Iceblade02

Usually, for a hydro power plant to be effective they require a dam to be built. This significantly changes the surrounding landscape by flooding large areas of land and also reduces the ability of fish to travel through whichever waterway is dammed up.

Enviromental activists often decry and try to prevent these types of developments because of this - they consider these changes to ruin the local environment.

On the other hand, hydropower is possibly the most useful source of renewable electricity, having a large implicit storage capacity that can be released at any moment.

This is surprisingly often the case. At a short term scale, improvements in the local environment are at odds with improvements towards preventing climate change (hydropower is the poster child for this). Long term though, it's almost always better to prioritize the large scale, as failing to limit climate change will ultimately make any efforts to protect local environments futile.

Most estimates (and all recent ones) put that number around 50 mln, the vast majority of whom died from disease, rather similarly to how the black death from asia killed the majority of europe and the middle east two hundred years prior.

Did it enable colonialism? Yes. Was it meticulously planned? No.

Could you highlight any part of the post of the accused woman referencing violence?

This

Thankfully, I don’t live in a fucked up country where the legal apparatus can chase me down for other people misinterpreting my words.

has to do with this

If proof is important for internet debates, where’s your proof that she wasn’t anywhere near the start of this batch of far right violence? That’s a bold unsubstantiated claim that contradicts the police. Where’s your proof that the police falsely claimed that they traced online calls for violence following the child murders back to her? That’s an even bolder unsubstantiated claim. You claim she’s a political scapegoat. Where’s your proof that there was political interference in her arrest? That’s another bold unsubstantiated claim.

Again, you are misinterpreting my words and going to a lot of effort to fight strawmen.

I have to ask is why the **** you’re supporting her and acting like her defence lawyer?

Because: a) I find it highly doubtful that the intent to incite exists or can be proven and

The crime here isn’t lying on the internet, it’s spreading misinformation in order to incite violence.

b) I'm bothered by these sorts of laws existing in a country even remotely close to me. They're wrong, offensive, dangerous and worthy of combating.

Who decides what speech is dangerous? Given that woman was arrested, my b) statement above might easily be considered equally or more inciteful.

These sorts of laws could be leveraged even when people are saying the truth, but instead by a truly malicious operator. Let's paint an obviously fictive scenario.

The new "Britain First" movement has gained a lot of popularity within the UK police force and military, and is set to get several seats in the new election. An insider in the London force blows the whistle!

"The Britain First party intends to overturn the election under the guise of voting fraud if they lose. They have to be stopped!" (Link to treasure trove of evidence)

Later that day, the posters door is broken down, along with several other people who had reposted the statement online. They are arrested for "incitement to violence" and forced to take down their dangerous speech to prevent violent uprisings against the legitimate authority of the police.

It's important to remember that the very same powers given to institutions to protect us can be used against us if hijacked by malicious actors. Liberal democracy is a fragile thing.

I’m not sure that you’re entirely clear on what incitement is.

Enough to be certain that proving intent to incite is supposed to be central to the conviction.

You keep demanding proof of me and never providing anything at all

I'm claiming that there is a lack of evidence for the polices suspicion and that it will be difficult to obtain. Your inability to point to even the slightest external evidence that the post was made maliciously is enough to say that any other explanation is just as likely and validates my claim.

Maybe you've heard of Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

It's also funny how you've set up a bunch of strawmen claims that I never made to fight. Thankfully, I don't live in a fucked up country where the legal apparatus can chase me down for other people misinterpreting my words.

Oh, and btw, do you think the UK police don't also want a scapegoat after fucking up containing riots and having kids get killed on their watch?

Just exercising my freedom of expression to share my speculations on the matter ;)

You’ve addressed a total of zero points I raised.

I addressed a total of one.

…and how exactly is the intent going to be proven?

The original question that you still haven't adressed, probably because you can't. Thing is, the rest of your arguments are moot if there is no intent. You assume she is malicious, but she very well mightn't have been, and even if she was it'll be difficult to prove.

"All hell will break loose" really isn't an incitement to violence. It might mean political scandal, flame wars on social media, protests etc., none of which are riots.

If anything, what I see is politicians wanting somebody to blame for their own mistakes, a convenient scapegoat, one person who they can pin the blame on instead of taking responsibility.

She wasn't anywhere near the "start" of this, merely one (potentially innocent) link in a chain of events starting years prior with gross political mismanagement.

You keep dodging my question. You claim that the poster knew that this was false and intended to incite violence, can you cite any external proof for this at all or is it just a hunch?

Occam's razor would point to the simplest explanation - A mistake by the poster originating from hearsay or... a hunch (something that happens thousands of times) rather than some conspiracy to incite riots and violence.

Ringleaders? Again you claim there is intent, where is the proof of this? Also, where is she inciting violence?

Compare this to Aaronovitch tweeting (allegedly as a joke) that Biden should have Trump murdered a few days before the assassination attempt. Did he get arrested?

If one online post of (potentially innocent) misinformation is enough to rile up riots on the streets of your country, clearly your society is pretty severely fucked up and needs a reality check.

Needing to lock up random civilians because they said something inconvenient is not exactly a sign of strength or morality, at least in my book.

...and how exactly is the intent going to be proven? The post itself isn't an incitement to violence, she isn't even claiming that what she posted was the truth, merely saying "if this is the truth".

The people who need to go to jail are the rioters, not some random woman who (in a charitable interpretation) simply reposted something online.

That's an impressive track record.