"The internet, on the whole, isn't to blame for the mess we're in now. It's the actions of those MP's who we've elected, who brought us in to illegal wars, who continue to fund regimes with weapons and money to carry on those and other wars, who allow proxy wars to continue to be fought, ...."
So you think that terrorist attacks in, say, Britain are linked to deployment of British forces elsewhere? So exactly what did Sweden do to attract the attention of these brain dead wankers? Or Belgium? Or the Philippines? Or Pakistan? Or India? Or Iraq? Or Argentina? I don't recall those countries being involved in deployments beyond their own borders.
It's a monumental level of naivety to assume that there is any connection whatsoever between a country's foreign policy and whether or not it becomes a target for terrorists. Saying "Stop being beastly and the terrorists will stop being beastly to us" is demonstrably a load of bollocks.
Many countries across Europe have woken up too late to the fact that despite a policy of non-involvement in the affairs of the Middle East they are just as targetted as anywhere else. That's come as a nasty shock.
Well she's going to point at the internet and blame that for what happened on Saturday and the week before that in Manchester.
She's not pointing at the Internet, she's pointing at companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter, Apple.
Google and Facebook in particular seem to be quite happy to host some truly nasty content, make money from placing ads next to it, and are currently highly ineffective at blocking it from upload and responding to take down notifications. Their feeble attempts thus far seem to focus around making content ineligble for "monetisation", which is a long way from "deleting the content and reporting the user responsible to the police". This approach seems more focused on persuading advertisers that their ads won't appear next to such content, rather than preventing the content being there in the first place. That's really taking the piss.
Whether Google/Facebook like it or not there's kids out there seeking out this kind of material. They're also using these companies' services to talk to some truly nasty, manipulative, far-from-brain-dead wankers who do a good job at grooming them to the point where they're willing to kill themselves and a whole load of others. That's the nub of it. No one is born to do this kind of thing, and it's generally not the parents egging them on, and here in the UK the Police are generally on good terms with Mosques these days. There's actually a ton of good community / police cooperation; parents do not want their sons going off the rails and doing something fatally stupid.
The social media networks acknowledge that they are a conduit for this, and yet they are being very unhelpful or wilfully obstructive in helping law enforcement agencies identify these people. The only reason why the social network companies are being unhelpful and obstructive is because it's going to cost them a ton of cash to do anything about it, or they need to change their business model entirely, or they need to stop pandering to their US users and swallow their First Ammendment pride, or let law enforcement agencies into their data sets so that they can police the content themselves. All of that sounds massively unprofitable.
Well fuck that. I and everyone else (including yourself) want these wankers, brain dead or otherwise, to be hindered, identified, arrested and jailed. If the companies aren't going to usefully help with that, then they're going to have to be forced. If that means regulation and users having to give up the effective anonymity currently afforded by the companies' freetard business models, so be it. If the companies don't like that, well hard luck, get a different business model.
So, given that, how exactly do you expect any elected government to respond? Yes, that's right, elections 101: being lax on law enforcement doesn't look good at the ballot box. The incumbent Spanish government lost the general election immediately after the Madrid bombings thanks to it's poor response; other politicians (though apparently not Corbyn or the Lib Dems) took careful note of that.
So it's no surprise that governments all over Europe are talking about or have already taken similar actions. For example, France has an enduring state of emergency where there's a lot of extra-judical activity going on. Germany will now be handing out €50m fines. Belgium has been having a bit of a crackdown too. I've no idea what the Swedes have been doing.
By being so pathetically useless at cleaning up their act the companies are bringing this upon themselves.
Having said all that, I think the logical conclusion of strong intervention by governments across Europe against US social network tech companies is 1) they'll have to stop offering a global service and offer non-connected regional services, or 2) they'll withdraw their service entirely from Europe, or 3) they'll abandon or change their US market, or 4) countries will start establishing things akin to the Great Firewall of China to block them and any other non-compliant service.
Ultimately this is boiling down to battle of wills between US users and users in Europe / UK / Canada / elsewhere, and whether or not a company decides to operate in one environment or the other. Americans are quite often vociferously paranoid about the Federal government (which explains the attitudes of the American companies), whereas Europeans, etc. generally trust their governments. Despite the occasional raving the contrary on forums such as this, the majority of of people in Europe can tell the difference between an oppressive totalitarian regime and sensible policing measures. Go ask an East German aged 50 or older, they'll give you an exceptionally clear explanation.
In the past, when it's come to similar Europe / rest of the world vs the USA decisions (e.g. Apple choosing a phone standard for the first iPhone), there is form for American companies realising that the USA is too small a market (Apple chose GSM).
You're Calling for a Police State?
Putting more police on the streets seems wrong. What would you have them do? Stop every white van they see and ask the driver what their intentions are? Follow everyone who looks like they might have Middle Eastern ancestry everywhere to see what they're doing? Stop and search to see if they have a kitchen knife about their person? Sounds like you're calling for a police state. No thanks. No thanks at all.
Police on the streets are only any good for stopping crimes in the act of being committed, if they see it happening. Or for sweeping up the pieces afterwards.
What we need is to stop young kids being turned into brain dead wankers in the first place, and you're not going to achieve that by putting a load of bobbies on the beat. Arguably having more spooks is a part of that, and curiously enough I think they've been recruiting recently.
Of course, the only reason why attacks like this happen at all is the vast amounts of publicity they generate. So stop publishing news stories about it.
This was done back in the late 1980s / early 1990s, when the IRA were calling in a load of hoax bomb warnings on the London Underground. The government forced the press and media to stop reporting the incidents, and the hoaxes dried up very quickly.
If the same level of blackout could be achieved for these attacks, they'd stop happening. Though in this day and age, and with the fatalities involved, it would be difficult. Still, it would be very effective, requires no technology or changes in how we live our lives, etc.