We scrolled through the feed every couple of weeks to check what was being served up.

This is a critical flaw in the studies methodology. ‘loiter time’ is a metric used by algorithms to serve up new content, if the researchers where checking each post for signs of misogyny, then they were probably skipping by totally innocucus stuff whilst paying attention to misogyny. This (being the only feedback given) will have shown the researchers what they wanted to see.

Three months later, The Office, Star Wars, and now The Boys memes continue to punctuate the feed, now interspersed with highly sexist and misogynistic images that have have appeared in the feed without any input from the user.

It’d be good to know the actual ratios, given this was a guardian study there’s no reason to withhold data, nor a secondary source I can go and find the data. It’s possible that Facebook is simply serving up the entire spectrum of posts proportionately to their activity on the internet, or even favouring anti-sexist posts that are just not noticed/mentioned by the guardian.

Does anyone genuinely believe banning this sorta stuff is going to “end violence against women and children in one generation”?

I mean, if there were to be conscription it probably wouldn’t be for technical roles like mechanics or artillery coordinators. It would be for logistical duties (drive this truck, mop this floor, cook this soup) and for dads-army-esque garrison duty. That then frees up the career soldiers to do what they are trained for. Mass mobilisation for an infantry-focused army I cannot see happening, mostly because Russia would be rubble by the time we get that desperate.

I am suicidal so I may fight just so I can die.

Sadly you can get disqualified for that.

Same as any professional. I’ve yet to meet a civil engineer who’s answer is “fewer bridges”

it pokes through like a space marines pony tail

3,700 miles (5,954 km) to a sea target off the west coast of Africa but veered towards the US.

It’s got that red-coat spirit in it

I mean, one part of the economy the government (or, parliament at least) has control of is the money supply, which is pretty much the sole driver of inflation. If he’d genuinely wanted to (not necessarily saying he should’ve) he could’ve.

I mean, it’s the UK. If we could get anything done that only cost 9x what it ought to that would be a national news story.

I mean, the entire purpose behind SMR’s is pretty much to circumvent the political opposition to built-in-place reactors. If companies/nations could build conventional nuclear they would.

Huh. I wonder if all of the verbatim identical anti-nuclear posts I see on every social media platform that all read like they were copied and pasted from the same template are astroturfing by the natural gas firms.

yeah your AI overlords were trained by the internet, so I’d not put any money on it.

Well, at least they aren’t getting more expensive yet, it’d be werid explaining to my grandkids how I grew up in the ‘age of cheap semi-conductors’.

I think the propaganda is the nefarious reason.

Tories have been talking about this since at least the coalition, if they had really wanted to impliment something like this they would’ve. The fact they haven’t implies:

• They don’t actually want it. Judging on recent scandals any chaste puritans in the tory party are so far in the back benches as to be blind to any goings on up front.
• They want to keep talking about it. See also: immigration. They know they have shit policies in every other area, so they need ‘vote winners’ among their core demographic (50 and over). Hence: save the kids, stop the boats, shag the flag. Labour and Lib-dems are never going to be able to present themselves as credible in these areas because of their historical leanings, so the tories don’t actually need to back up their promises with any actual ‘progress’ on these issues.

the wonderful world of the internet

it was a question not a conclusion, as I said, either way is bad, There’s nothing wrong with wanting to know the scope of a problem.

(Thank you, though, link was helpful. <3 )

So I’m all for children ***not ***starving, I’d like to get that out the way. That being said, this article could be a lot more specific.

4 million people experienced destitution in 2022. Destitution is when people cannot afford to meet their most basic physical needs to stay warm, dry, clean and fed.

Is that an “and” or an “or”? Are children hungry and homeless, or are they going hungry to avoid being homeless, neither is good obviously, but it makes the difference between a third world country and a very shitty first world country.

with almost three quarters (72%) of those destitute being in receipt of benefits. charities – such as food banks – to try to prevent people from experiencing the worst of destitution, but the task is too great for them.

Are the destitution statistics based on what people can afford pre or post these thing? Obviously it’s bad when people need to rely on charity & government assistance to afford their essentials, but it’s unclear from the article how stressed these systems are.

Single people of working age continue to be the worst-affected group by far … followed by no statistics pertaining to this group!!!

Idk I just want more figures. That’s all I guess

Cash is king.