World News

41568 readers

5095 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]

Recommendations

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Extreme online violence may be linked to rise of ‘0 to 100’ killers, experts say (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/world

20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The rise of “0 to 100” killers who go from watching torture, mutilation and beheading videos in their bedrooms to committing murder suggests there could be a link between extreme violence online and in real life, experts have said.

Criminal justice experts advocated a new approach, inspired by counter-terrorism, to identify an emerging type of murderer with no prior convictions, after cases such as Nicholas Prosper, who killed his mother and siblings and planned a primary school massacre.

Jonathan Hall, the government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said there was a “new threat cohort” combining terrorists who were radicalised online and those who had “gone down a rabbit hole and into a dark world”.

He said: “There are quite a lot of similarities: they are isolated loners, boys rather than girls; the internet is obviously central; quite a high proportion have neurodivergence.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 day ago (3 children)

"People watching torture, mutilation, and beheading videos for entertainment" is probably not the place to be taring the scale. That's already pretty fucked up, in my book. Like, easily already at 50 and cruising higher at a rapid rate.

[–] givesomefucks 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah, but the people who do go on to do that shit, would be the most likely to seek it out, and history shows people still would do those crimes without online video.

And a non zero were given treatment because those videos leave a trail and some get caught.

The answer to this stuff is rarely simple, and the actual findings are often counterintuitive.

Basically:

We have no idea until we study, and we can't really ethically study this. We'd have to force a control group of impressionable kids to watch those videos.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

I think I get what you are saying, but also, I'm not sure my point got across entirely. The article and headline use this "from 0 to 100" verbiage to imply a rapid acceleration from being at rest (as in, 0mph) to suddenly moving at a very high velocity (100mph). And that is relating people who watch snuff films to the at-rest part of the analogy, no effort spent, just coasting along... a default state, if you will. And, of course, the real wacko ones that end up just happening to take it a bit too far are the ones that just suddenly find themselves going 100mph, having obviously had to expend a great deal of energy in pursuit of that sudden delta-v.

I'm saying, on that kind of a scale, the people that would never even consider the existence of smut and, upon hearing about it, would be far too revolted to want to have to see it, has a velocity so far in the negative that it's probably worth considering setting the 0 in the scale to the people who are all the way on the smut-is-gross-and-also-a-red-flag end of the dichotomy on this issue? That's got to make more sense than setting 0 at "they watch that nasty shit but don't, like, act on it" as the 0-point, doesn't it?

load more comments (1 replies)