That is a stage, it is a big stage and it does not care whether you live of whether you die. So let’s take this to a new level and start with a question: ‘When did you last cause the death of a person?’ I do not care whether it is you mum, your dad, your partner, your child. When did you cause their death? Too direct? Too Bad!
You see, we think that we are innocent, some are risk programmers into debt insolvency programs, yet there it is not about the people, it is about the business that needs maximisation. We pride ourself in compartmentalisation, yet in the end the programmer is just as efficient a murderer as the sniper is. When I look through the sight of a .308 rifle, the sight allows me to go for a target 450 metres away, an optimum distance, the silencer will make is silent enough so that anyone more than 4 metres away will not hear a thing and 450 metres away, a person falls to their knees, the chest wound is damaging enough to ensure that the target will be dead on arrival, even if it happens at the entrance of a hospital, for the target it is over. You think this is bad?
The programmer writes the formula that sets a different strain of insolvency. It is a form of credit risk, as such we get “In the first resort, the risk is that of the lender and includes lost principal and interest, disruption to cash flows, and increased collection costs”, as such the credit firms hire programmers that can stretch the case to lower the risk to the lender, set the stage where there is an increased option to pay back at much higher cost. In that same way we see programs and risk assessments being created where the facilitators are not at risk, they are not to blame and they are not to be held accountable.
So here comes Molly Russell and the BBC gives us ‘Molly Russell social media material ‘too difficult to look at’’, it starts with “The 14-year-old killed herself in 2017 after viewing graphic images of self harm and suicide on the platform”, so what ‘platform’ was that? How much was viewed and what time frame was in play? These are the first questions that rise straight from the bat. It is followed by “A pre-inquest hearing on Friday was told not all the material had been studied yet as it was too difficult for lawyers and police to look at for long”, basically at least two years later lawyers and police are unable to view what a 14 year old did, and this does not give us the hard questions? So whilst the article (optionally unintentionally) hides behind “The inquest will look at how algorithms used by social media giants to keep users on the platform may have contributed to her death”, the basic flaw is at the very basic level. How did this stuff get uploaded, why was it not flagged and hw many viewed it, in addition towards the small setting of who was the uploading party? So someone gave a 14 year old the settings and the access to materials that most adults find unwatchable and I think there are bigger questions in play. It is the line “He added certain parts of the material had been redacted and lawyers and police were trying to find out why”, as I personally see it, redaction happens when you need to hide issues and this becomes an increased issue with “the investigation was seeking the cooperation of Snapchat, WhatsApp, Pinterest, Facebook and Twitter, although until recently only Pinterest had co-operated fully”, as well as “Snapchat could not disclose data without an order from a US court, WhatsApp had deleted Molly’s account and Twitter was reluctant to handover material due to European data protection laws, the hearing was told”, On a personal footnote, Twitter has been on a slippery slope for some time, and the deletion by WhatsApp is one that is cause for additional questions. As I see it, these tech giants will work together to maximise profit, but in this, is the death of a person the danger that they cannot face, or will not face in light of the business setting of profit? Even as I am willing to accept the view of “Coroner Andrew Walker said “some or all” of those social media companies could be named as interested parties in the inquest as they would be “best placed” to give technical information for the case”, are they best placed or are we seeing with this case the setting where Social media is now the clear and present danger to the people for the case of extended profits into the largest margin available?
That is a direction you did not see, is it?
We have never seen social media as a clear and present danger, but in case of Molly Russell that might be exactly what we face and there is every indication that she is not the only case and it is possible that the redactions would optionally show that.
Yet in all this, the origin of the materials and how they were passed through social media remains a much larger issue. I wonder how much the inquest will consider that part. You see, for me, I do not care. I am sorry, the picture of the girl in the BBC article is lovely, she is pretty, but I do not care. It is cold, yet that is what it is. In Yemen well over 100,000 are dead and the world does not seem to care, as such, I need not care about one girl, but the setting, the setting I do care about. It is not for the one case, under 5G when the bulk of the people will get drowned in information and all kinds of movies, one girl will end up being between 8 and 20 people. The setting is larger, 5G will make it so ad if you doubt that, feel free to wait and watch the corpses go by.
Suddenly sniping seems such a humanitarian way to pass the time, does it not?
We need to consider that one process influences another, as such the process is important, just like the processes risk assessors write to lower risk, the stage of what goes one way, also has the ability to go the other way. This translates into ‘What would keep Molly Russell with us?’ Now implies a very different thing, it sets the stage of a lot more. It is not merely who messaged Molly Russell, it becomes what else was send to Molly Russell on WhatsApp, so suddenly the deletion of her account does not seem that innocent, does it? It goes from bad to worse when you consider on how social media links and how links and usage is transferred. Like footprints the links go form one to the other and no one has a clue? It is in my personal view more likely that they all have a clue and for the most it is extremely profitable, Molly Russell is merely a casual situation of circumstance, so under 5G when it is not 1, but up to 20 times the victims, what will happen then?
I will let you consider that small fact, the setting where your children become the casualty of margins of profit, until death deletes the account, have a great day!