honest with it and spitting into the bin. With phones, it just means they’ll use them on the down-low rather than utilising them to learn
|
technology
|
Sounds very cool, and I agree. Punishing people for using tech just makes them less able to use it intelligently in the future. Schools really do need to understand how to move away from the black/whiteboard when they are archaic for certain subjects.
Why teach music theory or mathematics entirely on a board when there are now interactive tools (like Desmos for math) online that take a lot of the guessing and memorization out of things.
|
technology
|
Disclaimer: I am a developer myself and the furthest thing from a Luddite.
However, I feel your augmented reality thing is a perfect example of people trying to shoehorn technology into the classroom because it's "the future" without there being any actual benefit.
How is embedding videos and images into the walls better than just providing a website? One drains battery and requires the kids to point their phone at a wall, and the other doesn't. Now, what *would* be a good use of AR is in a physics classroom where students could adjust variables of a 3D catapult and watch the equations and behavior change in real-time to better understand the relationships between the variables.
My younger brother's high school gave them all rental iPads and he said it became an excuse for the teachers not to teach more than anything else.
|
technology
|
This is a bit idealistic, we were told nonstop to not use our phones for distracting things or at all, and it never stopped anyone. Just think of this if it were applied:
"Your phone can do Excel! Your phone can be a calculator!" A phone is made for communication and games/social media, no way this whole "teach them how to use it wisely" will work.
Everytime tech has been used to enhance a class, it has been awkward or useless (like Smartboards, where half my classes just became frigging PowerPoint presentations). Education has worked analog for hundreds of years, and if the teachers and education system is good, it will be better. Not to sound old (im in my twenties and graduated just as tablets and Smartboards were being installed in class), but tech in class has only been a distraction throughout all my education. But I respect your initiative to include it in new ways, hopefully it works out. I just believe class should be an escape from tech like phones and tablets, since our lives are saturated by then outside the classroom.
|
technology
|
Why?
I own over one hundred kindle books. I have had two spine surgeries. The most painful thing to move are books. So I don’t move physical books anymore.
Plus I’m usually reading three or four books at once. I have Kindle app on my phone, so I can read if I have a few minutes of downtime here and there. Oil change? Read a book. Subway? Read a book. Airport? Read a book.
Plus instant delivery of a great many amazing works of literature almost anywhere that I can get an internet connection.
I don’t understand the paper book snobbery. The divide isn’t between people who read paper and people who read E, but between people who read books and people who don’t.
Stop being pretentious.
|
technology
|
In one scenario, students are provided a link to a video and watch it.
In the other, students have to point their phone camera at a specific marker on a wall, which pops up the video and they stand there and watch it.
How does the second "foster imagination and creativity" more than the first? You're using the same buzzwords people use to justify letting kids play Fortnite for eight hours a day, when reading a book can provide the same imaginative benefits without the risk of addiction. Like I said, there are real applications that actually do provide benefits, but just saying "it's technology! It's good for creativity!" does nothing.
|
technology
|
You say it's idealistic, but I've seen it in action. Students who are distracted by their phones are just as distracted by everything else in their environment. I'm not claiming it's the answer to everything, but I'm absolutely claiming behaviour doesn't get worse, it's just different.
You seem to think I'd expect students to use their phones every lesson? That's just not true. They're allowed to use them as stopwatches during experiments, take photos of their homework deadlines, take photos of their lab setup to remind them when doing write up's as homework, scan QR codes to download documents or open specific links I want them to read, manipulate 3D models of molecules they would otherwise never be able to see... Each of these activities are fit for purpose and students enjoy having their own personal device to do it with. It's about giving them the ability to explore, rather than being fed information.
As to your point about smartboards, that's entirely down to teaching practices. A poor teacher with a smartboard and PowerPoint is no better than a teacher who throws a textbook and a page number to their students, but a great teacher can use technology to inspire and grow intrest.
|
technology
|
It's tricky.
The main driving force behind students not messing around on their phones was almost self-driven. As every student had their phone all day, and breaking the rules about phone use meant your phone was confiscated for the entire day, students didn't want to be the only one without a phone at break and lunch.
When I have students on laptops or on the PCs, we had an incredible peice of software called Imperio. It would give me a live feed of everyone's desktop and I could remotely take over their computer, switch off their internet access, log them off, send them messages... a whole bunch of things. Since they knew they were being watched, they just got on with it most of the time.
As for keeping them focused it was basically down to training. They'd open the document, then they wouldn't need to touch their phones except to slide the page up... A student was messing around? I confiscated their phone. Problem solved. We used them for a lot of novel things too that they enjoyed, Kahoot was a MASSIVE motivator that we used a lot, (and since you can print off results afterwards it looks awesome in your record keeping!), we used Mel for molecular models, some simple AR stuff from time to time... If the kids didn't have their phones, they didn't take part.
|
technology
|
Give me an affordable option where students can do more complicated things like that and I'm an instant customer. The only options that I know of are very simple, I can embed small files, youtube videos, some 3D animations onto a unique background, but that's about it.
The way I see it, without support for these technologies when theyre budding, the companies that devlop it will have less resources to grow and provide more powerful tools for an affordable price.
What people don't seem to understand about teaching is that novelty goes a long way in keeping students intrested. Yes, I could show the classroom a video about a topic on the projector then work through a series of tasks with them, or I could embed those tasks and videos in different locations around the room, get the students mobile and let them explore the tasks on their own at their own pace.
I can embed very simple 3D models of certain molecules (water, ammonia, salt) onto a picture printed on a playing card size peice of paper, and give a small deck of these cards to each student to take home.
Instead of printing 30 A4 copies of the homework for a class, I can embed the Word document into a small card that they can take home and download their work from. I could issue the class with a unique logo at the start of the year, and simply update the embedded document when their new homework is set.
As with any new technology or innovation in the classroom bad teachers will use it to teach lazily, but this has always been the case. Before technology, crappy teachers gave out textbooks and a page number from which you worked for an hour... Bad teachers will always find ways to be bad.
These tools aren't for them, they're for those of us who want to make teaching cheaper, interactive and inspiring.
|
technology
|
My favourite online tool I've found so far is this [interactive circuit building simulator](https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/html/circuit-construction-kit-dc/latest/circuit-construction-kit-dc_en.html). I teach the students the basics of what series and parallel circuits are then order the school tablets and give them an entire lesson to explore using that simulation tool. They need to report back the next lesson about what they learned about voltage, current and resistance.
It would honestly blow most peoples god damn minds what 11-14 year olds can figure out on their own when you give them an environment where they can safely set stuff on fire haha!
|
technology
|
Honestly, this isn't an age thing, it's a symptom of the educational system being fucked up (UK perspective btw, but likely similar for the rest of the world).
Budgets are minimal, staffing is typically the bare minimum, time is limited and the job is exhausting. With this in mind, there's 3 kinds of teachers.
The first just want to teach their kids and go home. These guys know the curriculum well and will teach like the National Curriculum is a checklist rather than a foundation. They'll use standard pedagogical practises to get the message across and pray for a snow day. These are your typical "Teaching for 20 years" kind of teachers in their 40's-50's.
The second kind are carear focused. These guys are obsessed with the ladder and payscale, jumping at any opportunity to appease the hierarchy for a chance at that department head, head of year or house manager position. They're usually in their early 30's and have been blocking anyone else from climing the ladder for a good few years.
The third love to teach. They fucking live it and far too many burn out INSANELY fast. There's so many people in this catagory that had to quit the profession after 3 to 5 years because they gave everything, but the profession gave nothing back. If the system didn't absolutely choak the life out of people until they're ready to cut corners and do the minimum to stay sane, the entire education system would be drowning in this kind of teacher, and it would be infinitely better for it. Unfortunately, too many of these teachers who stay in the profession, become the first kind of teacher after time.
Most people think it's the first type that stiffle innovation, but that's simply not true. If you have a new method that's simpler and less work, they'll jump on it in an instant. It's the SECOND kind of teacher that stiffle things. They have the Governers to answer too and league tables to consider and can't take risks as it could reflect badly on their careers. The guys fucking it up aren't the oldies, it's the careerists.
|
technology
|
Well, you're the teacher so I suppose you'd know what works. I was mostly speaking from my own experience where I just wanted to get through the class and haaaaated when teachers added interactive shit like this because it just made an activity that should have taken 5 minutes take three times as long for no real gain in knowledge.
> Give me an affordable option where students can do more complicated things like that and I'm an instant customer
Working on it :P
|
technology
|
That's the way I see things going, but as it stands, some students still aren't able to access technology or the internet at home, so it's not quite time for a complete transfer to digital just yet. But there's hope...
A school near mine has an absolutely brilliant scheme in place whereby families can pay off the cost of a brand new tablet over the 5 year period that students attend the school, reducing an up front cost of hundreds of pounds to a few pound a month. Once they leave school, the tablet is theirs to keep. The uptake is roughly 85% last time I enquired, and that's been growing over the years.
Teaching will always involve writing, it's an incredibly important skill we need to ensure students have, but I absolutely agree, it'll be a great time when students no longer need to take anything physical home with them from school (Well... for most subjects anyway).
|
technology
|
Just off the top of my head:
- cloud-based resources like textbooks or notes can be accessed from anywhere, cannot be lost or destroyed, can be more easily searched through, can include audio and video files, and are even easier to adapt for students with visual impairments
- services like Kahoot encourage students to compete for a high score (hijacking human nature to drive classroom engagement), and by giving rewards to the highest scorers, teachers can use it to incentivize students to study
- technology-based teaching tools can determine a student's weak points and automatically gear their content to better suit different learning profiles (*and* can inform the teacher about these things so they better know what needs to be focused on in class)
- technology exists in the real world in a way it never used to, and to deny students the opportunity to gain experience using it in their day-to-day life for the sake of tradition would be really fucking stupid (example: focusing on memorizing information rather than gathering and processing it, in a world where information is never far)
- gamification in schools emphasizes perseverance and the importance of failure in learning, while the traditional school model punishes failure and directly focuses on getting it right the first time
- even subjects like music can benefit from technology, where students could use MIDI tracks to explore how changing the instruments can make the same music sound totally different, or how a key change can impact a song's mood, or hell, even let a kid who lacks the dexterity to play an instrument the ability to explore and experiment with songwriting (as someone with terrible finger independence who can only play the drums competently, I literally could not write music if not for technology in my life)
Long story short: technology is a tool. If you don't use it effectively, of course you get nothing out of it. But it can (AND DOES) do so much to help people learn, so long as you find the right way to incorporate it. One of the most important ways it does this is through interactivity. As Ben Franklin said, “Tell me and I forget, teach me and I may remember, involve me and I learn.”
|
technology
|
Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is a vast difference between "Buy everyone tablets and cut another departments budget", which you clearly suffered, and "let me use a students own mobile phone as a teaching tool", which I advocated for.
The system of helping to finance families purchasing a tablet through the school did focus on cheap android tablets and was a scheme which targeted Pupil Premium (financially disadvanted) students, thereby granting them access to technology that they don't have at home. Other students either brought their tablet outright, which were cheaper through the school as they were sourced in bulk, or they brought in their own.
As for an evidence base for bringing technology into the classroom, I ensure you that anyone could make a research based argument for or against its use, as could someone researching additional funding to the arts over STEM subjects.
|
technology
|
Nooot really the case in EU
Unless their guardians ban internet at home (which doesn't even sound 100% legal in the long run, as it can be considered to hinder their development), pretty much everyone in the richer countries of EU has access to the internet.
Even here, one of the least developed EU members, only kids without internet access are from families with serious issues (alcoholism, drugs, violence, the usual) and from small villages (which are kind of full of religious extremists atm, so beware)
|
technology
|
Because I'm not sure what the "different perspective" you're providing is. It's the same information but in a less accessible medium.
In poster form, a student can look at a clearly visible 5' x 3' periodic table all class if they want to. Hell, I memorized the entire thing during chemistry.
In AR form, a student needs to have their phone out, aim it at the wall, and then squint at it on their 6" x 3" screen, possibly while it jitters around depending on how well it was coded.
There is no benefit from such a thing. "Different ways/perspective" != "different medium". If the period table was interactive and let you tap on each element to view a 3D representation of the element and see the elements it most frequently bonds with and what those relationships look like, then that is something I am very much behind. But 99% of the time, a teacher implementing something like this is not a developer who knows how to do any of that and so the end result is literally just a worse periodic table that does nothing but waste class time.
|
technology
|
No like you don't understand. Single parent working at McDonald's for minimum wage, paying off a house and feeding two kids with no help because dad disappeared. Our food options were canned soup, bluegill caught from the nearby lake, or crawfish from the neighbor's creek. No welfare because the nearest office was two hours away. It does not get any poorer than that.
*We still had the 30 bucks a month that internet costed.*
|
technology
|
Really fair answer. I must say the uses the you put forth though didnt seem as educational as they seemed practical, like a QR code scanner or taking pictures of homework deadlines. That to me is totally normal and reasonable in today's age.
I get what you're saying about kids being distracted either way, but I do think tech is distracting by nature, so including it is, to me, always going to cause more of a distraction and allow kids who already have problems focusing have even more difficulty listening.
But I think we've totally found common ground! Thanks for the discussion and I wish you the best in your teaching!
|
technology
|
I personally use my phone in biology to research whatever random point that comes up, do past paper questions after I'm done writing notes, looking at the syllabus. I wish my other teachers were as receptive as it would help with the dullness of classes.
If I was a teacher, though, I would not let them use phones as most of my peers just end up texting, browsing instagram, and I browse reddit sometimes as well. It's really hard to moderate this. They take less issue with computers so I've been considering saving up for a ultrabook.
|
technology
|
11-15 year Olds are never going to get responsible with technology. If you trained as a teacher you know that their brains simply aren't developed enough to consider long term consequence and ignore short term gratification.
Obviously technology is the future of education, but there's no reason to allow phones over laptops or tablets. Laptops are widely used, can be 'rented' out by the school for minimal money, can be wiped at the end of the day and accessed by cloud and we have control over what's on them.
Not to mention in college they'll use a laptop anyway to take notes and whatnot.
We can never make AR widespread in class unless teachers become coders or people teach the same lessons. Though it'd be interesting as a tool.
|
technology
|
You can be. I failed my pre-ap bio class freshman year because the teacher made a majority of our homework internet/computer dependent. She assumed that everyone had a computer at home and internet. She also said that we could go to the school library before class or the public library and that if we couldn't complete the assignments then it was our fault.
My didn't have a computer or a car. I would've had to walked around 6 miles from my home to the library multiple times a week to finish the assignments. This is ignoring times when my mom would flip and not allow us to go to certain places because" God told her."
Tldr: Not everyone can go to a library often. Accessibility to a public library is also a problem for people who can't afford internet access at home. Not everyone can travel to a library multiple times a week for assignments. It can be a burden on working parent(s) and it could put students in a situation where they either fail or are forced to take many steps that other students wouldn't have to take in order to do complete the same assignments.
|
technology
|
Not everyone can afford 30 bucks a month internet. Also, why punish the children? Their academic success would be even more hindered if they're in a household where internet is inaccessible.
I grew up in a single mother household too. My mother didn't work though. She received a monthly check from the government because of her disability. She suffered from schizophrenia and other mental illnesses. She couldn't budget to save her life and had a severe addiction to cigarettes. We had no car, barely any food at times, and no access to internet besides "having a cellphone" at times.
You're assuming that your form of poverty was and is the same to everyone else's. I'm not claiming that everyone can't afford internet if they're poor, I'm just bringing up how my family couldn't when I was younger. I'm moreso saying that you shouldn't scoff at the idea of someone's family not being able to have internet at home because your family did. Those $30s could be a significant amount of money to others in poverty.
|
technology
|
There's services online that make AR pretty accessible, check out Layar.
In a perfect world (for me at least) , students would have tablets they could dock into keyboards to do long form typing tasks, laptops are clunky for a lot of use cases in the classroom. Phones, for me, are a stop gap until tablets/laptops/PCs are standard in classrooms. They're absolutely not the best option, but they're an affordable option that most students have.
As for behaviour, in my experience, having them in class doesn't make behaviour worse, it's just changes the way in which bad students misbehave.
|
technology
|
You aren't really arguing against anything said in the prior comment. The comment focused on how your experience in poverty isn't the same as everyone else's experience in poverty. It was meant to try to show you a different perspective.
You instead went on a rant that started by saying something about a 10 yo with free time and a will to live should be able to afford a $30 internet service. Its not clear what you're trying to get across to the rest. Are you saying that the kid should work to get money for the internet plan?
You also say that if the situation is that bad that the child(Ren) should be removed from the household. This is a quick, simple "solution" to a complex problem. Simply removing the child from the situation doesn't fix the problem. It creates new ones. Like, how to manage the child after it's in the custody of the state, whether to give the child to a relative, and what to do with the parent(s). $30 might break the bank but the parent(s) may be able to feed their child using SNAP/TANF. Also, some people in poverty would view internet access as a non-necessity. If they're really poor, they wouldn't have a computer at home. They also might not want to spend extra money on home internet when they likely have a cellphone with internet connection.
You're oversimplifying a complex problem and suggesting rather drastic measures as solutions. Would you feel the same way if someone suggested that your mom should've lost custody of you and your siblings because you lived in poverty. You brought up how you are an extremely limited diet in a prior post. You said that your mom worked at McDonald's. If someone suggested that because your mom worked, what I can assume, a low paying job and that you had a diet that wasn't balanced that you should be removed from her home, would you support that statement?
|
technology
|
I'm saying that thirty dollars ain't shit. I'm saying that thirty dollars can only actually feed a child for like three days tops, so if your money is that tight you shouldn't have children. Thirty dollars will buy one and a half pair of cheap shoes that wear out in a month.
We caught our own dinner because we lived in the country. We weren't forced to, we did it to help our mom out because she taught us the importance of saving. The 8-year-old logic we followed was "food is expensive, so if we get our own food = better christmas."
Yeah if our mom actually couldn't feed us there would have been a problem, but it was never that dire.
|
technology
|
No. The teacher just shrugged it off. I ended up with an F in the class and a 5 on the EOC(5 being the highest one can score on the EOC and a 1 being the lowest). She called the parents of students who missed assignments periodically but she only called my mom once. The call went horribly wrong. She never brought it up but my mom probably had a moment on the phone. She said that she told the the lady that God had some weird ass purpose for me in the class and she also tried converting her Christianity. My teacher was an atheist. I don't know what exactly went down but I never got another call home because of missing assignments after that. It was a pretty crappy year that was followed by a crazy sophomore year and summer.
What happened to me wouldn't likely happen now. The school district now supplies every student with Chromebooks and most assignment allow for them to complete it offline. Also, I believe that there's a free internet service available to those who are in government benefits in my area too.
|
technology
|
It was a regular, public school. added the part about my mom trying to convert to Christianity as one of the potential reasons why she hadn't called her or tried talking to her.
This story sort of reminds me of how my history teacher refused to believe me when I said I have no baby picture or practically any photos from my childhood during that time. It was for some bs project and she said that she was going to give anyone who didn't bring one in a bad grade for it.
|
technology
|
I didn't have easy access to a computer from around 3rd/4th grade to 11th grade. We "moved" around(our city) and the places that we did stay at weren't close to the library. It was a couple mile walk most of the time. I used to ride to the library on a bike when I had one. I would say that the crappiness of the school depends on the area. The school that I attended for my freshman year was pretty far from my house and in a pretty well off community. They likely didn't have students who suffered with problems like that as much as schools in low income areas. I knew how to use a computer during middle and high school. In middle school, we had a couple computer centered classes. There were portable laptop carts. Most of the work we did on computers would be completed in class either on that day or it would be spread across multiple days. The middle school was an F school and filled with over 90% minority students. It did have some nice programs. I remember building stuff in woodshop, we had to design our own homes in AutoCAD and print it out and make the 3d design in real life.
In highschool(freshman year), I got my office specialist certification (don't have the physical certificates with me now though). Other classes used computers but most didn't allow students to work on work for other classes.
We moved and I ended up in a highschool in a pretty poor area( different county). The area only had one high school and a significant amount of the students had parents who were either farm workers or farm migrant workers. The quality of the education wasn't the best but the teachers were far more understanding of the situation that many students were in. The library was still a couple miles away but most of the time we didn't have to do internet heavy things. I also had a phone during the time and I used to just use it for looking at videos, writing word documents, and etc when I needed to.
I wasn't technologically illiterate. I just didn't have any at home.
|
technology
|
Hello, french guy here.
While it has indeed been widely reported by some media outlets (even french ones), this really needs some nuances !
First of all, here's the law in french modified yesterday (the infamous "new law") ([source](https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006071191&idArticle=LEGIARTI000022494861)) :
>L'utilisation d'un téléphone mobile ou de tout autre équipement terminal de communications électroniques par un élève est interdite dans les écoles maternelles, les écoles élémentaires et les collèges et pendant toute activité liée à l'enseignement qui se déroule à l'extérieur de leur enceinte, à l'exception des circonstances, notamment les usages pédagogiques, et des lieux dans lesquels le règlement intérieur l'autorise expressément.
>Dans les lycées, le règlement intérieur peut interdire l'utilisation par un élève des appareils mentionnés au premier alinéa dans tout ou partie de l'enceinte de l'établissement ainsi que pendant les activités se déroulant à l'extérieur de celle-ci.
>Le présent article n'est pas applicable aux équipements que les élèves présentant un handicap ou un trouble de santé invalidant sont autorisés à utiliser dans les conditions prévues au chapitre Ier du titre V du livre III de la présente partie.
>La méconnaissance des règles fixées en application du présent article peut entraîner la confiscation de l'appareil par un personnel de direction, d'enseignement, d'éducation ou de surveillance. Le règlement intérieur fixe les modalités de sa confiscation et de sa restitution.
Translated to the best of my abilities, and with some online help (mostly [Linguee](https://www.linguee.com/english-french)) :
>The use of mobile phone or other communication device by a student is forbidden in preschool/kindergarten, primary/elementary school, secondary/middle school and during all educational activities outside the school, except for cases and places where internal rules expressively allow it, chiefly educational uses.
>In high school, internal regulations can ban student from using such devices in all or parts of the school, as well as during activities outside of the school.
>This article is not applicable to the authorized devices of disabled students on conditions provided by the Chapter 1, Title 5 of the Book 3 of this part.
>Ignorance of this rule may lead to the confiscation of the device by a member of the direction, educational team, or supervisor staff. Internal rules shall set out in greater details modalities of confiscation and restitution.
All right, so that's the "new law".
Previously and since 2010, the law said this ([source](https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do;jsessionid=4EC0D5E4C1DB575809A42328B3E8B86F.tplgfr28s_1?idArticle=LEGIARTI000022494861&cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006071191&categorieLien=id&dateTexte=20180805)) :
>Dans les écoles maternelles, les écoles élémentaires et les collèges, l'utilisation durant toute activité d'enseignement et dans les lieux prévus par le règlement intérieur, par un élève, d'un téléphone mobile est interdite.
>In preschool, primary and secondary school, during all educational activities and in all places stated by the school's internal regulations, student's mobile phone use is forbidden.
And I can remember that even before that, teachers were already confiscating phones because well... It was their classroom, their rules you know ? So the "new law" doesn't change anything really, beside expressively stating that teachers are allowed to confiscate the phones like they were already doing anyway. We french people just enjoy having convoluted law about everything :)
This story really isn't one. It's the story of a inreasingly rejected government masterfully using the back-to-school season and the media to make us forget that our reasonably popular Environment Minister (previous journalist, writer and environmentalist TV host) [Nicolas Hulot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Hulot) just resigned during a moving [speech](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJZa90g9WSk), live on the national radio France Inter. He said he felt like he failed at his mission, that he couldn't possibly win that fight alone against the industrials lobbies. Criticized by other environmentalist for participating in a ultra-liberal government, unsupported by the people, and of course with no help from his own government and colleagues (naming the Minister of Agriculture for example),who are, indeed, strongly in favor of an unchecked capitalist economy no matter the cost to the environment.
So *that's* uncomfortable for everyone right ? In the country who was so proud of hosting the COP21, our own Envirenment Minister just gave up, and it's because of every single one of us. I guess I'love to talk about phones at school too if I was french, maybe even writing a way too long comment on the subject ?
(Massive edit after someone asked for sources, and I figured I might as well do thing properly)
|
technology
|
Larger schools in the UK have them (mine didn't - you were sent to the head of year, deputy headteacher, or headteacher if you did something particularly bad) - I think a decent translation would be 'pastoral staff'.
[For example](https://www.tes.com/jobs/vacancy/pastoral-support-assistant-bakewell-1107314?utm_campaign=google_jobs_apply&utm_source=google_jobs_apply&utm_medium=organic)
Smaller schools may have a senior teacher who is also head of pastoral care or discipline.
Edit: And you're right! That pay is horrendously low, and is only paid term-time (so starts at £16k!) - teachers are normally paid for the whole year.
|
technology
|
I don't remember exactly, it's been a long time since I attended elementary school. We had pretty short breaks (5-15 minutes). I think every day there was one teacher chosen to walk into classes during breaks to check if everything is OK, but not everyone was that responsible. Parents could optionally pay for kind of after school care (I don't know how to explain it in english. Basically there were people paid specifically to supervise children after school (or before school).) I don't remember how lunch breaks worked, but it would probably differ from school to school.
|
technology
|
You are probably right, especially in the case of Spencer. However after the initial fervor on the left over the victory of getting Jones and Spencer removed quiets down some right wing figure would rise up to take their place in the cycle of twitter bullshit.
What it's going to take to kill off twitter is getting to the point where either side wins. They wouldn't know what to do with themselves.
|
technology
|
That movie was a bit of a mess in that sense. They took two different characters - Joe Chill; the thug who killed Thomas and Martha Wayne and the nameless schlubb who would become the Joker - and mashed them together. In the version of the Joker's origin story which that movie borrowed from, he wasn't even a career criminal; just a guy who owed some money to the mob. They told him "We're robbing this chemical plant's safe after hours. We're going to dress you up like a super villain so that if any cops or anyone sees us, they'll assume you're the real threat and go after you instead of us." He was repaying his debt to the mob by acting as a hapless decoy. The young and inexperienced Batman took the bait and chased the guy in the costume until he tripped and fell into the chemical vat, whereupon he became absurdly disfigured. Batman would spend the rest of his life cursing himself for that rookie mistake on his part and all the lives it would ultimately cost.
|
technology
|
This is true. Notice I actually didn't list Spencer in my original comment nor did I edit my comment.
/u/Knappsterbot is absolutely correct that Twitter would be fine if Spencer was removed. I'd think it would be a better place.
However it should be acknowledged that most right-wing Americans are not Nazis or white supremacists. While they are often targeted by these groups for recruitment, one affiliation does not imply the other. Twitter was a failing social network before 2016 came around and the Trump craze began. If it wasn't for Trump and the various anti-Trump influencers on Twitter the site would have died out long ago.
My point is, Twitter has to try to pander to the losing side to keep both sides on their website, because it's purpose as a universal battleground is the only thing keeping it alive. I'm not trying to imply opposing Nazis is a partisan issue.
|
technology
|
I guess to actually establish your theory in any way, you'd have to use some kind of third party that demonstrates the numbers of people who are anti-Trump, pro-Trump, then correlate their posts with some kind of vector of hostility and toxicity and relate it in very strict terms to the monetary value of twitter stock, whilst also taking into account the fact that there's not an insignificant amount of bots and trolls which only exist to amplify the negative opinions of other people and don't really use the site in an authentic way.
Do you have that kind of data?
|
technology
|
No one is saying that every right wing person should be taken off Twitter. If you espouse white nationalist views and rhetoric then you should get kicked off. If you're just right wing then you're fine. The fact that you automatically conflate calls for removing white nationalist with removal of right wing figures is telling though, because it's not insane to say that the two are inextricably linked at the moment.
|
technology
|
Oh, yeah, in the years since, it's haunted him constantly. He considers it his first truly unforgiveable error as Batman, and has at times obsessed over it. I remember an issue where he was just poring over the chemical composition of the stuff in that vat for what was reportedly the hundredth time, observing that there was no chemical way it ought to have had the effects that it did; that it ought just to have killed the man. Just one more unaccountable detail of that night that he can't let go of.
|
technology
|
The Joker is a really unreliable narrator, he could simply be lying in these versions of the story.
The comic in-question that this origin story came from was a one-shot, not an official canon story. So the events that happened during this comic are also only true for the series, The Killing Joke. In the comic, the Riddler calls in a favor from the Joker and reveals that he witnessed a murder that is important to the joker's past and true identity. Later we get a flashback narrated by the Joker. The Joker could be lying about the events and the information the Riddler has is only revealed to the Joker and not the reader. So we don't know for sure.
But this story, even though its just a one-shot, is the inspriation for many other iterations of the Joker. In Batman, the Brave and the Bold Cartoon, Batman travels to a parallel reality where the villains are the heroes and the heroes are the villains and has to help Lex Luthor and The Red Hood stop the Injustice League. The Red Hood is highly implied to be their universe's version of The Joker who underwent the same accident that made him look like Batman's Universe's Joker (The Next Episode was a continuation of the story in which Batman has to team up with the Joker to clear his name in his home universe when evil-batman has been commiting crimes using his identity). The Red Hood has made it's way into Detective Comics and the DC animated series canon as well was an old identity that may or may not have been the Joker's that gets taken up by the original Robin who's returned from the dead, pissed off and super edgey.
|
technology
|
I think the right-wing is fine in terms of platforms. In America, they control all levels of government, most of the major media corporations, the police and the military. Whatever they want to say, they say it.
My general rebuttal to this is, if you think that allowing someone to just speak their mind is the best way of combatting bad ideas, why do bad ideas exist in the first place?
|
technology
|
I guess my answer would be "kind of". There are opinions that mislead and take people in wrong directions that can still have data behind them, purely because the opinion infers things from the data that aren't supported.
For example, your opinion is that the price of twitter stock is a reflection of public sentiment toward the "battleground" nature of twitter as it is currently--that it started higher at 2015 and got lower until 2018 when it surged up again due to being more toxic or something. Now, the data does accord with the broad timeline of the price you've put out, but that doesn't affirm your position in anything more than a superficial way; it lends your opinion credibility, but your actual conclusion about *why* the stock price is lowered is completely unsubstantiated.
People who did a cursory look at your initial post would think that you had some kind of knowledge, but it was only after I asked you a few questions that you conceded that your opinion is essentially meaningless in that it's just one person's. But the superficial reading implies that your statement is truthful, and that's adequate for people who consume media completely uncritically to absorb and incorporate into their knowledge. That's enough to qualify as misinformation, in my mind: a statement with the veneer of truth that leads people to believe something that doesn't reflect reality based on one person's personal beliefs.
|
technology
|
What an interesting sounding question. First of all, I just want to tackle your first sentence.
I don't care how long you've been on twitter. What you're providing me with here is just some anecdote about time spent on a platform and how it's informed you, but I have no idea how you actually use it, nor is your sample size of how you use it ever going to be more than one. If I told you that I'd been using twitter since 2006 and that I had the exact opposite experience to you, who's right? It's a trick question, because it doesn't matter--one person on a platform of approximately 336 million monthly users doesn't provide any kind of useful information at all. The site has more monthly users than the entire US population. Would I ask a random person who's lived in America their entire lives to give me their opinion on the entire country and expect their opinion to be informed and fair? Of course not. I'd go to a number of experts and hear what they have to say.
But yeah, I think a lot of what people say on reddit could probably be classified as misinformation. I generally stick to the articles and then read the comments to see what people have to say about the issue, see if they have something interesting to add that I can read about that's part of the topic. It's when I see people like you, who are just saying whatever for some reason, that I get frustrated.
|
technology
|
> Samhallsnytt often publishes articles saying Sweden is under threat from Islam. In June, for example, it said a youth soccer tournament in the second-biggest city had banned pork as “haram” - or forbidden under Islamic law. The article is still online with the headline: “Islam is the new foundation of the Gothia Cup - pork proclaimed ‘haram’”.
Fact; The cup did in fact determine that it was better to not serve any pork at the event because of all the muslims attending. And pork is in fact "haram" for muslims. The mainstream media just doesn't appreciate the slant in which the articles are written in, but they are for the most part technically correct.
> A tournament organizer told the Dagens Nyheter newspaper that caterers had not served pork for more than 10 years for practical reasons
The practical reasons in this case are all the muslims attending.
/am Swedish.
|
technology
|
Gothia is an international competition with teams from all over the world. Its simply easier to focus on food most can eat. Not some "Sweden is under threat from Islam". Its not forbidden.
>The mainstream media just doesn't appreciate the slant in which the articles are written in, but they are for the most part technically correct.
Serious media fact checked the fake news. They were not technically correct, and they rarely are.
|
technology
|
**only checked 1 site to see if my observations were correct, might be wrong**
Also I believe Canada has a higher agriculture per capital than the US. Around double said one site, which might be wrong.
My step family is from Canada, and lived in a small city in Ontario. To get there we would pass all kind of farm land. So this doesn’t really surprise me all that much. Though, my own antidotal evidence is extremely limited and only speaks to a small part of a large country.
|
technology
|
I feel like it's more of a cultural thing. I've visited all the provinces in Canada. I was amazed at how many trucks there were in Alberta. I didn't find any new data, but I found that in 2006, 64% of all auto sales in Alberta were trucks! (http://www.moto123.com/imprimer_article.spy?artid=78694) It's almost over 6/10 vehicles. There are plenty of people there that work in the oil fields and on farms, but I really don't think it's 6.4/10 people. Other people buy big trucks, so you should get a big truck too. That's kind of the mentality. Manitoba is at 55% and Saskatchewan is at 64% too, by the way. In Quebec, for example, it's only 34%.
|
technology
|
That’s a bullshit way of defining Rural. Follow your link for the US and they define any thing not in an urban area as rural. But the urban areas they define are MSAs that go out for hours past the city itself.
According to the way they measure, almost every part of NC is “Urban” but in reality the vast majority of the state is actually rural, by any realistic measure.
https://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/metroarea/stcbsa_pg/Feb2013/cbsa2013_NC.pdf
Everything in that map in green is considered urban - there are huge huge swaths of that area that are extremely rural.
|
technology
|
Are you totally devoid of right and wrong? Doing a thing and being called evil for it is circular reasoning? Alex Jones pushed a gigantic lie and [his idiot supporters acted on it and harassed newtown families](http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-sandy-hook-conspiracy-20170203-story.html) and [Alex Jones never apologized, never told his supporters to not do that, he just kept up the charade and never backed down from it](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/alex-jones-megyn-kelly-interview-infowars-sandy-hook-parents-response-conspiracy-theories-a7786656.html). [He even denied he made those statements](https://www.politifact.com/texas/article/2018/apr/18/true-alex-jones-said-no-one-died-sandy-hook-elemen/). [He is now currently being sued by those families, which he is still defending](https://people.com/crime/sandy-hook-alex-jones-lawsuit-hearing/).
​
|
technology
|
Evil is either morally reprehensible, or a reflection of bad character.
Utilitarian ethical theory tell us that if your action causes more suffering than happiness, then it's immoral/unethical. Jones put more weight on his personal gains from controversy and limelight than the suffering caused to these victims by spreading these conspiracies.
Altruism gives a similar result, but is harsher since that ethical doctrine omits personal gain.
Even in consequentialism, the ends must justify the means. We have yet to see good come out of this.
You could also say Jones is evil by his character. He instills fear for personal gain. When he was pushing "Pizzagate," [he persuaded a North Carolina man to show up at a Washington, DC pizza restaurant with an AR-15](https://www.businessinsider.com/httpsmiccomarticles180640pizzagate-shooter-gets-4-year-prison-sentence-lawyers-urged-judge-to-deter-vigilantism8nvrpa14b).
When he lies about evidence, he tries to cause people to doubt their reality, trading journalism for dogma. This is considered bad in society because it causes unnecessary suffering. Also, cognitive dissonance caused by conflicting "realities" is suffering.
Tl;dr I would call him evil on all counts.
Edit: Added the gun to the link.
|
technology
|
Alright I looked it up. I also found this landmark case in my cursory search; Yates v. United States 1957, which concluded that to violate the Smith Act, one must encourage others to take some action, not simply hold or assert beliefs.
As far as I know Alex Jones was doing more than just asserting his beliefs, but also encouraging violent and/or seditious acts, which would not be protected under the first amendment. This is not my field of expertise so someone please correct me if I'm mistaken!
It's a fine line I'm sure, but these are companies that I'm sure have it reserved in their TOS to remove those they deem break the rules.
|
technology
|
Please link to OED as it contradicts you.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/toilet
toilet
NOUN
1. A fixed receptacle into which a person may urinate or defecate, typically consisting of a large bowl connected to a system for flushing away the waste into a sewer.
‘Liz heard the toilet flush’
‘he got up to go to the toilet’
as modifier ‘a toilet seat’
1.1 A room, building, or cubicle containing a toilet or toilets.
‘a public toilet’
as modifier ‘someone pushed at the toilet door’
|
technology
|
Yes, I would “waste” time arguing with anybody. These are human beings bro, these are people with families, they were children once, they have dreams and struggle just like the rest of us. This people have done nothing to you, they just see the world differently than you and because of that you cast them from society? YOU are the problem with society, you segregate and disown entire segments of the population because they have different experiences. You are everything that you claim to be fighting against. You are a bigot.
|
technology
|
>These are human beings bro, these are people with families, they were children once, they have dreams and struggle just like the rest of us.
Sorry, I thought right here you were referring to the families of the Newtown victims who have been harassed by Jones and his followers to the point where they have filed a federal lawsuit against him, and many of which had to change names and move because Jones repeatedly called into question the validity of their own children dying.
My bad.
|
technology
|
That’s where I disagree. These platforms are so large that exclusion from them can result in economic burden and obviously silencing of ones voice. These forums are so large that they will undoubtedly be recognized as “public squares” in the coming years. That’s the argument I make.
And why would we want anybody banned from these places when it’s as easy as just blocking them if you don’t want to hear what they have to say?
|
technology
|
Letting kicked out of a restaurant isn’t the same as getting kicked off twitter. A restaurant means you go to the next restaurant to eat.
Getting kicked off of twitter can pose economic hardship and the loss of ones platform. Twitter serves hundreds of millions of people (Facebook as well and others) and removing somebody’s presence on one of these is sure to go against the Sherman act in coming years.
|
technology
|
Because they violated twitters’ ToS. That alone will get anyone banned.
They may be large enough and widely used enough that anyone not able to use it is at a severe disadvantage. The fact remains these aren’t government regulated sites. If in a few years they are then yea, banning people would be considered a violation of rights. But for now, Twitter has every right to block someone from their site, much like you and I have a right to not allow certain people on our property.
|
technology
|
The example you provided in no way touches upon the economic loss or the platform that I illustrated. My argument is that twitter and other large platforms are public squares which we have specific laws regarding.
Once something gets as big as twitter and Facebook they need to play by different rules. I am in no way saying they are currently violating laws- I am saying thats where I see this going once law catches up to technology.
|
technology
|
That’s twitter’s decision to enforce it though. Why would you want the government to control all social media? That sounds super dangerous. What you’re talking about is more in line with allowing censorship than the current model.
Since we’re getting into the “what if” territory, imagine the us government run by a predominately conservative christian body. Now imagine they have control over every piece of social media, reddit included. Think about that for a second.
That’s honestly more likely to happen than the government swooping in to save its citizens from being banned “unlawfully” by twitter.
|
technology
|
It's a perfect analogy. Go to a different Twitter that will accept you. Like Breitbart or Fox News. Twitter is just 1 platform. There are thousands of other platforms. But guess what those platforms have rules too. Oh and guess what, INFOWARS has their own forums that they also ban users from all the time. Where's your outrage there?
Twitter is under no obligation to serve you. No matter how large or small your audience. Want to use Twitter? Follow their rules. Same with YouTube, Facebook, practically every other private business
|
technology
|
Okay, maybe we’re just approaching this from two completely different mind sets.
What I’m saying is I do not believe the government would take control of a social media platform and NOT enforce some form of censorship to it. That’s literally all I’m saying.
I understand that you think the government making twitter a public platform would result in no one getting banned for anything thoughts they’d want to share.
My bottom line though, if we allow the government to overtake business and regulate them like that then what else will we allow them to do? I don’t like the idea of the government interfering with anything. If they want, let them create their own social media platform.
|
technology
|
love when stocks are at a discount because of idioticly reactionary traders. Revenues keep growing and their only problem so far is they are _too_ popular and have had trouble keeping up with demand for existing cars let alone all the fleets of trucks and hundreds of grid storage batteries theyre poised to sell to transit and utility companies that like low operating costs. There is solid demand for products, and they have solid infastructure in place to grow, so I see no reason to be worried they wont figure it out regardless of whatever Musk does. There are _other_ people at Tesla after all and they are fairly capable themselves.
|
technology
|
There's not really any scandal, though. The company's very clearly presented itself as a dumpster fire in every one of their financial statements.
"People just don't like Elon Musk" isn't the reason it's the most widely shorted stock on the market. It's the most widely shorted stock on the market because people who can do math simply have to look at their valuation and look at their 10-Qs; and understand the discrepancy between fantasy and reality can't last forever.
|
technology
|
thats not even remotely comparable... I have no idea why people believed Theranos when they had proved nothing and had no products. I can buy a Tesla tomorrow, and see them all over town. They actually make stuff and deliver on that stuff they promise to make, and aside from some arbitrary numbers that people in finance think is the be all and end all of running companies, Musks ventures have all succeeded and continue to be successful because he doesnt give a damn about meaningless corporate nonsense and is more interested in actually getting shit done, even if he has to personally throw his own money on the table like I've seen no other corporate leaders do. I think hes an ass sometimes but hes not stupid, and has a pretty good track record.
|
technology
|
This post is a great example of why need to have mandatory classes teaching finance in K-12 studies. These are not just some made up numbers by some guy in Goldman Sachs. Tesla is $10 billion dollars in debt. $10 billion. They are burning cash at a rate of almost $7,000 a minute and still not turning a profit.
They have almost two billion dollars maturing within the next twelve months and if they do not find a way to raise that capital they will default on that debt. This wouldn’t be a problem except for the fact that their current bonding rating is rivaling junk bonds, so simply issuing more bonds (as Elon has done previously) is out of the question. The vast majority of Elon’s wealth is tied up in his equity in his companies. The thing is if he tries to sell his equity to raise capital the share price will drop dramatically since he will be dramatically increasing the amount of available shares on the market. This means he would need to sell an even larger amount of his own equity to get the same amount of cash.
There are very few investors in the market who are willing to drop the billions of dollars needed to save Tesla, most of them would be foreign sovereign wealth funds. That’s why Tesla’s share price got so volatile when Elon announced that he was in talks with the saudis. They are literally some of the only people who can save him. Of course this was only Elon spouting off on Twitter as per usual and these talks went nowhere.
Musks ventures have not all succeeded. By any account Solar City was on the verge of going under before Elon merged them with Tesla and gave some spiel about “synergy.” Never mind the fact that Tesla inherited all of Solar City’s debt. Pushing this obligation off has only delayed the inevitable malestrom that will be hitting Tesla within the next year.
|
technology
|
Best comment in the thread. I root for Tesla, but man it’s gotta be an epic pressure cooker. Also gratifying to hear him reiterate our stupid experiment with carbon dioxide so definitively. Yeah yeah it’s in his best interest, but that’s not what motivates that comment, it’s motivated by rational thought from a guy who is almost a robot. Humanity would be in a better place if more people internalized that warning. Sorry for rambling.
|
technology
|
I could give a shit if Alex Jones dies in a fire, but wasn't the idea about net neutrality that private corporations with massive influence (in that case, ISPs) shouldn't be limiting access to information?
I really don't see how this is different. Facebook/youtube/twitter/app-store aren't exactly mom and pop outfits. If ISPs should be held to that standard for the sake of an open internet, I don't see why goliaths like them shouldn't be as well.
|
technology
|
>If ISPs should be held to that standard for the sake of an open internet, I don't see why goliaths like them shouldn't be as well.
There's are huge difference between an ISP and a company hosting a website. ISP's aren't platforms, they're networks that provide access to data. ISPs' networks were built using public funds. They're regulated differently because their purpose is to provide a public service.
To continue the brink and mortar analogy that /u/Enovlid made, Facebook banning Jones for his crazy rants is like getting banned from a building, but he's free to buy a piece of property elsewhere, or find someone willing to rent to him.
Getting censored by an ISP is like getting banned from roads. Doesn't matter where you move, where you go, you can't "connect" to anything. It's the difference between getting told "You can't go here." and "You can't go *anywhere*."
>wasn't the idea about net neutrality that private corporations with massive influence (in that case, ISPs) shouldn't be limiting access to information?
...and that's the difference. Facebook isn't "limiting access to information", they're saying "you're not allowed to post that *here*." Jones' website is still active. He'll doubtlessly get countless, conservatively-aligned, outlets to act as his new platform. An ISP could *actually* deny access to that information by simply refusing to serve content from any site associated with Jones, and since that's a public utility censoring speech it's against the rules.
|
technology
|
Not even *remotely* the same thing. Alex Jones is a fuckhead, but let's not pretend like Reddit wouldn't be up in arms if someone they liked was banned simply because Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Apple, etc, didn't like their opinion or the uprise of supporting their free speech.
There is a social obligation in social media, these empire have taken control of our day-to-day lives. How many teenagers, young adults and elderly do you know that could live a *normal* life without social media? The answer's probably 1%.
Social media is a part of our lives now, they've forced that on us.
They've replaced our legs with their bionic legs, and now they're choosing who walks. That's not fair.
The part where this is really bad is that they're not banning people solely for having a different opinion; you know how many people are advocating for the death of cops or anti-vaxxing that AREN'T being removed? You can start an anti-vax group on facebook RIGHT NOW, and not be removed.
Alex Jones is being banned because of the pressure being put on my predominantly anti-rights who A) don't agree with him and B) want a witch hunt.
Saying social media companies should have the same rights as small business is like saying Wal-Mart should be allowed to take over all produce stores... then stop selling produce simply because they feel like it.
Tech companies are nothing like any other businesses and should NOT be treated the same.
|
technology
|
Does Reddit support anyone that makes people show up to and harrass mass shooting victims? Or show up and yell in people's faces for 20 minutes like with Marco Rubio and the CNN correspondent?
Alex Jones is extreme and brings no real value to anything. Regardless of his politics. If you act like him on any point of the political spectrum, you'll probably get banned. It just happenes that he's a conservative being banned at a time that political differences are extreme.
|
technology
|
It's significantly different. And quite easy to understand.
There are hundreds/thousands/millions of sites you could use and get whatever information you wanted. There is no single source of information on the internet. So just because you can't say something on Facebook or Twitter, it doesn't prevent you from saying things elsewhere. Or you are very welcome to setup your own server and let others connect to see whatever it is you want to say.
ISPs on the other hand, have the ability to prevent access to all sites in their entirety, if they so choose. If Comcast wanted to prevent all of their users from being able to get to Facebook, they have that ability. If they only wanted you to view certain sites, they could do that as well.
A private company is under no-obligation to let you use their service, esp. when you look at what is being said. The vitrol being thrown around, inciting violence against others, etc is going to get you thrown out. Just as it would if you started doing in Starbucks.
The reason NN was such a big deal for ISPs was due to the fact that many have no secondary option. And the internet is pretty much a necessity to survive and participate in today's society. At least for developed countries.
The difference is being shut out of 1 place, instead of being shut out of every place and having no other options.
|
technology
|
This is a fine rant, but what exactly do you want? The removal of moderation once a business gets to a threshold? What’s the penalty and who enforces it? Are we limiting this to only the USA and therefore need ways for the government to regulate content similar to China? What made this the straw that broke the camels back when the internet has been closed off and censored by governments for years?
Social media is a choice we make and isn’t required or forced on you. This isn’t an essential need and you want to treat it stricter than any other form of media?
|
technology
|
Only problem is the constitutional right. Looks like trump is next. I don’t support his ‘stance’ but the right to say stupid stuff is the difference between countries without the constitution and the US. Something we all have to out up with opinions we don’t agree with. I am guessing this will be overturned once it makes it to the supreme court.
As you kindly downvote, I encourage a discussion and invite you to put down the pitchforks.
|
technology
|
Twitter, Facebook, Reddit and any other social media platform have not just the right but the responsibility to police their platforms and user bases. These exist for profit, not for Alex Jones to make a name for himself. There are millions of other users beyond Alex Jones that they need to cater to. If Alex Jones is driving away users and advertisers, and drawing negative publicity to the platforms through his conduct (which he most definitely was), then they have a financial and business incentive and duty to ban him.
If he wasn’t such a piece of shit, he could have just uprooted and moved to another platform. That he’s been banned from any of them that matter says everything about him and almost nothing about the platforms themselves.
Keep in mind that to have access, you must abide by the Terms of Service. He broke the rules, so he suffered the consequences. If he can’t “walk” to use your analogy, he should have thought about that before he blew his fucking legs off. It’s that simple.
|
technology
|
The Constitution protects your poltical speech from government censorship. Private entities can absolutely choose not to listen to or support your bullshit. If someone knocks on your door from the Church of Latter Day Saints, or Baptists, do you keep the door open or let them in, or do you effectively censor their speech to you but telling them you're not interested and shutting the door?
Apple, Twitter, ect are shutting the door. He's free to find a company or start his own servers that can host and stream his content. But he doesn't have a right to freely use Apple's, or Twitter's, or YouTube's services and resources as a platform for his speech.
|
technology
|
>Facebook
The problem with this specific company is that they're actively trying to be a telecommunication oriented company. Examples are the Facebook chat and Facebook voice. I've faced red flags with Facebook chat where I cannot send certain links to my friends. The fact Facebook can dictate what I can say to my friends in private is very concerning.
edit: Facebook message has become a main form of communication for many people. All signs point that the trend will continue in that direction rather than the other way. My main point is that its concerning that a communication platform is proactively censoring information. This to me is similar to a phone provider restricting who you can call or what you can text.
|
technology
|
The only problem I have is that if the shoe were ever on the other foot, it could be bad. There's only a few tech companies that control a lot of what people see online. Google/YT, Reddit, Twitter, Facebook...so much internet traffic is directed there, they're the main platforms and they control so much information, and are known to manipulate it. Imagine if instead, they favored alt-right viewpoints, and banned progressives? In fact, some leftists are ALREADY being censored.
Now, I'm not saying Alex Jones shouldn't be kicked out, there's a certain line of decency you can't cross...but I have a general problem with big, multinational corporations controlling the information we can and cannot see. The government, and companies, are becoming more and more aware of the fact that everything is concentrated together and are learning to manipulate it.
|
technology
|
Nothing blurred about it. The First Amendment is pretty clear:
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Nowhere does it say in the Constitution that others have to put up with, share, or otherwise publish whatever someone says.
|
technology
|
This is exact word. But as we know this has some legal precedent. Can’t scream fire in a crowd and etc. Twitter and the like are in the business of elevating your speech. Would it be ok for T-Mobile to turn off your phone because you were a jerk to someone? I don’t have a constitutional law degree, but it feels like limiting speech this way is not the intent of the first amendment. If we can argue that money is speech, and I spend money to get to Twitter, seems like I should have the right to speak. I am open to your interpretation. One thing we really need is a vigorous public debate.
|
technology
|
There's a whole doctrine of thought and philosophy justifying the existence of "protected classes" and what we choose to categorize as a protected class. As an example, most people would agree that it *should* be illegal to refuse to serve someone because of the color of their skin. Those laws apply to Twitter, Facebook, and google as much as any other company. To use your specific example, if twitter was banning people for posting photos of said cake, they could get sued, because sexual orientation is now considered a "protected class".
At the federal level political affiliation is not a protected class, though it is my understanding that some states do protect it. Regardless, the bans coming down are for 'terms of use' violations, and invariably framed in completely legal ways (billion dollar corporations here).
So yeah, it is illegal to serve someone because they're black, gay, a woman, a man, old, catholic, etc. It is not illegal to serve someone because they're a conspiracy theory spewing crazy person making threats online.
|
technology
|
This is the most pathetic thing I've ever seen. I have no social media other than reddit. Most of the time I don't even participate. I just read shit. If anyone got banned from reddit for any reason I wouldn't give a shit. If I disagreed enough I would stop using reddit. But you won't stop using social media and you'll make excuses for everyone else' crazy addiction to it because you think social media is a fucking utility (you don't really, you're just virtue signaling) when really you just can't stop using it. Grow the fuck up.
|
technology
|
Well, Is facebook/twitter a public platform, that can host whatever and not get in trouble, and instead pass the legal responsibility on to the host, or is it a publisher, who is responsible for all content that is hosted on their servers... meaning twitter/facebook/etc is responsible for all legal breeches of content.
The first category is what phone companies and such fall under. They have a communication platform than anyone can use. The content doesn't matter. They only collaborate/monitor for national security concerns typically.
The second category is what a newspaper organization is. If CNN or Fox news publishes/hosts an image without following the copyright specifications, then CNN/Fox can be sued for damages. They are also responsible for any libel coming from their platform.
So, it's a matter of how much responisbility for user policing these websites want to burden themselves with. If they wish to be a private platform, then they can be responsible and ban as they please. But if they want to be a public platform, then they ought to absolve themselves of responsibility for the content on their platform.
And then the third option is they claim to be a public platform, but they ban and curate according to a private agenda. That's how they are currently treating it, but it's also without precedent, and kind of scummy.
Ultimately, I believe that platforms should stick to 1 of the two outlines. My political siding is liberal left, and I do not trust these companies with the responsibility of policing world morality.
|
technology
|
Alex Jones is free to pay for his own servers and start his own competitor to Twitter - there's even free source code out there to do it. Nobody is stopping him. He can go right ahead and to that right now. And then he can ban anyone he wants to, for any reason at all.
That's how the internet is like a public utility. He's free to start whatever kind of service he wants. So are you. So is Twitter.
|
technology
|
We were unhappy when a few gigantic telecom companies tried to gain the right to throttle our ability to access certain websites because those telecom companies didn't approve of those websites. Now we have a few big websites trying group together so they could shut down access to Infowars and Reddit is going hands off saying "Its a business, and businesses have freedom of association."
I understand his views are very controversial and that he's an unlikable figure but this is actually ridiculous. It's a clear attempt by gigantic internet companies to take down a smaller news org. Problem is that this certainly won't be the last time they do it.
It won't be long until all these internet companies band together and create a list of people who would basically be banned from the internet.
|
technology
|
It's the phone company's service that let's you call and say anything you want. Instant messaging should fall under the same rules.
Interestingly, I'm fairly sure that the Marsh V Alabama ruling from 1946 makes all of this moot. Supreme Court has already ruled that a company which opens parts of itself to the public may not suppress free speech in those areas. Allowing anyone to create a profile and join arguably makes those platforms "public areas" of the company, and thus places where companies cannot tell you what you my and may not say.
|
technology
|
Hell, I think when we live in an ever increasing “privatized” world the 1st amendment isn’t really doing what it was intended. That’s just America so says nothing about the rest of the world, but while people are generally supportive of this move now what about in 20 years? 100 or 200 years from now information will have been controlled by multinational companies (even more than now) and the continued rise of inverted totalitarianism will only worsen.
|
technology
|
> You have full permission from me to discriminate on the basis of religion
so...no problem with people discriminating against you on the basis of your irreligion? feel like if you were denied employment, housing, and entry into most establishments based on your professed religion you would a: lie about your religion, and/or b: be very pissed about it.
there is a good reason we don't allow discrimination based on religion.
|
technology
|
It's very different than an apartment building owner refusing to rent to someone for no substantive reason (ie the amount of pigment in their skin) or a restaurant refusing to serve people, also, for no substantive reason.
In the simplest sense, it's more like a bookstore owner refusing to stock and sell books they don't like. I'm not going to complain that a bookstore that claims to be "religious" won't stock *Fifty Shades of Gray* for example.
But more specifically, all these platforms initially allowed Jones and his hateful, false garbage on their platforms, having made the rules clear. And then Jones violated those rules repeatedly, so they banned him.
|
technology
|
> they're actively trying to be a telecommunication oriented company
That's the thing though; they aren't that. Until they are, they don't have to act like one.
> The fact Facebook can dictate what I can say to my friends in private is very concerning.
The fact that you're saying it on Facebook (even in a private message) means it isn't private. The only private way to say something to someone is in person. If you're talking on a phone or over the internet, you've got to accept that privacy is no longer a guarantee (unless you're using an encrypted service, which Facebook is not),
|
technology
|
No double standard.
The Colorado case addressed a specific anti-discrimination law that prevented businesses from refusing service based on someone's sexual orientation. The issue in that case concerned whether refusing service on religious grounds could insulate a business from such a law. The answer is *unclear* since SCOTUS kicked the can (or cake) down the road by ruling in favor of the baker on very narrow grounds.
I'd say it'd be more comparable if Twitter kicked someone off specifically for being "white" or "straight." Kicking someone off for personal characteristics, like gender or race, as opposed to "what they say and do on Twitter."
|
technology
|
Or maybe it's because he's a crazed conspiracy theorist that pushes a series of barely intelligible lies to get clicks and sell snake oil pills?
How do you justify Alex Jones' behavior, like repeatedly asserting that Sandy Hook and other mass shooting events were fake? The families of dead children are harassed because of idiots who believe those conspiracies. So what the fuck is wrong with you that you managed to shift the blame of this to gays?
|
technology
|
If they do that, their platforms die. Social media stops being social when you stop being able to interact. Any of them that have gone public would like you not be allowed to by their board members.
I'm really not worried. In the long term, all this censorship crap will fail. People will go to far and alienate too many people and this knee-jerk reaction will go away. That, or someone will just come along and make some new network that allows people to say what they want and not cause the problems that Facebook and Twitter cause and they'll turn Facebook into Myspace on their way to the top.
|
technology
|
No. It takes the narrative that they can ban those who cause problems for them, or someone else. Today it’s alex Jones, a guy who is pretty universally hated, tomorrow it might be someone else.
This is no different than when the government tries to strong arm a certain large tech company into handing over keys to its encryption on its mobile devices, under the guise of beating terrorists. They’re using a target that is universally despised. If you resist then you’re supporting the inhuman monster.
I don’t like Alex Jones, but people need to learn to ignore things they don’t like instead of calling for heavy handed bans. This is exactly how we end up with ‘morality police’.
|
technology
|
There's no requirement that we fit them into one of two existing regulatory frameworks. They do not fit the profile of common carriers or publishers\broadcasters, which is not surprising considering nothing like Twitter was even imagined when those frameworks were established. I know the current political climate doesn't give one much hope for creative solutions, but I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest we look for novel regulatory approaches to a novel market.
I do think we should have a public conversation about regulating access and privacy, but Alex Jones' ban really shouldn't be this controversial. He wasn't banned because his ideas were controversial, he was banned because he was consistently uncivil, aggressive and abusive. That's no more a form of censorship than arresting a bullhorn blasting lunatic on a street corner.
Now if they ever start banning perfectly civil flat-earthers and moon-landing deniers then I'll stand up for nutjob's speech, but this isn't that.
|
technology
|
Nah man. You have to understand that entities like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are now forms of media. This is a direct violation of Alex Jones's 1st amendment right, and the only reason why everyone is clapping and cheering for this is because he is a crazy person.
I don't agree with what he says, but I sure as hell do NOT agree with companies being able to run roughshod over an American citizen exercising his first amendment right. I know I'll be downvoted to hell, but the truth hurts, and the truth is that we can NOT allow companies like Facebook, like YouTube to just shut people down because it goes against THEIR narrative.
Companies are NOT people. So if you really want to stick it to capitalist America then exercise your wallet and do your best to protect our first amendment rights.
Twitter has already started censoring frog memes. That's the same thing as censoring the depiction of mohammed. You have to sit back an observe here and THINK. Don't let these companies manipulate you.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.