this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2025

37 points (67.0% liked)

Technology

68772 readers

4646 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related news or articles.
Be excellent to each other!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

L3s@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

technopagan@lemmy.world

L4s@lemmy.world

L3s@hackingne.ws

L4s@hackingne.ws

37

Via porn, gore and ultra-violence, extremist groups are sinking hooks online into the very young. (apnews.com)

submitted 2 days ago by Tea@programming.dev to c/technology@lemmy.world

31 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 32 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Eyedust@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 6 hours ago

Government officials, via scare tactics and fabricated statistics, are sinking hooks into lazy parents and overly-protective grandparents in a wild seize for the power to rescind your rights to freedom and privacy.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 28 points 2 days ago

Literally EVERY SINGLE TIME a news article mentions both "porn" and "children", it turns out it's some bullshit being pushed by a Christian fundamentalist group, and often with an added dose of state surveillance and restricting liberty. Add in "terrorists"? Don't even bother with this article, it's pure hysteria propaganda. It's like a WASPy suburban mom's wet dream.

[–] OmegaLemmy@discuss.online 45 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The entire article is filled with bias and anecdotal evidence, and of course it's showcasing the rarer jihadist terrorists instead of widespread Nazism and racism on the rise everywhere else

[+] rottingleaf@lemmy.world -25 points 2 days ago (3 children)

and of course it’s showcasing the rarer jihadist terrorists instead of widespread Nazism and racism

Are you fucking serious?

It's infuriating, baffling, plainly disgusting how your typical progressive westerner is just blind to usual neo-Nazi skinheads doing a murder or two in a month, while jihadists massacre whole towns, share videos in Telegram on scale, and western politicians shake hands with their leaders and condemn the victims (calling them "Assad supporters to blame for outbreak of violence" or something like that).

Nazism is dead, there's no nation-state with an army with that as national ideology.

More than half of Sunni-majority nation-states agree on anything if it involves Sunnis massacring someone else, or involving jihad. And of those the most notable are Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, that kind of countries which your usual westerner considers normal.

They literally loudly and officially agree that murdering Christians and Yazidis and Alawites and whomever I've forgotten is fine, and your typical progressive westerner parrots that it's fine, nothing to look at, Christians and Yazidis and Alawites are not on the list of approved victims.

That said, jihadists are a subset of Nazis, just a not very stereotypical one for a westerner.

And I see no problem with porn.

[–] Ibuthyr@lemmy.wtf 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Nazism is dead, there's no nation-state with an army with that as national ideology.

u wot m8? You really don't see the current situation evolving toward just sich a thing? In 4 years from now, literal Neo-Nazis will likely have the majority of the German votes. It's Germans being Nazis again. Fuck you and your dumb fucking arguments. There has literally never been a greater threat to everyone's freedom as right now. Fuck you and your edgy take on "Westerners". We are living lives in the west after all.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago

4 years from now is not the same as now, and in my opinion literal neo-Nazis are not worse than your current politicians being nice and cozy with mass murderers

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Nazism is dead, there’s no nation-state with an army with that as national ideology.

Idk, Russia seems to be taking a lot from the fascist playbook.

Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, that kind of countries which your usual westerner considers normal.

I don't know about Turkey or Qatar, but Saudi Arabia makes me sick. Same w/ Iran and a bunch of other countries that believe something like Shariah law is okay, and killing people based on religion or lack thereof is also fine.

That said, jihadists are a subset of Nazis, just a not very stereotypical one for a westerner.

Agreed. The problem has little to do with Islam, the problem is intolerance and believing that hurting those who disagree w/ you is acceptable. Jihadists are the current group taking that to the extreme, and they're being enabled by aggressive, imperial powers like the US and parts of NATO.

The root of the problem is intolerance.

I see no problem with porn.

I do, but it's not something that leads to violence, but instead leads to problems in romantic relationships. So it's not relevant here whatsoever.

My main problem here is the parents were completely AFK and uninvolved in their 12yos life.

[–] OmegaLemmy@discuss.online 1 points 2 days ago

Turkey has the racism, Qatar has, uh, not sure actually.

Turkey has actively culturally neutered Kurds, and funded terrorist groups in Libya, Sudan and even assists Israel behind closed doors.

Jihadist wouldn't have been that much of an issue if USA left a stable government in Iraq to begin with

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world -4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Idk, Russia seems to be taking a lot from the fascist playbook.

It's different, Russia has basically a not very old hereditary elite, families of former communists willing to believe they are some kind of smart mafia, while in fact they are thieves. They have a really sensitive collective ego, and are desperately trying to prove they are worth some respect, at least in the form of fear. They are not real fascists, that elite, they are just mimicking fascists to try to get some of that respect, because fascists seem respected, "real", for them.

It's the good old inferiority complex of the Soviet elite, same reason why Baltic countries were made some sort of nice cleaned up version of USSR for westerners, or why there existed that parallel infrastructure of comfortable existence for foreign communists living in the USSR, or why that elite was measuring their status by ability to get something from abroad. They always felt that their own thing is not real.

It maybe goes to the very root, where actual Bolsheviks around year 1917 were mostly Germanophiles, and their ideal state was some idealized communist version of the German Empire, scaled for the planet. Their intention was to only start the revolution in Russia, bring it to Germany and let it develop somehow.

Sorry for many words.

I mean, that's one of the traits of fascism by Eco, but in his list it wasn't as capitalized.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It maybe goes to the very root, where actual Bolsheviks around year 1917 were mostly Germanophiles, and their ideal state was some idealized communist version of the German Empire, scaled for the planet. Their intention was to only start the revolution in Russia, bring it to Germany and let it develop somehow.

That's fascist though.

Communism doesn't require spreading, and once you put people in charge to spread any ideology at the expense of the people, you're fascist, since fascism is generally putting the needs of the "state" (however you define that) above the needs of the people. If you look at the rhetoric coming from Russia about the war in Ukraine, that's pretty much exactly what we see: we need to do this for the benefit of Russia (not Russians). They're appealing to a national identity, not any sense of pragmatic benefits for the people.

The same is largely true for the USSR. At the start it may have been a worker revolution, but it quickly devolved into a "sacrifice for the good of the nation" type situation. After it fell, the elite took the place of the state and largely continued with that same mantle. It's always been about doing what's best for Russia, not what's best for Russians. If it was about what's best for Russians, they probably would've joined NATO and maybe the EU, because so much of their trade is with Europe. But that would destroy the chance for Russia to stay relevant as a world superpower.

We have the same type of problem here in the US. I would say we're probably not quite as far down that path as Russia because we have a strong-enough economy to actually support our imperialist endeavors (so it's less of a hit to the average person), but there's still the focus on the needs of the nation instead of the needs of the people:

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.

JFK

That's completely backwards. We should be asking what value the government is providing for us, and ideally strip away everything else. Is bombing Houthis in Yemen helping us? How? What about supporting Israel's war in Gaza? Why should I be sacrificing myself for a country that does things I disagree with?

That whole "sacrifice for the good of the nation" is absolutely stupid. Sacrifice because it makes you and those you love better off in the long run. If you're attacked by an oppressive regime, fighting against the regime is better than allowing them to subjugate you. That's not "sacrificing for your country," that's sacrificing to prevent an even worse situation.

Sorry for many words.

Same. I can also get a bit wordy.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world -3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Communism doesn’t require spreading, and once you put people in charge to spread any ideology at the expense of the people,

It was a common idea that socialism in just one country is not sustainable. The forces threatened by it will destroy it. It was also a common idea that if we unite people in classes and if planned economy is supposed to be more fair and bureaucracy more fair that self-ownership and centralized democracy more fair than decentralized, then group's majority can be assumed to be the group. And that it's needed to first conquer the world and then build communism. USSR was supposed to be a conventional, not communist, state, aimed at conquering the world and then building communism.

The same is largely true for the USSR. At the start it may have been a worker revolution, but it quickly devolved into a “sacrifice for the good of the nation” type situation.

It was "for the good of the future" usually, if you look at something like Pavel Kogan's poetry. And again, that kind of marxists thought even before USSR that the collective is the person. That evolution is incrementing levels. From a person to a collective, from a collective to a centralized nation, from that to a centralized world. From that to space travel and many worlds. That's why, in their opinion, their ideology was progressive.

The way it was presented as humanist was that it will be more efficient, production-wise, and thus will make everyone happier through having nice things. That's where the Soviet and ex-Soviet envy and pride in education\spirituality comes from, first communist ideology promised that we'll drop all morality and and jump to future, and for that we'll live better and it won't matter who says what, and then it turned out that they didn't start living better. Thus those attempts to present Soviet communist ideology as more moral, while it was completely materialist and demonstratively nihilist, didn't touch upon good and evil at all, only factories and centralized organization allowing bigger efficiency (didn't work). An inversion.

Like some misguided idea of Azimov's Empire.

If it was about what’s best for Russians, they probably would’ve joined NATO and maybe the EU,

No chance for Russia to join the EU without cleansing out that elite. Nobody wants to let in such a big bunch of thieves with ability to make their own rules. Of course, they've already let in some with the Baltic states, and they (the EU bureaucrats dreaming of similar power) really like that bunch, but fortunately people like Kaja Kallas and UvdL don't make all the weather yet.

NATO even less likely, NATO's goal is maintaining world dominance of its existing members.

But that would destroy the chance for Russia to stay relevant as a world superpower.

No it wouldn't. It would make its resources, including human resources, use so much more efficient that it would quadruple in weight probably.

If you’re attacked by an oppressive regime, fighting against the regime is better than allowing them to subjugate you. That’s not “sacrificing for your country,” that’s sacrificing to prevent an even worse situation.

It depends. There might be a situation where a similar own bunch of thieves beholds with glee how their competition in their own society vanishes on the frontlines. Then after some time that bunch makes all the deals good for them and not for you.

No, individualism is always better. You are the person you know best, and the meaningful good deeds you can do are all near yourself and in your own context.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It was a common idea that socialism in just one country is not sustainable

Sure, and it was always an excuse to snap up power. Socialism works even in one company, so why wouldn't it work in one nation? You can still have competitive markets between countries with different economic systems, the USSR just chose to go down the path of control instead of the path of competition.

Yeah, they eventually Stalin got his way and switched to the "socialism in one country" strategy, but that didn't really mean much IMO since the USSR was still quite aggressive in pushing other countries to join the revolution.

No chance for Russia to join the EU without cleansing out that elite

Absolutely. But if the Russian elites really wanted what's best for Russians, they would've stepped down and improved ties with Europe.

No it wouldn’t. It would make its resources, including human resources, use so much more efficient that it would quadruple in weight probably.

Idk, if they join NATO, they wouldn't have nearly the excuse to retain a large military and have top-down control since they're largely protected militarily. I don't think Russia really knows how to embrace freedom, since they've had authoritarianism for pretty much forever, from the Tsars to the USSR to Putin. If they did embrace freedom, then yeah, maybe they'd dramatically increase their economic power and become a formidable force given their vast amount of natural resources. I just don't see that happening.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world -2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Idk, if they join NATO, they wouldn’t have nearly the excuse to retain a large military and have top-down control since they’re largely protected militarily.

Not that large really, it has large budgets, mostly embezzled, but I'm not sure even now one can call Russia more militarized than something like Israel or Turkey or USA. All those conscripts doing their service mostly contribute to numbers and someone's ego and criminal power (they are usable to suppress riots or do manual labor, if something), not defense. Ukraine, a pretty corrupt country itself, is doing well enough against that military.

Russia's military is mediocre, and for its size and economic power just miserable. Certainly those in Kremlin wouldn't even laugh at this, because for their goals and intentions it's exactly as it should be.

Top-down control is not a matter of excuses, it's a matter of those having it deciding what matters.

And to be honest, NATO doesn't seem to be reliable enough in today's world, alliances and agreements are used as toilet paper every day, sometimes guaranteed or signed by pretty important parties. So nah, it would have plenty of excuses.

I don’t think Russia really knows how to embrace freedom, since they’ve had authoritarianism for pretty much forever, from the Tsars to the USSR to Putin.

That's not entirely true, Russia between 1905 and 1914 was free enough, and Russia for a couple decades before 1905 was much better in terms of freedom, checks and balances and such, than today's Russia. The church wasn't a branch of the ruling group. The courts judged differently and tried to be open and humane. Manual control of everything happening from the center wasn't a thing. And when that interfered with what the center wanted, the center wouldn't try to utterly destroy everyone involved. When people read today various politically-loaded texts written by Russian noblemen from late XIX century, they sometimes do the mistake of equating state officials and thieves from that time with state officials and thieves from now. Both are groups of humans, but if a state official from that time did a small fraction of what state officials of today do every day, they'd lose any status. Even in manners it was impolite and undignified for a nobleman to look down at another person, no matter the rank. The opposite, actually, it was polite to look directly in the eyes on the same level.

Obviously these were all real people and power corrupts, but the gap is still too big for any bridges to exist.

This problem is not that old, it's something from the late 20s. It's the house that Stalin built.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Russia between 1905 and 1914 was free enough, and Russia for a couple decades before 1905 was much better in terms of freedom

I don't think that's true.

During the nearly 200 years of the Russian Empire, the people were ruled by an emperor with essentially absolute power. This was reduced somewhat with the introduction of the Duma, but Nicholas II still retained absolute power.

Most people couldn't read, and there was a ton of censorship for those that could. Serfdom wasn't abolished until the 1860s and most people still largely lived on farms through the end of the 1800s. The abolition of serfdom created a land-owning peasant class (kulaks), and that land was stripped from them by Stalin. So there was a period of 50-60 years where a substantial portion (but still <20%) owned land, and even fewer could read amd write.

In order to actually exercise rights, you need to know what they are and gave the means to communicate outside your local circle.

This problem is not that old, it’s something from the late 20s. It’s the house that Stalin built.

It's much older. But things started getting better in the late 1800s and early 1900s until Stalin reversed everything.

Going back to pre-Stalin government (say, Duma under Nicholas II) might actually be worse than the current status quo.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 0 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

During the nearly 200 years

I specifically said between 1905 and 1914, as in between the first revolution and wartime laws. Most of the 200 years Russia was basically a slaver society, but not as different in that from, say, Austria, as stereotypes might suggest.

Most people couldn’t read, and there was a ton of censorship for those that could.

Less than Soviet censorship. Imperial censorship was reactive, something published could be forbidden after it was published. Soviet censorship was proactive, nothing could be published without being vetted by censors.

Serfdom wasn’t abolished until the 1860s and most people still largely lived on farms through the end of the 1800s.

A country being mostly agrarian doesn't by itself say much about freedom.

The abolition of serfdom created a land-owning peasant class (kulaks),

That's Stalinist mythology. In fact there was a more US south-like dynamic, with plenty of poor farm workers from liberated serfs and farm owners hiring them, mostly nobility, but also, yes, more well-off farmers.

and that land was stripped from them by Stalin.

Land was stripped from everyone having some land. People could be punished for growing something to eat on a small space like suburb lawn in an American movie.

So there was a period of 50-60 years where a substantial portion (but still <20%) owned land, and even fewer could read amd write.

If you mention "kulaks", then people classified as that in Stalin's times formed a much bigger proportion of population.

Going back to pre-Stalin government (say, Duma under Nicholas II) might actually be worse than the current status quo.

No, you don't realize the difference. A working absolutism with working democratic mechanisms, even if subordinate to absolutism, is better than a facade for a bunch of thieves Russia has now.

In any case one can't just go back to it.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

A country being mostly agrarian doesn’t by itself say much about freedom.

Sure. I guess my point is that ending serfdom didn't seem to change much about where people lived, implying that people likely still did the same things as under the old system.

This article looks at literacy, and it looks like literacy was ~21% in 1897 (<5% before the end of serfdom), and it doubled over the next 20 years. 40% is a huge increase, but still atrociously low. Literacy is pretty important to other freedoms, so if the majority still wasn't literate at the peak, that doesn't sound promising when comparing rights to today. Maybe they were on a better trajectory, idk.

I haven't studied it extensively, so I could be very mistaken, but it seems like a case of rose colored glasses.

I guess I struggle to see pre-socialist Russia as better than modern Russia, unless we're merely looking at trajectory.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago

Maybe they were on a better trajectory, idk.

They were. Russia between 1905 and 1914 was developing faster than at any point under Bolsheviks.

I haven’t studied it extensively, so I could be very mistaken, but it seems like a case of rose colored glasses.

Not entirely, one can call NEP sort of a continuation of those few years.

I guess I struggle to see pre-socialist Russia as better than modern Russia, unless we’re merely looking at trajectory.

In quality, not in quantity. Most people were illiterate and rural, but those who were literate had better quality of that literacy, so to say. Among those capable of touching power it was more decentralized, however strange that would seem. Quality of those people was better too, it wasn't an organized mafia group. They had professors in the parliament and they didn't have thieves there.

[–] merde@sh.itjust.works -2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

👆 that is an ignorant and hateful comment that should be ignored. This person clearly doesn't know what they're talking about.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago

This person clearly doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

I'm part Armenian and take maybe too much interest in middle-eastern things.

What happens on the Syrian coast right now in your version?

[–] squirrel@lemmy.blahaj.zone 21 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I can't take articles such as this one seriously if they don't mention right-wing terrorists recruiting through the same channels and means. That has been a known problem for more than a decade.

Treating online radicalisation solely as a problem of people with a migrant/non-European/Muslim/... background is very telling and borders on lying by omission.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 17 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The mother told criminal investigators that she’d thought her son had been playing video games and doing homework during the hours he spent in his room.

Huh, that sounds like she was very much not involved in her kid's life. You don't go from "huh, what's this Qu'ran thing" to "ima watch some beheadings" in an afternoon.

Also, where's the dad in this situation? It's fine if she's a single parent or something, but if there's a father figure, he's also to blame here.

IMO, a 12-yo shouldn't be let loose on the internet alone. They should be in the process of getting there, but I would keep computers like this in more public spaces (living room, family room, kitchen, etc) where parents can casually glance over and see what their child is getting into. This shouldn't be some kind of creepy spying thing, just casual interest (i.e. are they looking at sports stuff but not involved in those sports? Maybe sign them up for a community league!), as well as an early warning sign if they're starting to get into weird stuff.

The boy is now in residential care without access to social networks, with specialized educators and regular visitation rights for his parents, the prosecutor told AP.

Yeah, this sounds like the parents royally messed up.

Police analysis of the 12-year-old boy’s computer and phone found 1,739 jihadi videos, “a phenomenal quantity of scenes of decapitation, throat-slitting, shootings,” the prosecutor said. He also had how-to videos on bomb-making and killing, including one that appeared to show the real-life death of a tied-down man being methodically chopped into pieces.

That's a lot of videos... This had to have been going on for quite a while...

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world -5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The boy likely has a pathology. No way this is purely learned interest.

I watched porn in that age. A lot of it. And listened to Nazi marches. And generally marches. But I was kinda depressed by one girl (I suppose with the same pathology that boy has) intentionally trying to compel me to suicide (yes, certain, she made enough attempts for that, and also wasn't as subtle as she thought), and in general being in school full of walking shit, and my parents being exceptional idiots, loud and irritating at that.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Sure, and the parents should absolutely have picked up on that. If you take even a passing interest in your kid's life, you'll at least pick up on something being a bit off.

My oldest is 11, so not all that different from the kid in the article. We still have regular chats where they tell me a fair amount of what goes on at school and w/ friends. They don't tell me everything, and they frequently lie, but I'm present enough to pick up on trends.

These parents were either complicit (unlikely) or negligent (very likely) if they "didn't know" what their kid was up to. I certainly hid stuff from my parents (had a copy of the Anarchist's Cookbook, because I thought it was interesting), but nothing anywhere close to this magnitude.

if they're not already (and they probably are), these parents should be criminally investigated for whatever laws France has around gross negligence.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

They don’t tell me everything, and they frequently lie, but I’m present enough to pick up on trends.

To be good enough you just have to be better than the parents who first ask people from outside, like teachers, and then ask their kids for control and still believe them less. OK, that's my flashbacks again.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 days ago

The trick, IMO, is to look past the things that don't matter and only call them out when it does. Then casually mention that you know they lie other times, so they never know exactly how much you pick up on.

Don't blindly trust your kid or a random other adult, take the time to hear both sides, and simply state how things ought to be. It's best if you can find something you can agree w/ from both sides that are relevant, so both sides know they're being heard.

[–] EnsignWashout@startrek.website 0 points 2 days ago (4 children)

Did I miss something, or is a 12 year old in France now in (indefinite?) police custody for being curious online?

[–] brsrklf@jlai.lu 15 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Seriously?

1,739 jihadi videos, “a phenomenal quantity of scenes of decapitation, throat-slitting, shootings,”

Oh yeah, you know, being curious online.

Adult moderators for social networks/content platforms get serious trauma from less than that. The kid needs help, he's being cut from that shit and followed by educators. And no, that's not "police custody".

[–] somethingsomethingidk@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago

The boy is now in residential care without access to social networks, with specialized educators and regular visitation rights for his parents, the prosecutor told AP.

[–] IllNess@infosec.pub 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Imagine if children found stories of a man being abused by an entire crowd, stripped naked, and nailed to a cross he was forced to carry. Also he was alive when nailed. We should detain those children too.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 2 points 13 hours ago

Yes, this is true

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

The kid is in police custody because the parents royally screwed up. Your kid doesn't casually get into thousands of jihadist videos, bomb-making recipes, etc without the parents being complicit or completely negligent. I hope the parents understand where they messed up and social services can help rescue what's left of his life before he goes and does something incredibly stupid.