Date: June 10, 2019
“his video attempts to answer the question: Can science prove that Michael Jackson was innocent? The HBO movie leaving Neverland explores the allegations of two individuals (Wade Robson and James Safechuck). It has ignited a debate about critical thinking, the presumption of innocence, and the role of science in pointing society toward what is factual and not factual. I explore a comparison of the presumption of innocence and null hypothesis testing.”
Date: June 09, 2019
“I have a theory that much recent tech development and innovation over the last decade or so has an unspoken overarching agenda. It has been about creating the possibility of a world with less human interaction. This tendency is, I suspect, not a bug—it’s a feature. We might think Amazon was about making books available to us that we couldn’t find locally—and it was, and what a brilliant idea—but maybe it was also just as much about eliminating human contact.”
Date: June 08, 2019
“In this episode of the podcast, Sam Harris speaks with his wife, Annaka Harris, about her new book, CONSCIOUS: A Brief Guide to the Fundamental Mystery of the Mind.
Annaka Harris is the author of CONSCIOUS: A Brief Guide to the Fundamental Mystery of the Mind. She is an editor and consultant for science writers, specializing in neuroscience and physics, and her work has appeared in The New York Times. Annaka is the author of the children’s book I Wonder, a collaborator on the Mindful Games Activity Cards, by Susan Kaiser Greenland, and a volunteer mindfulness teacher for the Inner Kids organization. All of her guided meditations and lessons for children are available on the Waking Up app.”
|– Atheist Media Links|
Date: June 08, 2019
“A new government report reinforces harmful misconceptions about people convicted of sex offenses. Here’s our take on how to parse the data.
A new report released by the Bureau of Justice Statistics should put an end to this misconception: The report, Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from State Prison: A 9-Year Follow-Up (2005-2014), shows that people convicted of sex offenses are actually much less likely than people convicted of other offenses to be rearrested or to go back to prison.
But you wouldn’t know this by looking at the report’s press release and certain parts of the report itself, which reinforce inaccurate and harmful depictions of people convicted of sex offenses as uniquely dangerous career criminals. The press release and report both emphasize what appears to be the central finding: “Released sex offenders were three times as likely as other released prisoners to be re-arrested for a sex offense.” That was the headline of the press release. The report itself re-states this finding three different ways, using similar mathematical comparisons, in a single paragraph.
What the report doesn’t say is that the same comparisons can be made for the other offense categories: People released from sentences for homicide were more than twice as likely to be rearrested for a homicide; those who served sentences for robbery were more than twice as likely to be rearrested for robbery; and those who served time for assault, property crimes, or drug offenses were also more likely (by 1.3-1.4 times) to be rearrested for similar offenses. And with the exception of homicide, those who served sentences for these other offense types were much more likely to be rearrested at all.
Unfortunately, this BJS report is a good example of how our perception of sex offenders is distorted by alarmist framing, which in turn contributes to bad policy.”
The government is one of the biggest propagandists out there, where it comes to “sex crimes”.
They contradict their own findings, as a matter of regular course.
…..TAP-Net Website | Sub-Blog Archive
Date: June 08, 2019
“Today, EFF is publishing a new white paper, “Caught in the Net: The Impact of ‘Extremist’ Speech Regulations on Human Rights Content.” The paper is a joint effort of EFF, Syrian Archive, and Witness and was written in response to the Christchurch Call to Action. This paper analyzes the impact of platform rules and content moderation practices related to “extremist” speech on human rights defenders.
The key audiences for this paper are governments and companies, particularly those that endorsed the Christchurch Call. As we wrote last month, the Call contains several important ideas, but also advocates for measures that would undoubtedly have a negative impact on freedom of expression online. The paper details several concrete instances in which content moderation has resulted in the removal of content under anti-extremism provisions, including speech advocating for Chechen and Kurdish self-determination; satirical speech about a key Hezbollah figure; and documentation of the ongoing conflicts in Syria, Yemen, and Ukraine. We also hope that our allies will find these examples useful for their ongoing advocacy.
As more governments move to impose regulatory measures that would require the removal of extremist speech or privatize enforcement of existing laws, it’s imperative that they consider the potential for collateral damage that such censorship imposes, and consider more holistic measures to combat extremism.