Tag Archives: Ken Paxton

Who’s watching who

It was initially the BBC who alerted me to this (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c072dvv1rmro) where we see ‘Texas accuses Netflix of spying on users, including children’ and I got curious, because it is not a issue with the United States, it isn’t even global, it is just Texas. The story kicks off with “Netflix has been sued in Texas over claims it collects data belonging to children and adults in the US state without their consent, and uses “addictive” design to keep them hooked. accused the streaming giant of “spying” on citizens saying it “records and monetizes billions” of pieces of information about how users behave on the platform, despite suggesting otherwise.” It gave me a few questions (just a few) and it starts of here with the questions “How does one record and monetise billions?”, as well as “What exactly is “addictive” design?” You see, to the best off my knowledge you sign up and you get Netflix (that is how we do that in Australia) and perhaps there are better ways to do this, but that is what it is and it is still better then Disney+ (in regards to able the watchers). I have never seen the Mandalorian of BlueRay, or several other Disney+ hits. I get that they want to get a lead but Season 1 and 2 cannot be bought in Australia, why not? This is not about Disney+ but Netflix offers several seasons most TV shows on BlueRay, as such it is neither monetizing or creating an addictive design (as I personally see it), but perhaps Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton could clearly elaborate? The story goes into (or towards) “the company also began “leveraging the mountains of data it quietly extracted from the children and families it kept fixated on their screen” – sharing this with commercial data brokers to help raise billions of dollars in revenue.” This leads to another question, “How does one keep others fixated on their screen?”, You pay one amount for monthly subscription, regardless of the time. There is a cheaper option with advertisements. But it beckons the question, how do you keep people fixated? As such the prices are:


So, the customer has an option to pay $11 more, how is this monetizing? And don’t forget that advertising was added to make it cheaper for some. And then the fixation on the screen? How is that done exactly? 

So then we get to Politico who (at https://www.politico.com/news/2026/05/11/netflix-sued-by-texas-ag-for-alleged-surveillance-addictive-features-00915029) gives us ‘Netflix sued by Texas AG for alleged surveillance, addictive features’ where we see “It adds that the company tracks and logs viewing habits, location and virtually every interaction on the platform — keyword searches, pausing or fast-forwarding and more — which it then uses to build consumer profiles that earn the company billions.” So, as I see it, a person (me) searches for a title or an actor or actress. Seems pretty common in Netflix settings. I search for Olivia Wilde and see what they have with her in it, same that I look for Dwayne Johnson and see what movies with him are on Netflix. How exactly is this odd, or non trackable? If 275,000 people seek either, there is a chance that Netflix sees what they can add to their stable. This is a movie channel. Perhaps Ken Paxton took offense to the 132 searches for Melania Trump and Netflix sees a reason why not to spend money on it? Although you can watch it on Amazon and it is rated 1.6/10 (over 68000 votes). These two articles are making me wonder what this suit is all about, because as far as I can tell this case has no merit. Perhaps Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton needs the limelight for something, is it election year in Texas? As far as I can see (optionally not a correct view) is that Paxton announced in April 2025 that he would run for the United States Senate in the 2026 election, challenging incumbent senator John Cornyn in the Republican primary and in the runoff. So is he gaining free ‘advertisement’ through Netflix? It is merely a speculation from my side, but the timeline seems to fit. As such we need to see what Ken Paxton does next and if he gives us any clarity on his claims. There is also the fact that it is the subscriber that gives the connection to a household and the subscribers to Netflix must be at least 18 years old. So how does one see what the age of the watcher is in that household? Perhaps he has a setting for profiling? Like only women and oldest daughters watch ‘Sex in the city’? Only children watch Ponyo? Your guess is as good as mine and I am here clueless. But perhaps there are journalists who will ask the hard questions. Have a great day.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, movies, Politics

What the media silences

Yes, that is again the topic of discussion. The BBC (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61709782) gives us ‘Elon Musk threatens to walk away from Twitter deal’, in there we see “Mr Musk has said he believes spam and fake accounts represent a far greater share than the less than 5% of daily users that Twitter reports publicly.” The media knows this to be true, several others know this to be true, I know this to be true and one other party that we are about to be introduced to knows this to be true too.

You see, Twitter seemingly hides itself behind ‘daily users’ yet the truth is not that nice. Ever since Covid things have escalated. Anti vaxxers creating account after account, supporting each other and their fake accounts. The Ukrainian war made things worse. Russian Trolls, politicians supporting Russian needs in the Netherlands all. Connected to trolls and troll like behaviour. There we see a new player (since around 2014). It is the firm Trollrensics (at https://www.trollrensics.com) that shows actual data. And do not get fooled by the shy “His software and algorithms have helped uncover and analyse a significant number of troll networks and disinfo campaigns.” They have 8 years of data from all kinds of sources including Twitter showing millions of fake accounts. Even as I personally thought that the fake accounts are around 20%, they have numbers that indicate that these numbers are much closer to 50% and the media is steering clear. Others are steering clear. Twitter represents billions and the media loves people who have billions no matter what foundation it is on. And there we get the new stage. With ““As Twitter’s prospective owner, Mr Musk is clearly entitled to the requested data to enable him to prepare for transitioning Twitter’s business to his ownership and to facilitate his transaction financing. To do both, he must have a complete and accurate understanding of the very core of Twitter’s business model – its active user base,” lawyer Mike Ringler wrote in the letter.” We get to see the other side. Twitter hopes for $45,000,000,000 for a 50% population, so in what universe will an intelligent person pay twice the price? In what universe will any person pay for fake data, altered and weighted data? It is raw data that counts and too much comes from Russian and Chinese trolls. Too much of it come from click farms. Too much of this comes from non people. The game has for over a decade been about engagement and Twitter failed that test (miserably) and is now in a stage where they prefer to get out with a $45,000,000,000 camping voucher. Speculatively where the women are loose, the sun always shines and the booze pours uninterrupted. 

So when we see the option below, some people might get the idea. 

Below we see the assurance and under there is how these things come to play. 

The third is a random click-farm and this one might not have been used for Twitter activities, however considering that these matters have been going on since well before 2019. 

The impact is real and it is also all over Twitter. Several sources give us that most of these activities are in China and the profits are lucrative as this is not labour intensive. Twitter is keeping its doors locked and the media is not knocking on these doors, even though there is news all over the globe on click farms. So why is the media not digging deeper? Simple it is fear. The media needs Twitter and it needs Facebook and Google (who they pissed off), so they are letting Twitter be. That is how I personally see it and in all the settings Elon Musk is correct and he is a lot more intelligent than anyone gives him credit for. He has seen what Twitter is, what Twitter can be and he is willing to pay a fair price and that goes against the grain of its board of directors who are all about ‘daily users’ all whilst some sources are setting the stage that well over 40% are fake accounts. And the 5% and its ‘daily user’ label is not bringing home the bacon and as such Elon Musk and via him Mike Ringler are asking questions. Questions that people at Twitter do not want to answer. And it is important that you do not believe me, dig yourself! When we tart digging into engagement locations and time frame of certain accounts, a new timeline becomes visible, a timeline too many do not want to see, because the impact could indicate that Elon Musk could get Twitter for a mere $15,000,000,000 and that is the fear of some. OK, I get it I would not want to lose $30 billion either, but in that is it not strange that the media is not all over Twitter asking questions? They merely need to dig into the engagement line and where these engagements come from and when you see the click farm, you might realise that a location large enough for about 15 people should not house a click farm with 150-300 mobile phones. It is like being in a sweets shop wth 150 children. You wouldn’t last a minute, but one person can click on 300 phones easily enough and there is enough data, merely an unwilling media digging deeper and as we see the Twitter folly evolve more people should be catching on how the media is BS’ing us. Because this data has ben out in the open for the longest time. And even now as the BBC gives us “Texas attorney general Ken Paxton entered the debate on Monday, saying he had launched an investigation into Twitter for “potentially false reporting over its fake bot accounts”. Twitter has until 27 June to respond to his request for information.” It does not take away the stage that this has been out in the open and the media ignored a lot of this, I personally believe that they ignored it intentionally, to what end is anyone’s guess.

The fact that players like Trollrensics have had data spanning years with supporting evidence makes the acts of the media even more debatable, but that might merely be my view on the matter.

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics, Science