Why is Islamaphobia even mentioned? Good point. Seriously you should know better than to use that word for two reasons.

1) It is offensive to genuine phobia sufferers to use their condition as a term of abuse in this way.

2) It is a word used for shutting down debate by conflating any rational criticism of the ideology of Islam (or the historical/current practices of Islamic regimes) with racist bigotry.

I was referring specifically to the Sunni/Shia split - which started more or less the moment the Mohammed died and has continued ever since.
This split is responsible for a large proportion of the troubles in the middle east. Historically it has only been contained by brutal dictatorships - such as the Ottoman Caliphs/Sultans and more recently the likes of Assad (senior) and Saddam Hussein.

The solution, very, very simplified, is for Iran to become less extreme. Us too! Agree with your first statement- but - in what way are we extreme?

Last time I looked we were pretty tolerant compared to Iran.

Yes the CIA fucked up. Yes it created a mess.

If you think the US in particular, or the West in general (Britain and France were heavily involved between WW1 and the mid 50's) are really responsible for the mess in the middle east you don't know enough history. The root causes go back about 1400 years.

There was no course of action that Britain, France or the US could have taken that would have avoided a situation very much like what we see today.

The real problem is that once the Nazis and the cold war were out of the way it was inevitable that older conflicts would resurface.

Although those of us who have been around a while will be aware that the report button has suffered from some mission creep. It was originally intended only for genuine spam.

I actually find it annoying when a comment is hidden - but still followed by multiple rebuttals.

AS a rule I would say that if you are going to reply to something then don't report it. If someone else has already put up a reply then don't report it either - unless the reply itself is also worthy of being reported

In Iran, that would be Ayatollah Khamenei, not President Rouhani, whose head covering is considerably smaller.

As is his power. Although I suspect he wears the headgear and other garb as a ploy to allay suspicion. Ahmedinahjab, who was actually much more an Islamic extremist, wore a suit.

Unfortunately we've been here before. An earlier president (Rafsanjani https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbar_Hashemi_Rafsanjani) was similar to - if not more liberal than - Rouhani.

Unfortunately he was judged too liberal to even stand for president more recently. However he was quite close to Rouhani.

Rouhani, like Rafsanji before him, has limited freedom of action. Most recently he has actually been playing a smart game in keeping just the right side of Khamenei.

I would jusge that he would view Telegram as a positive to his own political position.

After all Rafsanjani is on record as saying:

" We should let our media write within the framework of the law and we should not impose restrictions on them. ... We should let our media even criticize us. Our security forces, our police and other organs have to guarantee such a climate for criticism"

I note the reaction of the IEEE:

"To ensure compliance, as well as respect the privacy of all individuals, IEEE has decided to apply GDPR standards to all individuals and not only European citizens."

and

"Other countries have already created regulations similar to the GDPR and additional countries are expected to follow the trend in the future. IEEE believes that by treating all individuals interacting with us as if the GDPR were applicable to them now we will be able to more easily respond to any additional requirements in the future."
from

https://supportcenter.ieee.org/app/answers/detail/a_id/3023/kw/gdpr

Havinf had to look at this in more detail because of personal involvement I would conclude:

1. The headline demands look pretty horrific.

2. The detail includes an enormous number of exceptions that in fact nullify most of (1) except in the most egregious cases.

3. Lots of companies and organisations are overreacting.

4. Because of (3) the consultants are having a field day.

In short if you're not a large corporation and your not doing anything that most reasonable people would regard as immoral the chances of this impacting you are ~0

If the UK police are even remotely similar to the US police

Fortunately they aren't, at least for now.

For one thing they don't have the option of shooting first and asking questions afterwards.

Traditionally there have been some pretty good senior police officers in the UK.

eg John Alderson https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/11/john-alderson

Sadly they remain quite rare

"significant advantage" that no "co-operation" is required from a person.

Ah - but of course GDPR (see next post) is supposedly all about guaranteeing co-operation...

Except of course the law enforcement is exempt....

Quelle Surprise!

Well at least a pretence of fairness - which is more than what is required from private organisations.

Because regardless of how problematic it is for a private entity like Cambridge Analytica to have access to lots of data about American voters, for all those same reasons it is even more problematic for a government to.

I'd say it is more problematic if a private entity has this data. At least governments are generally under some kind of legal framework that requires "fairness" in some sense.

The whole point of the ICO/data protection act/GDPR is to prevent the collection of this data without consent.

So if UK law had been complied with by Cambridge Analytics then this data wouldn't exist in the first place.

Of course, by having this data they have committed an offence and the data itself is now evidence.

In short it is necessary for the legal system to get this data in order to enforce the laws that are supposed to protect privacy.

You are complaining about the very thing that is supposed to prevent the problem in the first case.

How stupid is that??

We might see the problem more easily if it were, say, Russian regulators demanding Cambridge Analytica give it all the data it has,

You believe the Russian government doesn't already have this data???

Hmmm really? From personal experience of people asking me to do so it's pretty far from what you are saying. However M$ is offering some pretty good pricing for Office 365 specially with that 1Tb offering that comes attached so I always try to divert them towards signing up. And free software like Libre Office are pretty good for your everyday use, I've used for a long time at work before we got M$ Office licenses that weren't 20 years old.

My personal experience is a little different...

I too use libreoffice routinely myself on my work laptop - MS office was installed on my machine by my employer - but I never used it and it wasn't activated. The when someone else wanted to borrow my machine for presentations at a conference they wanted to use MS powerpoint and so we hit the 30 day "activate deadline". Annoyed by this I later took the machine back to tech support and they activated it.

Later they changed the machine's identity to conform to may physical office move - and forgot to re-activate office. So now the "non-activated" nag is back.

The point is that seeing the non-activated nag message doesn't necessarily mean that the s/w is unlicensed - merely that the habitual user doesn't use that s/w and can't be bothered to get tech support to fix it.

In short, without further detail, this could easily be a non-story.

But all Timmy does is jeer at Israel's chosen enemy (one of the many which are chosen due to rabid religious beliefs

Exactly whose rabid religious beliefs are you talking about? - because Iranian and other Islamic beliefs seem a lot more rabid than those of the Israelis.

Techdirt silent on recent dozens of Palestinian protesters dead and over a thousand more, inclulding children, deliberately targeted for crippling wounds in joints.

I hate to break it to you but Techdirt isn't a general political blog. It is a technology blog that occasionally strays into political territory when there is a technical angle to the politics.

SO whilst it is reasonable to make political comments about such articles, complaining that the blog doesn't cover your particular grievance is not sensible.

BTW - the Israel Palestine issue is way nto complicated for your oversimplifications - and whilst there is a lot wrong with Israeli policy, particularly under the present leadership, it is still a better place to live for those Israeli arabs whose ancestors didn't flee in 1948 than any of the neighbouring arab countries.

Destroying that relatively civilised space would not be a step forward.

If Iran goes and has its own Arab Spring, (Persian Spring? Keep in mind they're not Arabians there,) though, in the current climate the best-case scenario is likely to be more or less the same thing we saw in Egypt: trading one oppressive, anti-democratic Islamist regime for another, and when the smoke clears they'll have a bunch of people dead, a bunch of property damaged or destroyed, and no additional freedom to show for it.

I think there is a good chance that you are wrong about this one.

The reason is that the Iranian people have now had 40 years of Islamic rule and have learnt to dislike it. The other middle eastern regimes were still basically secular dictators hailing from the age of arab nationalism (1950s-60s) before the Saudi petrodollars got to work in reinvigorating Islam as a political force. Ironically the Saudi motivation for this was to bolster Sunni Islam against the Iranian Shia version.

So in the Sunni Arab world the popular revolutionary groundswell is still Islamic (which is why encouraging regime change in Egypt, Syria and for that matter Iraq, has proved so disastrous). Iran is now different and if the current Islamic regime is toppled it is reasonable to hope that it will be replaced with something better.

How frequently that source, or author, accurately reports the news.

A much better criterion would be " how often do they report or give publicity to, alternative opinions.

Therein lies the challenge with building out algorithms to automate this process. Let's say you assign a credibility score based on the historic human-based scoring of credibility by source. How frequently that source, or author, accurately reports the news. With as polarized as sources are today, the dog person and the cat person training an algorithm will come away with completely different automated processes reflecting their subjective world view.

Actually it is far more complicated than that.

There is no straight left - right axis anymore

Foreign policy is even more complicated.

Compare for example George Galloway's take on the world with that of Peter Hitchens.

On the Israel vs Arab (Muslim) axis they would violently disagree

On the Russia vs the West axis they agree (with each other) and both disagree with the western establishment view.

The fact is that most people (and news outlets) are a mixture of different biases on different topics - and they may change with time.

Generally I tend to trust the BBC and the Guardian - but on some issues I know that they have a bias and so I will look at other sources too.

And it looks like something similar is in process right now with Iran/Russia.