Yes, we see and look at at harmony and we take turns into getting it and optionally capturing it, but harmony based on greed, on sales margins is not harmony, it is one sided lust. When we get that part we can get to the second part, it is a setting in a few parts. First there is ‘UK Huawei 5G ban hammers top line’ a week ago (at https://au.news.yahoo.com/huawei-profit-revenue-5-g-uk-rollout-151601892.html) there we see (yet again) “Dowden admitted the move would set back efforts to establish 5G in Britain by up to three years and cost the telecoms industry billions. However, he defended the move by citing national security concerns”, which is what I had already established in 2019 (the three year delay that is), in addition we see with: ‘Huawei’s HarmonyOS already has 134,000 apps, over 4 million developers have signed on’ (at https://www.gsmarena.com/huaweis_harmonyos_already_has_134000_apps_over_4_million_developers_have_signed_on-news-49552.php), which gets you to an earlier story I had on August 16th 2019 with ‘The slammer got slammed’ where I gave the reader (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2019/08/16/the-slammer-got-slammed/) “the message is not that there are 565 players, it is that they are all looking in a similar direction whilst the none excavated the gold mine that was right behind them, a first lesson that the classics can inspire towards a new direction. Now that I see their direction I found two other fields that had not been considered to the degree it needed. Saudi Arabia is giving us Neom City, but there is a lack in one direction and now that this can be exploited we see even more options. You only had to be willing to get your hands dirty in the most literal of ways. And all this is pushed even more through the impact of the European economy”, These sides all impact on what I wrote yesterday, as well as “Huawei announced that over 4 million developers have signed on to build on the Harmony platform and that there are already 134,000 apps using HMS Core. HMS Core itself keeps evolving and yesterday’s event saw the launch of version 6.0 with extended support for Huawei’s cloud services”, now we can set the elements together when you realise that (also shown yesterday) that Saudi Arabia has a 5G that is the fastest 5G, Saudi Arabis has a setting that will allow development of all kinds of apps, all kinds of 5G solutions that most places cannot equal with. This setting was seen 2 weeks ago with ‘Saudi Arabia witnesses expansion of 5G services’ in the Arab News (at https://www.arabnews.com/node/1873006/saudi-arabia) where we see “5G services have been extended to 53 governorates of the Kingdom as compared to 51 in the fourth quarter of 2020” what the article doesn’t say or winks at is the fact that in the setting they have now, they have a speed and a 3 year advantage in creating a lot more software solutions that require 5G, in this Saudi Arabia is not alone, South Korea and they are both twice as fast as Canada and well over 60% faster than Australia (in third position). But that setting opens up a lot of options for two nations, all whilst the US is nowhere near ready, as are most of the EU nations. But the danger of the EU and US losing more ground to others is now a direct danger because of HarmonyOS. There is no way to proof this, yet consider “Developers from China, Europe, Latin America, the Asia Pacific, the Middle East and Africa can participate. The monetary prize pool is $1 million, but Huawei will offer practical awards too, including marketing support, cloud resources, incentives for using HMS Core’s payment system and more”, a setting that puts the US in a non contender field and when we consider the applications, and the fields where dozens of apps are reengineered, Huawei now has the ability to become a mobile power broker within two years, all whilst you now get to mull over “the move would set back efforts to establish 5G in Britain by up to three years”, all whilst someone will wake up realise that the rest of Europe is largely falling behind too. Even as I gave warnings 3 years ago, others laughed at me and told me I was insane, now we see that the moment has come and I was a lot more correct that even I expected to be, I actually thought it would take longer, and to be honest Saudi Arabia was not part of the equation, but with the 5G they now have they are part of the power play that is most likely to hit us over the next 2 years, and before mot of Europe is ready for 5G.
The second part is seen in ‘Zain KSA is the fastest in 5G and data performance in Riyadh’ (at http://www.tradearabia.com/news/IT_383015.html) where we see “Zain KSA was also recognised for having the fastest YouTube video start time and browsing websites, which supports customers with surfing the website, music (song downloads) and social media trends and photo uploads”, which implies that the KSA could become a large streaming hub for a lot of the Middle East and for Europe as well. Clouds and cloud solutions in a place where the network and internet is well over 700% faster than anything the US has and almost twice as fast for 3-5 years than Canada and Australia, so as we see the impact of the economic dangers that the US and the EU faces at present, do you really think that the political views on BigTech makes any sense? BigTech is required to lessen the lag that could end the economic situation that the US and the EU faces. And that lag is increasing with every new less intelligent (read: stupid) decision the current administrations are making. A setting of greed is about the strangle a lot of nations and we are all letting that happen, a setting of everyone wants a share, a slice of the action, all whilst they had no part in creating any of it. I set that tone yesterday and whilst we give court time to people lacking imagination and innovation, TikTok (at $250B) surpassed all others but YouTube, now HarmonyOS is about to become the direct competitor of Android giving a setting where one third of mobile OS solutions is no longer American, it will be Chinese. All because some people made decisions absent of evidence. To them Harmony is overrated, I wonder how they see that closer to December 2022. A setting that is nearing faster as 4 million developers are using HarmonyOS to create a new economic wave for themselves, a stage that benefits China and it benefits the US a lot less so.
This partially reflect on what I stated yesterday in ‘The stage of what is’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/06/20/the-stage-of-what-is/), it is however now that I take notice of news that Reuters gave us on the 18th. There we see ‘China must develop unified, open-source smart car OS -ex-minister’, now for the most it comes to be in the ‘bla bla bla’ shape. I never much cared about cars, but for some reason I took notice of ‘China must develop’ (at https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/china-should-develop-unified-open-source-smart-car-operating-system-says-ex-2021-06-18/), for the most, I do not care, but the notion of that part of the sentence made me stop and read the article. There we see “the world’s biggest auto market, should develop its own unified, open-source operating system (OS) for smart vehicles, as well as auto chips, to maintain its advantage in the electric vehicle (EV) industry” there was nothing to disagree with, it is in any national interest to further its goals whether it is China, the US, India, the United Kingdom or Australia, we all have national interests. Yet when I took notice of “China should learn from the United States’ curbs on Chinese technology companies and boost its independence in vehicle-related technology” the cogs in my skull started to spin, which took more alarm to “U.S. President Joe Biden in April said the United States must ramp up production of electric vehicles to catch and surpass China”, which was interesting as I thought that the US (with all its marketing) was ahead of China in that field. So we have a different setting, one wants to catch up (and Democrats do not do that too well, all talk and no achievements tends to do that), China wants to make more headway optionally unbalancing the automotive industry even further. Yet it is the end that gives us “The Harmony operating system of Chinese telecommunications firm Huawei Technologies Co Ltd (HWT.UL) can be used in vehicles as well as smartphones” and that is the killer. I talked about that yesterday, I stated that HarmonyOS was a much larger problem and now we see the direct impact in a second industry, all whilst the Democrats (Republicans too) want to wage war on BigTech, yes, when was that EVER a good idea? So you are gearing up for the marathon and the first think you do is shoot yourself in the foot, now we see that the idiot athlete is shooting itself in both feet, so where do you think that athlete will end? Wanna buy a wooden spoon for the awards?
Yesterday I also referred to an earlier story from 2020, where I mentioned “if HarmonyOS catches on, Google will have a much larger problem for a much longer time. If it is about data Google will lose a lot, if it is about branding Google will lose a little, yet Huawei will gain a lot on the global stage and Apple? Apple can only lose to some extent, there is no way that they break even”, now it seems that this was less accurate, and ‘if HarmonyOS catches on’ should be replaced with ‘as HarmonyOS is catching on’, you see if China gets the advantage there, it can offer that solution to Germany, France, Spain, Italy and the UK all fighting to gain the upper hand in Europe. Do you think that they will ignore the HarmonyOS solution whilst the US is marketing itself ahead without evidence of actually being ahead? The damage to Google and Amazon will add up a lot more in this way and as HarmonyOS gains momentum, it will also gain momentum in 5G domotics and smart-wear. Yes, the Americans will say no, no, no, we already have something, so buy OUR solution. Yet the numbers from Tom’s guide (less than a month ago) give us:
And now compare that to Statista from September 2020, yes there is momentum but when you are trailing by 80% to number one, you have a massive problem.
Consider that Australia is wielding a 5G solution 300% faster than the US, do you think it does not matter? Think again, the US is desperately behind nations it used to look down on and China is ahead, by a lot and with the HarmonyOS trump card (also a card Donald Trump handed them) the headway that China is making in 5G will change the setting of who Europe aligns with, they have no choice, their debts are crushing them and China would be a way out, so at what point will the US dump the BigTech BS that is largely its own fault and was created and grew as the other players became complacent? We can now use the line the US tended to use against all of us against them
Winners talk, bullshitters walk
A stage they set in motion and fuelled by relying on buying IP (and viagra) and not working hard to keep innovative ahead of the game, now they get to see the other side of the equation, one where they are in line to lose industry after industry because the shots were called by stupid people. How is that working out for them? So as President Biden is trying to create a united front against Huawei (China) he will be noticing that the armour used is less and less effective, as HarmonyOS matures (towards version 2), America’s only way is to find a solution with players like Google, Amazon, Apple, IBM and Microsoft and their BigTech front will have to collapse, or they need to accept that China takes all in the end. That is the setting and when politicians from both sides of the aisle are crying ‘regulate BigTech’ its own enemies within will delay matters more and more, which works out nicely for Huawei, so when France or Germany allows HarmonyOS (Germany is more likely), HarmonyOS will sweep the landscape from automotive to 5G domotics and that is just the start, the backset for Google will grow. The issue is that Google still has options and the lag is not that large, but in that setting US politics need to grow up and wake up, the latter part is more important at present. So whilst we needed to take more notice of earlier news, the news that was earlier and needed to be properly addressed was in 2020 and that was not done, and now the US has a massive problem in multiple fields, so how is that coming across? And as the Daily Telegraph apparently gave its readers two days ago that Trump admitted defeat, we see that the former American El Jefe was almost 6 months late in learning simple top-line statistics, so what happens when this president is unable to learn from those blunders and make matters worse? Lina Khan is merely a first step (which I am not blaming her for), but not the only step. When we see losers crying foul (at https://lawstreetmedia.com/tech/google-asks-court-to-narrow-scope-of-rumbles-antitrust-case-in-mtd/) on the setting of ‘monopolisation of the online video-sharing platform market’, all whilst Tik-Tok (a Chinese invention no less), grew by well over 110%, in addition to the stage that YouTube was bought in 2006 by Google and they made something real from it (they bought it for less then $2B) and it made them $20B in 2020, so a decent invention, all whilst Rumble came 7 years after YouTube and is a Canadian solution almost no one has heard of, so they seemingly try to make their money in court (as I personally see it), and this wave of crybabies is stopping US innovations, you see if these players had true innovation they would be in the game, Tik Tok came three years after Rumble and surpassed them (almost overnight), and is now valued at $250,000,000,000, which is the impact of innovation. It is time for the US and its FTC to stop whinging with BS court cases and have a larger look at the industry and the impact that others have, especially when they should not need to waste time in courts.
The US wants to be number one, but in the process has no issues tying the hands of people who can make that happen behind their backs, how will that ever result in any option to win?
Yes, we all have that and I am no exclusion, ‘what is’ is the first part of a question that is dangerous. The answer that follows tends to be subjective and personal, as such it is loaded with bias, not that all bias is bad, but it defers from what actually is. This was the first stage when I saw ‘Lina Khan: The 32-year-old taking on Big Tech’. Then we get “when it comes to unfair competition, there is one sector that has been singled out by Democrats and Republicans alike: Big Tech”, this is the beginning of a discriminatory setting. There are two sides in this and let me begin that Big Tech is not innocent, so what is this about? Lets add ““What became clear is there had been a systemic trend across the US… markets had come to be controlled by a very small number of companies,” she said”, now we need to realise that there are two parts here too, in the first she is not lying and for the most, she is correct.
So why do I oppose?
The US, most of the Commonwealth and the EU all have a massive failing, they have no clue what they are doing. I have seen that side for over 30 years and it is the beginning of a larger stage. You see the big tech part needs to be split in two elements big tech and those who ‘use’ (or abuse) the elements of big tech. Big tech was more than the FAANG group (Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Google), in the beginning there was Microsoft, IBM and Sun as well (there were a few more players but they were gobbled up or ended up being forgotten. When we see charts of technology and market capitalisation we see Microsoft in second place, so why is Microsoft left outside of the targeting of these people? Microsoft is many things, but it was never innocent or some goody two shoes, the same can be argued for IBM, IBM have been gobbling up all kinds of corporations in the last 20 years, so why is IBM disregarded so often? It it nice to target the companies with visibility towards consumers, but that puts Microsoft with more than one issue in the crosshairs, but they are ignored, why is that?
Then we get back to the BBC article (at https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-57501579) where we see “Her general criticism is that Big Tech is simply too big – that a handful of large US tech firms dominate the sector, at the expense of competition”, she is not incorrect, but there are more sides to that story. In 1997 I gave an idea to bosses (in a software firm) on consumers messaging each other and for a firm to be in the middle of that. Being a gateway and a director of messages and giving visibility to people of other matters (I never used the word advertising). It was founded on a missing part when Warner Brothers created (in partnership with Angelfire) a website hub. So fans of Babylon 5, Gilmore Girls and a few other series could Create their own webpage, they got 20MB for free and an address, like in Babylon 5 I was something like Section Red number 23 (I forgot, it was 25 years ago), the bosses stated that there would never be a use for that, it was not their business and there was no business need for something like that and 4 years later someone else created Facebook. Now I am no Facebook creator, what I had was in no way anywhere near that, but that is a side a lot of people forget, the IT people had no clue on what the digital era was bringing and what it looked like, so as they were unaware, politicians had even less of a clue. So when Google had its day (search and email) no one knew what was going on, they merely saw a free email account with 1GB of storage and everyone got on the freebee train, that is all well and good, but nothing is for free, it never ever is.
As such a lot of companies remained inactive for close to half a decade, Google had created something unique and they are one of the founding fathers of the Digital age. Consider that Microsoft was clueless for close to a decade and when they started they were behind by a lot and there inaccurate overreaction of Bing, is merely laughable. Microsoft makes all these claims yet it was the creators of Google who came up with the search system and they got Stanford to make this for them, just look it up, a patent that is the foundation of Google and Microsoft was in the wind and blind to what would be coming. By the time they figured it out they were merely second tier junkyard vendors. And (as I personally see it) the bigger players in that time (IBM and Microsoft) were all ready to get rich whilst sleeping, they were looking into the SaaS world (diminishing cost to the larger degree), outsourcing as a cost saving and so on, as I see it players like Microsoft and IBM were about reducing cost and pocketing that difference, so as Google grew these players were close to a no-show and do not take my word for that, look at the history line of what was out there. In retrospect Apple saw what would be possible and got on the digital channel as fast as possible. Yet IBM and Microsoft were Big Tech, yet they are ignored in a lot of cases, why is that? When you ignore 2 out of 6 (I am not making Netflix part of this) we get the 2 out of part and that comes down to more than 30%, this is discrimination, it grows as Adobe has its own (well deserved) niche market, yet are they not big tech too? One source gives us “As of June 2021 Adobe has a market cap of $263.55 B. This makes Adobe the world’s 32th most valuable company by market cap according to our data”, which in theory makes them larger than IBM, really? Consider that part, for some reason Adobe is according to some a lot larger than IBM (they are 112th), so when we consider that, can we optionally argue that the setting is tainted? In a stage where there are multiple issues with the numbers and the descriptions we are given, the entire setting of Big Tech is needing a massive amount of scrutiny, and when I see Lina Khan giving us “markets had come to be controlled by a very small number of companies” I start to get issues. Especially when we see “there is one sector that has been singled out by Democrats and Republicans alike: Big Tech”. You see singling out is a form of discrimination, it is bias and that is where we are, a setting of bias and to some extent, we are all to blame, most of us are to blame because of what we were told and what was presented to us, yet no one is looking to close to the presenters themselves and it is there that I see the problem, This is about large firms being too large and the people who do not like these large firms are the people who for the most do not understand the markets they are facing. Just like the stage of media crying like little bitches because they lose revenue to Google (whilst ignoring Bing as it has less than 3% marketshare).
The who? The what? Why?
This part is a little more complex, to try to give my point, I need to go back to some Google page that gives me “What is Google’s position on this new law? We are not against being regulated by a Code and we are willing to pay to support journalism—we are doing that around the world through News Showcase. But several aspects of the current version of this law are just unworkable for the services you use and our business in Australia. The Code, as it’s written, would break the way Google Search works and the fundamental principle of the internet, by forcing us to pay to provide links to news businesses’ sites. There are two other serious problems remaining with the law, but at the heart of it, it comes down to this: the Code’s rules would undermine a free and open service that’s been built to serve everyone, and replace it with one where a law would give a handful of news businesses an advantage over everybody else.”
This is about that News bargaining setting. Here we get ‘by forcing us to pay to provide links to news businesses’ sites’, and I go ‘Why?’ A lot of them do not give us news, they give us filtered information, on addition to this is that if I am unwilling to buy a newspaper, why should I pay for their information? If they want to put it online it is up to them, they can just decide not to put it online, that I their right. In addition some sources for years pretty much EVERY article by the Courier Mail get me a sales page (see below), this is their choice and they are entitled to do so.
Yet this sales pitch is brought to us in the form of a link to a news article. It still happens today and it is not merely the Courier Mail, there are who list of newspapers that use the digital highway to connect to optional new customers. So why should they get paid to be online? In the digital stage the media has become second best, the stage that the politicians are eager to ignore is that a lot of the ‘news bringers’ are degraded to filtered information bringers. In the first why should I ever pay for that and in the second, why would I care whether they live or die? Do not think this is a harsh position, Consider the Daily Mail giving us two days ago ‘Police station is branded the ‘most sexist in Britain’ after investigations find officers moonlighted as prostitutes, shared pornography with the public and conducted affairs with each other on duty’, so how did they get to ‘most sexist in Britain’? What data do they have and hw many police stations did they investigate? There is nothing of that anywhere in the article, then we get to ‘after a series of scandals’, how many is a series of scandals? Over what time frame? Then we get to ‘Whatsapp and Facebook groups used to exchange explicit sexual messages and images have been shut down’, as such were the identities of the people there confirmed? How many were there? What evidence was there? All issues that the Daily Mail seems to skate around and ‘In the latest scandal, PC Steve Lodge, 39’ completes the picture. Who else was hauled to court and is ‘hauled’ a procedural setting in an arrest? When one rites to emphasise to capture the interest of the audience it becomes filtered information, it becomes inaccurate and therefor a lot of it becomes debatable. Well over a dozen additional questions come to mind of a half baked article on the internet, and they get paid for that? And as we consider ‘He was alleged to have’ we get the ‘alleged’ part so that the newspaper cannot be held liable, but how accurate was the article? That same setting transfers to Lina Khan.
The article gives us ‘or rather a perceived lack of competition’ as well as ‘markets had come to be controlled by a very small number of companies’, they are generalising statements, statements lacking direct focal point and specifications. In the first ‘perceived’ is a form of perception, biased and personal, ones perception is not another ones view of the matter. It is not wrong to state it like that, but when you go after people it is all about the specifics and all about data and evidence, as I see it evidence has been lacking all over the board. And when we consider ‘markets had come to be controlled by a very small number of companies’ I could add “PetSmart has 1650 shops in the US, they could set the price for tabby’s on a national level, is that not a cartel foundation?” Yet these politicians are not interested in a price agreement of pets are they, it is about limiting the stage of certain people, but by doing so they will hurt themselves a lot more than they think. On November 14th 2020 I wrote the article ‘Tik..Tik..Tik..’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/11/14/tik-tik-tik/), where I wrote “if HarmonyOS catches on, Google will have a much larger problem for a much longer time. If it is about data Google will lose a lot, if it is about branding Google will lose a little, yet Huawei will gain a lot on the global stage and Apple? Apple can only lose to some extent, there is no way that they break even”, and a lot ignored the premise, but now as HarmonyOS has launched (a little late), the stage is here. When it is accepted as a real solution, Google stands to lose the Asian market to a much larger degree and all because a few utterly stupid politicians did not know what they were doing, more important Huawei still has options in the Middle East and in Europe. So the damage will add and add and increase to a much larger degree, especially if India goes that way, for Google a market that could shrink up to 20%, close to 2,000,000,000 consumers are per July 1st ill have an alternative that is not Apple or Google, that is what stupidity gets them. My IP will connect to HarmonyOS, so I am not worried, yet as I see it the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) better start getting its ships properly aligned, because if HarmonyOS is indeed a decent version from version 2 onwards the US tech market could shrink by a little over 22.4%, the US economy is in no way ready for such a hit, all because politicians decided to shout without evidence and knowhow of what they were doing, a nice mess, isn’t it?
The stage of ‘What is’ depends on reflection and comprehension and both were lacking in the US, I wonder what they will lose next.
I have a few ideas on advertisers, don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against people wanting to advertise, or sponsor, yet they should open their wallets and keep their mouths shut. So as such when I saw ‘Euro 2020: Uefa warns teams could be fined if they move drinks at news conferences’ (at https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/57517337) I had to take a walk to cool down a bit. You see, not only is Aleksander Čeferin a bitch, he is apparently a prime time one. We might agree, or not on his position towards advertisers and that super league issue, but he has a duty to shield the player.
So when I see “Uefa has reminded participating teams that partnerships are integral to the delivery of the tournament and to ensuring the development of football across Europe, including for youth and women”, I merely wonder if he had lost the plot (which could be the case). So as we see ‘partnerships are integral to the delivery of the tournament’ we should remind Alex that the delivery of the tournament is not being a photo opportunity for the pleasure of James Quincey (CEO Coca Cola). Sugary drinks are in part a health hazard and if a soccer player does not condone them, he moves them, so suck that up Aleksander Čeferin, and go cry in a corner! If Ronaldo prefers water, that is his business and not the business of UEFA or Coca Cola. And if Pogba, a practising Muslim objects to an alcoholic drink in front of his face, you have to accept that, one better, if you knew that a muslim was there there should not have been any beer there in the first place. So reading “Teams have been reminded of their contractual regulations and Kallen said disciplinary action was “a possibility”” is quite literally a showboat of bullshit. So show EVERYONE just how much you fucked up and show those ‘contractual regulations’ where players have to take photo ops with sugary and alcoholic drinks and I will show you just how much UEFA failed the players! Oh and by the way, please show the UEFA contract that UEFA signed with Coca Cola, I reckon that there will be a few other issues in there that we will openly and loudly object to.
So whilst you might not like that they moved the bottles, you as president of UEFA fucked it up yourself. So as Martin Kallen hid behind “We are never fining players directly from the Uefa side, we will do this always through the participating national association and then they could look if they will go further to the player, but we are not going directly for the moment to the player”, you Alexander are in the end responsible for that mess and hiding behind legal talk will not shield you, so when we advertise that Aleksander Čeferin and Martin Kallen support health hazards to players, which we see when we consider “People consider sugary drinks to be a significant contributor to many health conditions, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, and tooth decay. Research has shown that drinking a can of Coca-Cola can have damaging effects on the body within an hour” (source: Medial News Today), so do you have anything else to bitch about? No? Good, now go and for the love of god keep your advertisers (sponsors too) in line.
So is a person eager to be vindictive, or does that person seek vindication through eagerness, they are not the same but at times we cannot tell the difference within ourselves. Yes, there are a lot of people who are angry because Bethesda games are not coming to Sony Playstation, it is the consequence of Microsoft paying $8,500,000,000 for Bethesda and all that is around it. I get it and even though we find it a dick move, if I owned Bethesda I would have done the same. Strategically speaking it was a pretty brilliant move. So as we took notice of quotes like “Bethesda’s SVP of global marketing and communications Pete Hines offered an apology to PS5 owners, claiming that he understands the frustration, but there’s also very little that he can do about the situation. At the end of the day, it seems that the exclusivity is just part of game publisher politics!” And the man is right, it is the trump card of a system, we feel stricken because millions of gamers embraced Bethesda on their console and that got me thinking even more. I had already handed out free IP to any Sony exclusive game, but what if I add Amazon Luna to that list? You see, the idea came when I saw “Microsoft outlined the future of the Xbox platform. It was a quick focus on how we’ll be playing games rather than what we’ll be playing. Part of this new design strategy was outlined in a Q&A with Xbox head Phil Spencer and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella” in the PC Magazine that was headed by ‘Microsoft Expands Xbox Cloud Gaming, But Streaming Won’t Replace Consoles’ and PC Magazine is right, but if we give IP to Amazon Luna (Google Stadia made a few wrong decisions), which was seen 3 days ago with ‘Ubisoft keeps Google’s ship afloat as exclusives dominate the show’, yes, if Google wants to embrace gaming mediocrity it is their choice, and even as they see it as a valid one, I do not think that relying on Ubisoft will help them that much, as I personally see it Ubisoft dropped the ball too often and has become slightly too unreliable. So it seems that the Number three spot after Nintendo might in the near future become Amazon Luna. Microsoft will remain around in gaming ranking, but it will be 4th, or 5th (more likely) position. So as I have a bit of free time, I will try to make the $8,500,000,000 invoice to seem like it was a $28,500,000,000 one, and by handing out free IP to Sony and Amazon exclusive games is one way of doing it and as I am creating novel and never seen before gaming IP, Microsoft will have to counter and that is the funny part of a vendor that buys ideas, they more usually than not are utterly incapable of creating their own (Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk).
So as I was pondering a few ideas I suddenly realised that cloud gaming comes with another benefit, games can take new directions in a much larger field. It is like handing an artist who grew its art through drawing on A4 pieces of paper, an A1 sheet. In the beginning, he might think of how much bigger his art is, then he will see that he can place 15 additional pieces of art on one sheet, yet when you combine the two thoughts, you get a very different stage and that is where cloud gaming can take you.
I created in the past a game IP (situated in Amsterdam post apocalyptic) that had a wink towards Mercenary (a very old Atari ST game), but what if we change the premise, what if the sandbox is not merely one we create, but what if we can move from sandbox to sandbox? So what if we create the algorithm that can give us Europe around 400BC, 500AD and 2700AD and 3500AD? The same for a sandbox in China, India, South America and America? Not the people, but the lay of the land. So you end up with 20 sandboxes and the gamer can try and master them all. As we set the stage to a larger frame of mind (and a larger sandbox) we now can use that same sandbox in a few stages and in several games. So far none have offered that option, because it was not part of their setting, but they never considered the advantage of a much larger piece of paper, yes you can use it for larger art, but how many considered the ability to change that one piece of A1 and turn that into 16 pieces of A4?
Yet that was merely the land, so what next? Well that is where it takes a shine to other fields and for that I need t remind people of something called Zoids, but with caution. I never saw the manga, I only saw the toys in a shop, but it was presented to me in a different fashion, two pieces make a larger third piece and even though I thought it was novel and nice for the kids, I never gave it much thought after that, but the idea stuck in the back of my mind somewhere. So what happens when the gamer is such a Zoid and by exploration the gamer can find and salvage more and more parts evolving over time and adding abilities, requirements and staging a much larger area. There was seemingly (never seen by me) something called ‘Zoids Saga DS’, it had the right idea, but like so many other things it was seemingly a really nice idea, but it was ultimately limited by gaming and that was 25 years ago, in this stage something like the Amazon Luna or the Sony PS5 can turn that idea into something serious and as we detach area from gaming premise we can add game after game in the same sandbox, the gamer can select which sandbox he plays this on, like an adaptive RPG, the stage will no longer be depending or limited on where you are, but what you become. Gaming as far as I could tell never took that sideway towards a larger highway, so as we are dumped in what would become Madrid, Paris or Oslo, the adaption takes a different turn and we will not have seen that part before, cloud gaming allows for that and if we can bitchslap Microsoft marketing around on what they present to be innovation compared to actual innovation we might wake up whole scores of gamers as well. In this there is an old saying: “The analyst will show you what the best direction is, the politician makes you look forward to the invoice that follows”, yet the business world has more and more adapted from actual analysts to storytellers and now they have a problem, the politician adjusted to the storyteller, yet as I offer materials and foundations to others, the storyteller can adjust for what they have, not what others get. They can merely watch it happen and that puts the politician that the company relies on in a precarious situation.
Now this is no indication that all is bad for Microsoft, they will have home-runs and they will have plenty of good days, and they are entitled to those too, yet within the next year Microsoft and their Azure work desk will add limitations and they will set the need for gamer data and as gamers will realise that always online means something different for Microsoft as it does for a cloud game, people will catch on, they are to some degree merely a revenue asset and that is where Sony, Nintendo and Amazon can shine and win. They always treated the gamer as a gamer and they gained the revenue, Microsoft and Ubisoft saw the gamer as a revenue piggybank and as I personally see it approached them as such, the moment the larger group of gamers catch on these two will take a dive and that is why my view of Google Stadia relying on Ubisoft gets hurt in the process. As I see it, should Amazon Luna embrace the qualities of Sony and Nintendo, they will end up in third position of the gamers list, with Google and Microsoft trying to catch up. I wonder if that is what Microsoft aimed for the whole time, spend $8,500,000,000 to end up in fifth position. I do not know, I am merely speculating and created a few ideas in the process. So as I left an (intentional) gap in the thoughts I offered, have you figured out what I am seeing all whilst Google Stadia and Microsoft Xcloud rely on Ubisoft+ titles? When Ubisoft+ becomes a separate vendor, something we have seen in streaming more than once, what will become of Microsoft, Google and its gamers? Amazon Luna has an advantage and over the next year it could evolve into an impressive amount of forward momentum, a stage that could degrade Microsoft in 4th position, so the maker of the strongest console in the world is basically a year away from moving from 3rd position to 4th position in gaming. I wonder if they consider that part when they handed over $8,500,000,000. I would not be surprised if they offer PS5 gamers Xcloud and Microsoft software on PS5 in some near future. I doubt Sony gamers will trust Microsoft, but you never know.
So as we accept that we see “Xbox has roared to life at E3 announcing 30 new games for Series X|S”, we think it is a lot, and when we see “it laid out two years of exclusives including Halo Infinite, Forza Horizon 5 and Starfield from Bethesda”, yes over two years, implying 15 a year and more important, the big guns relying on a Bethesda game now need to create a hype that is staged for November 11th 2022. 11 years after Skyrim and it is still 511 days away and a lot can happen in that time, more important, their big guns are presented a year early and we saw that happen when Bioware did that with Mass Effect Andromeda, how exactly did that end?
The old expression: “You never know how the cow catches the hare” (answer: with a fishing rod)
Yes, this sounds confusing, but it actually is not. It started with a simple article on the BBC, the article ‘Chloe Khan and Jodie Marsh rapped by watchdog’ caught me by surprise. The idea was given to me “The Advertising Standards Authority has named and shamed four influencers it said repeatedly failed to disclose when their Instagram posts were actually advertisements”, now I do not are about influencers, I tend to stay away from them and I do not use instagram. But the people that do follow these influencer tend to do so for very specific reasons. It comes to blows (to coin a phrase) when we compare this to Twitter. So when we see these two tweets, we do see the ‘promoted’ mention at the VERY bottom and these pages go towards photo’s and text surrounded by massive amounts of advertisement, some of these providers will try to get one photo per page with a next mention and the next page will show you even more advertisements. So is this not deceptive? What is the setting of the Advertising Standards Authority at that point? Is the creation of what I call ‘click bitches’ not deceptive? This has been going on for years, the in game advertisements on Android, and iOS devices have all kinds of deceptions, what have they achieved there?
And now we get to the first part, when is perception the brand. What is the perception? Are the tweets safe? Is the word ‘promoted’ enough? When we look at “Promoted Tweets are ideal when you want to increase your Twitter audience reach and engagement. When you have a big announcement, a new blog post, a marketing campaign, or an upcoming event you’d like to reach more people than you would organically, Promoted Tweets is the better strategy. This is because your Promoted Tweets will appear in users’ live feeds and search results” we see and accept that, yet when we see promotion emphasised by large breasts, is it advertisement, or deceptive conduct? Some people might not be able to tell the difference, and I believe that it becomes more and more about the ambiguity of perception. So, as such is the ‘shaming of people like Chloe Khan and Jodie Marsh warranted? As the Advertising Standards Authority is failing people, millions of people on Twitter, on iOS and Android games, is going after smaller players not merely hypocritical? As such, is the advertisement of 23 camping pictures deceptive? Perhaps the overload of advertisements is merely a side effect? As such, does the inability to act against Twitter, Facebook and Mobiles games not merely make the act against the influencers slightly overkill? And all this is before we take notice of “The ASA was responding to the #filterdrop campaign that called for it to be compulsory for influencers to state when they use a beauty filter to promote skincare or cosmetics”, this is what magazines have been doing for years, where was the Advertising Standards Authority then?
It all takes another turn when we take a look at the freedom of speech, this is shown in the last tweet.
First of all, the person gives the names and they are seemingly correct, but it is “Given that anti-rationality, anti civil rights (anti-woke) channel GB News is losing major advertisers already, due to the crap they are peddling, suggest some alternative advertisers” that makes me wonder. You see filtered information is handed to us by the bulk of the news channels. The evasion of news regarding Houthi missile and drone attacks against Saudi civilian targets is the most visible one, but not the only one. If the left filters to the left, is the right not allowed to filter to the right? And so far I saw three GB news articles on Youtube there was a view I might not agree with, but should they be attacked as such? So when we are given “I’m excited to tackle difficult subjects with voices you haven’t heard before”, so what is the problem here? And GB News matters, you see perception comes in two sizes, the perception we see and detect and the one that sneaks up unnoticed, but they are both filter forms that aid the perception that the transmitter wants to give us, so where these advertisers leaving through peer pressure, or is there a case of actual evidence? Consider that Andrew Neil has been working as a journalist since 1973, meaning he optionally has more experience than the sum of some news channel cast members. In addition, when we see “due to the crap they are peddling”, do you think that other breakfast TV shows are not peddling crap? Is one side better than the other? No, I do not think so, but there is a chance that if both exist I might get a decent balanced central view. In the end this is not merely about the news, you see if it was about the news, people would simply not watch it and if no one watches it the channel dies, but there is a larger need, the need for advertisers and there is the crux, saturation demands that advertisers choose where they are and they are wherever the masses are, the Express gives us “Despite the complaints from some viewers regarding the sound, the show pulled in thousands of viewers as according to BARB data, 164,500 people tuned in to watch between 7pm and 11pm on Sunday night”, which accompanies ‘Launch show beats BBC and Sky despite ‘technical difficulties’’ and that would scare any news channel, the fact that there might be a market for GB News and that is where these advertisers are soon to be, where do I get the best reach? It is a business decision and that decision is what other media fear, Fox grew to greatness and the news channels are scared of that, and whilst they TOO adhere to shareholders, stake holders and advertisers. The bulk of the advertisers can only afford one place, not all places and that is the fear of filtered information. The news is too much on shareholders and stake holders, all whilst the advertisers play (at times) a dubious role in this setup. Am I a fan of GB News? I do not know, I have not been able to make up my mind yet. I get it, a 24 hour channel needs it human interest stories, but when I see news of a cremated cat, I wonder who will cover the Yemen events. Consider that the BBC gave us on the 8th of March “The UN says the war has caused created the world’s worst humanitarian crisis and caused an estimated 233,000 deaths”, yet the UN gave us on December 1st 2020 “UN humanitarian office puts Yemen war dead at 233,000”, so do you think that in 4 months in slaughterhouse Yemen ZERO deaths occurred over a period of 4 months, or is someone not doing their job? And when we realise the answer to that, do you really think I give a toss on the premise of a cremated cat from either GB News, Fox News, CNN, BBC, Channel 7, Channel 9, Sky News, ITV, CNN, Euronews, or CNBC? You have got to be joking. Does it make GB News bad, lousy or useless? No, but they are slightly to the right and the left does not tolerate any channel on that side of the aisle, they thought that Fox News was enough, but if Andrew Neil gets his way, the European channels will get nervous soon enough and no matter what the advertisers do, when someone bails ship others will try to get a slightly sweeter deal, when that comes out GB News will get its share of advertisers, I have no doubt, what remains is the perception created and it takes a little more time to see how GB News will fare and how the people will perceive it.
Taste is a peculiar thing, it is more than personal at times and sometimes it is massively selective, I for one loved to try my new girlfriend having a Chicken Vindaloo (before I went to Australia), or an Indonesian restaurant. You see, I need to know that she at least likes the dishes I love. I had an ex who hated pizza and therefore I ended up not having pizza for a year. And that setting of taste (and balance) continues over a larger field. So when the BBC gives me ‘GB News: Several brands pull advertising from news channel’, it gets me in two ways (both with happiness), the first is seen in “it has faced criticism from campaigners such as the group Stop Funding Hate, who say its launch brings highly partisan Fox News-style programming to the UK”, yes it all seems nice, but haters will be haters and the choices some channels make are at times proven to be hateful, the other media makes sure that it is hateful. And this can happen in a whole range of ways and the media is all over that part. For the largest reasons they do not want another mouth eating from the digital advertising dish.
Andrew Neil (chairman) gives us “In an opening monologue to viewers on Sunday night, Neil said GB News would aim to “puncture the pomposity of our elites in politics, business, media and academia and expose their growing promotion of cancel culture for the threat to free speech and democracy that it is”” is not hateful, yet the part I have stated several times in the past and even yesterday is seen in “puncture the pomposity of our elites in media and expose their growing promotion of cancel culture”, I did not phrase it like that, but it does fit. Consider these two parts, the first is an alleged attack on Jamal Khashoggi, a journalist no one cares about and the media is hounding it for the longest time, more importantly the UN is helping push the media agenda on this via some essay writer called Agnes Calamard. Yet the actions of Martin Bashir, who as seen by a lot of people as a massive reason of het divorce and ultimately led to her death is pushed outside of the media limelight, moreso as an inquiry showed him to be manipulative using forged documents and he is not even arrested (not even pro forma). Andrew Neil has a point, will he have a case? Time will tell, I remain skeptical of nearly all media outlets that are not presented by trained journalists, morning entertainment channels giving us filtered information.
The second part is actually not good for Andrew Neil. We see Kopparberg and Octopus Energy cancelling what they had seemingly placed, as such even as the channel is only now on the air, these people did not do their due diligence, and even I cannot call whether GB News is actually hateful. Yet there is a place in the media for Fox News, not my favourite channel but I believe that we can only see actual news when we are not depending on Al Jazeera and Reuters. In this the other side of that coin is that Kopparberg, Open University, Ovo Energy and Ikea had made suspensions hiding behind “not knowingly booked slots on the channel”, implying that they advertise without investigation, as such, how stupid is that? I believe that there is more behind that. I would speculate that not unlike the old PS2 versus Dreamcast issue in 1999, some media outlets might have stated that if you are with them, you cannot be with us. I can never prove that, but I was a witness to the PS2-Dreamcast event. So it is not too far-fetched.
Oh and by the way, so far there is the indication that GB News and Andrew Neil is getting more news flak from other media that Martin Bashir so far has. I wonder why that is, especially after these same sources had no issues posting whatever speculative (not evidence) based posting on the Jamal Khashoggi case. Do not take my word for that, investigate yourself! I do not care whether you watch GB News, that is your choice, I merely wonder how much of the news media has not been trustworthy for the longest of times and that includes the views of Piers Morgan. You see I avoided the interview for my own reasons, he had a point of view, and I am not judging him to be valid or invalid, it was a point of view, he is allowed HIS point of view and we see thousands of complaints on a point of view. So how many complaints did these people lodge against Martin Bashir? And that was before I saw ‘Meghan Markle’s claim ‘doesn’t add up’ – ‘Strange’ remark in Oprah interview picked apart’ from the Express (at https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1447782/meghan-markle-oprah-winfrey-interview-queen-elizabeth-II-prince-harry-lee-cohen-news-VN). There we were given “Mr Cohen pointed to a moment in the Oprah Winfrey interview where Meghan said she was unaware of needing to curtsy the Queen and did not know the words to the UK national anthem. The political writer found it “odd”, stating he was given stringent protocol training when he met the Queen and questioned whether the Duchess of Sussex was overall willing to learn the new customs”, it is a point of view, but that also gives a rather large nudge towards Piers Morgan optionally might having a case. As I avoided the interview I cannot really say, but who else had that part Mr Cohen stated? Why was the rest of the media not all over that? Was it the ‘Awwwww’ moment? Now take these elements and you will see that there might be place for someone like GB News. Will it be on my list? Not sure, I will look at it initially via YouTube (as I am on the other side of the planet for now), yet its future will not be depending on the advertisers, it will largely be depending on the quality of journalism and that part is left out of the media consideration, at least the dozen articles I saw and none mentioned that part, I wonder why that is, don’t you?
As I was looking into some IP evolutions, and as I was considering a few alternative new plans to hardware, The Wall Street Journal (about an hour ago) gave me ‘Alibaba Falls Victim to Chinese Web Crawler in Large Data Leak’, some will go ‘so what?’, and it gave me ideas on new apps, some might already exist but that as not the point, it was “Software developer scrapes 1.1 billion pieces of user data, including IDs and phone numbers, over eight months”, as well as “The software developer began using web-crawling software he designed on Taobao’s site starting in November 2019, gathering information including user IDs, mobile-phone numbers and customer comments, according to a verdict released this month by a district court in China’s central Henan province” that got my mind thinking. What if it was not about the data available now? What if that software designer had designed a predictive algorithm that could see and anticipate passwords? We have seen over the last few months well over a dozen breaches. From healthcare, to restaurants. Security magazine gives us “For example, cybercriminals could send phishing emails to individuals whose contact details were breached, asking them to click a link to update their username and password in the wake of the incident, in order to harvest credentials and gain access to data and systems. In a more advanced attack, the cybercriminal could use the knowledge that the contact has a business email relationship with McDonald’s and impersonate the brand to create further legitimacy to the attack. With people’s phone numbers being exposed too, cybercriminals could make their social engineering campaigns even more convincing by following up their email with a voice phishing — vishing — call”, but what if that is not the end goal? What if the people on half a dozen retail and health care places are showing to have similar or identical passwords? The predictive analytics might allow for a lot more. The article (at https://www.securitymagazine.com/articles/95404-mcdonalds-corp-suffers-data-breach) gives us more. I am not saying that Richard Blech is wrong, I agree with him, especially with “This is where large enterprises and government entities are significantly lacking in their efforts to ensure that they have, across the board, trained all staff and employees of, what should be a required job function, of the best practices and rules of conduct when operating within the network or infrastructure”, yet he was not looking towards ‘the Chinese software developer’, more important, if the Chinese developer was doing that, you can be certain that there are American, Russian and Indian developers doing EXACTLY the same thing and now we have a problem, now we have the setting for a predictive password algorithm, one that predicts the passwords of users. We are ALL a little lazy when it comes to passwords. The group of people relying on ‘qwerty’ and ‘abc123’ is shrinking, but it still exists to some degree and some use the same password on EVERY account, which is really not a good idea. So when these data breaches show identical passwords for the same email address, the panic button is really flashing and the problems are merely beginning. Yes, we can all see that the quality of passwords is increasing, and nearly all of you have seen the message “Please use upper and lower case characters, use at least one numeric and one special character to create your password”, with some sources claiming “It would take a computer about 3 thousand YEARS to crack your password”, yes that might be true, but if your password is “1Wishtofcuk#U69” on all the sites you retail frequent, the predictive password model will find you a lot sooner than you think it will and the setting changes from your account being your vested connection to the tool of organised crime. And as I see it there is not too much happening into that investigation. That is not a fault of the media, they react to what is, not what might be (glossy magazines do, but usually it is about predictive shagging information from unnamed sources regarding celebrities or famous married people).
So whilst we get back to the Wall Street Journal giving us “Chinese legal experts say a data leak involving mobile-phone numbers would have more far-reaching consequences in China than in other parts of the world. In China, where people are required to register with real name identification before obtaining a mobile phone number, such numbers are considered by law to be personal information, said Annie Xue, a Beijing-based lawyer at GEN law firm”, we tend to forget that plenty of nations have a few places where they rely on license numbers, date of birth and tax number, and there are all kinds of long term damage you face and that is merely the beginning. So when that predictive password algorithm is out there your goose (or Peking duck) will be cooked and it will be well done.
I did come up with an optional solution, one that is managed by YOU (I am too lazy and not a programmer), where the user can store and export passwords in their mobile, but it is depending on two passwords that are part of the encryption and not saved anywhere. So you forget those words, the passwords are gone. This is a setup using Two-square cipher, also called double Playfair, and it can be easily made, there was always one drawback ‘the two-square cipher can be easily cracked if there is enough text’ and we accept that, but passwords are not text, they are one word and not always clear ones, as such decrypting is a lot harder, especially if the developer does not make some backdoor. You can export the encryption to an email (to yourself) or perhaps a file on a laptop or cloud. The two words (for example ‘MaryPoppins’ and ‘SandraDee’) are words you must remember or write down somewhere SAFE and not linked to the exported list and should not relate to you or your person in any way and should never be reused anywhere. At that point the hackers return to a 3,000 years per website account and optionally the predictive password algorithm will soon be a nightmare of the past.
Yes, one of the famous sayings from the entertainment media regarding the media and the news media. We can find all kinds of response regarding the media, yet at present we see an overly cool head when it comes to the matters involving Martin Bashir. We saw the media blow out of proportions when it came to news regarding Lady Diana Spencer, even more when she became the wife of the prince of Wales, it continued as they divorced and continued as she became close to Dodi Fayed. The people still believe that paparazzi’s were directly responsible for her death, as such I still believe that it is my civic duty to mutilate any paparazzi if I ever get the chance. The paparazzi and the media have never been held to account, the media wants its images, its pound of flesh to get revenue through circulation, yet when it comes to their own (like Martin Bashir) the bare minimum of exposure is required. Yet, that might soon change. As we are told by the Texas News Today (at https://texasnewstoday.com/martin-bashir-misled-and-duped-michael-jackson-during-2003-interview-former-lawyer-claims/314833/): ‘Martin Bashir ‘misled’ and ‘duped’ Michael Jackson during 2003 interview, former lawyer claims’, we see “The attorney, Brian Oxman, claimed in an exclusive interview with DailyMail.com that while Bashir was ‘not evil’, his ‘careless actions’ were fuelled by ambition and began a fatal downward spiral for the star”, if this is proven we get 3.5 million plus 47 million fans.
Well over 50 million fans out for blood, for the blood of Martin Bashir and this time the media will not abide, they are scared that they are optionally a future target. So as the Guardian gives us “Just three weeks after the devastating Dyson report into Bashir’s use of fake documents to secure an interview with Princess Diana in 1995, the BBC’s internal investigation cleared the corporation and its existing executives of any wrongdoing when it rehired him to report on religion some 20 years later”, the Guardian seemingly goes out of its way to not investigate the Michael Jackson interview, and now we see “Bashir’s interview with Jackson was aired in the explosive 2003 documentary Living with Michael Jackson on British channel ITV. The documentary was credited with sparking a child sex abuse prosecution against the star, in which Bashir testified. Jackson was acquitted of all charges in 2005”, and the media is largely reporting as little as possible as I see it. Even now, the Guardian is all about being as timid as possible, we get to see “BBC did not get to bottom of Martin Bashir’s lies, Hall tells MPs”, yet the rest is all about “Of course, it depends what allegations you mean. But the report from Lord Hall, which has already been discussed, went to the board of management and the board of governors and it was on the basis of those reports that an understanding was reached”, yet the foul stench that accompanied Martin Bashir is avoided as much as possible, even now when we see from a few sources “Martin Bashir: ‘No evidence’ journalist was rehired by BBC in cover-up over Princess Diana interview, review finds”, yet the smallest sentiment is ignored: ‘Why was he rehired at all?’, with the abundance of decent journalists out there seeking a job, they rehired the one with a report against him, a damning one that was thrown to the bottom of any available pile. And the media is apparently not asking the questions, or at least not loud enough. So when we now consider “Oxman is now calling for an investigation by ITV, similar to a recent inquiry into Bashir’s landmark BBC interview with Princess Diana in which she candidly admitted to cheating on Prince Charles, prompting a scandal and royal family crisis. The inquiry, run by UK lawmaker Lord Dyson at a cost of $2million to the corporation, found Bashir fabricated bank statements and lied to convince Diana to talk”, should something be found, than it is more than the end of Martin Bashir, it will damage both ITV and the BBC further. If 40,000 complaints was enough to remove Piers Morgan from a show, what do you think 50,000,000 complaints gets us all? And at that point the media will find it in its heart (and their wallets) to burn a media man at the stake, revenues are to be considered (as I personally see it). It is such a shame that when it comes to ethics and evidence the media is willing to take a page from ‘unnamed sources’ a little too often. And when the people reconsider that part 2 of the Leveson inquiry would be about “the extent of unlawful or improper conduct within News International, other media organisations or other organisations. It will also consider the extent to which any relevant police force investigated allegations relating to News International, and whether the police received corrupt payments or were otherwise complicit in misconduct”, we need to consider the small part called ‘other media organisations’. And even as the Tories scrapped it, they might no longer have that option, the setting we currently see regarding Martin Bashir could sway the people in demanding part 2 and that is what the media fears. The accusations by Brian Oxman are of a very different nature and it might fuel a few additional parts in this debate. It might be the one part the BBC (and ITV) never banked on and that is the one flaw the people will get to see a lot more than the media bargained for.
It happens, we sometimes discriminate, even if that was not the intent, even if it was just a joke (obviously a bad one), or even if it was an unknown reason, merely because you never knew. The last one is actually a larger slice of the cake and it is not held against anyone. If it was unintended, and we never knew the foundation of that discrimination, we feel a little ashamed when it passes and we make a mental note not to do it again. Should the media be given a pass? Are they allowed to be ‘uninformed’? It is a much larger question than you think and it is brought to the surface today by two events. The first is ‘Saudi-led coalition intercepts Houthi drone, says state TV’ (at https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/saudi-led-coalition-intercepts-houthi-drone-says-state-tv-2021-06-14/). Here we see “air defences intercepted and destroyed an armed drone launched by Yemen’s Houthi group towards the southern Saudi city of Khamis Mushait, state television said on Monday” they are one of THREE non muslim sources that gave me the article. So when we have the BBC, Boston Globe, NY Times, Washington Post, the Times, San Francisco Chronicle and several other large news papers, I found a total of three sources that gave me this article. Saudi Arabian citizens are under terrorist attack by Houthi forces and we see none of that, we will see teabag ladies holding up CAAT signs on arms trade against Saudi Arabia, that makes all the newspapers, optionally the teabag lady was the human interest side. Some of us will shout all kinds of ‘evil Saudi intent’ yet these people have not been told the whole truth, why is that? Why is the media setting the stage of intentional discrimination? And it is not one nation, this is global, or should I say Christian global? We saw the French examples of pushing a ‘non-religion’ agenda, or is that a christian agenda?
Islam does not allow an image of Mohammed
It took me 3 minutes to come up with an alternative image to make sure that the classroom would understand that an image of Mohammed was taboo in Islam, so instead of the image explaining that is was against Islam to give any image of Mohammed, we see an image causing outrage and they knew it was going to lead to outrage, so why was that?
The second one is more despicable, I saw a few sources give us ‘New Zealand’s Ardern criticises Christchurch attack film amid uproar’, with the added text ““They Are Us” film about PM Jacinda Ardern’s response to 2019 Christchurch terror attacks has been slammed by New Zealand’s Muslims and others for pushing a “white saviour” narrative and “sidelining the victims””, I wonder why the powers are so afraid of Islam and Muslims, when we see “Philippa Campbell, New Zealand producer, on Monday announced that she was resigning, according to The Guardian”, when we realise that the producer is resigning, there is a larger issue in play with the director and the people behind the screens and that too does not yet make it to the forefront, why is that?
As I see a daily dose of age discrimination and religious discrimination all over the field, do you really think that statements by others in the area of ‘Trust them, it will work out, they know what they do’, do you think there is any trust left? The media is eager to put ‘the people have a right to know’ in the drawer when it suits the needs of their friends, yet they are well versed in staging these friends into the circle of ‘unnamed sources’, so why is that? And more importantly why do we continue to let this happen? Gallup had a nice presentation (at https://news.gallup.com/poll/157082/islamophobia-understanding-anti-muslim-sentiment-west.aspx) for me there were two slides, but I will give one, here we see how massive that problem is and the media is shunning its responsibilities to the largest extent.
Here we see that Italy seems to be the most accepting nation with 28% not accepting muslims, but with a 15% data gap the message there could be a lot worse, in the US that non acceptance is 52% with only an 8% gap, so at best it is a 50/50 premise there and why is that? Muslims have been part of investigations against extremism. In the FBI, CIA, and other players in town on a global scale all whilst we are shunning our duties as people, as citizens, as concerned people who need to be told the truth and the truth is being skewed and negated n nearly every turn, why is that? I do not expect you to have the answer, but I believe it is more important to be told the truth and the media is not part of that, why are news agencies stacking news to set an anti perception? Consider that today, today is a good day to consider just that.
Lawrence van Rijn - Law Lord to be 