On the dangers of the internet and Scientology...

Here are a few articles I've found in the past few weeks.

Article 1

This first one is an article regarding the decapitation of a grocery store clerk. I find this particular article to be particularly stupid, considering that it barely makes any mention of video games, despite the fact that the title includes "...was keen online gamer". The mentions of video gaming felt more like an after-thought, as though the authors (or their superiors) decided to tack it on, either for the sake of sensationalism, or because they absolutely want to bash gaming.

Further down, they mention that the victim had played Assassin's Creed, and felt the need to mention that it included a decapitation scene, at which point they go on to mention that the police were only using the consoles to try and see who the victim had been playing with/against. Essentially, I feel that none of these comments were necessary, and simply reflect a bias against gaming.

Article 2

This next article simply demonstrates the dangers of the internet for small businesses. You need to be careful about what you put up on the internet, because you clearly never know who might be reading.



Article 3

This last one, if the story proves to be true, is by far the most disturbing of these three. Apparently, a woman was held captive aboard a Scientology cruise ship for more than a decade.

The big problem with this article, but especially with the story itself, is that we don't really know enough about the situation to be able to conclusively pick a side. On one hand, the woman's story is shocking and appalling, enough that we would want to sympathize with her, especially considering that the article focuses on her side of the story.

However, reading the statement made by the Church of Scientology, we get a completely different picture. Apparently, she was a volunteer crew member, and had even met her husband during this time. Said husband denies her allegations, and the statement argues that she took several extended trips to various countries, during which she passed through customs. Even assuming that customs would have records of her passage, we cannot be sure that she necessarily went willingly.

The big issue in this case is that it's the word of one woman versus the word of a powerful (and rich) organization, for whom keeping such things secret is in its best interests. Again, the article does not provide us with enough information to make an informed decision as to who we choose to believe.

Lastly, even if the whole story was indeed a fabrication, we need to ask ourselves: why would she make such allegations in the first place? What are her motives for doing so?