Tag Archives: Pinterest

April 6, 2026 · 22:10

Where we go next

That is an important question, because the next stage is any setting can be set in two switches. The one that affects you directly and the the one that does not affect you. We then get the affected switch that has a direct consequence and merely a derived one. So when we get Al Jazeera who gives us ‘Tehran rejects Trump’s Hormuz deadline’ mere hours ago, these switches go into overdrive. Because now we get BBC telling us 5 hours ago ‘Trump issues expletive-laden threat to Iran over Hormuz Strait blockage’ where we learn “US President Donald Trump has published an expletive-laden post on social media in which he threatened to destroy Iran’s power plants and bridges if it failed to meet his Tuesday deadline to reopen the Strait of Hormuz to all shipping. He repeated an earlier threat to unleash “hell” but told US media there was a “good chance” of a deal being reached with Tehran. Iran mocked his ultimatum, dismissing it as “helpless, nervous and stupid”.” And we then get ABC giving us 13 hours ago ‘Iran briefing with Matthew Doran: Threats tell us more about Trump’s frustration than anything else’ where we see “Donald Trump has issued a new deadline of Tuesday for Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz to all shipping traffic, without restriction. In an expletive-laden post on social media, he said bridges and power plants would be destroyed if the regime in Tehran didn’t comply”, in this we have “issued a new deadline”, which is what people do who cannot follow through on threats are a separate issue. I cannot say what issue, because I am still on that horse named bankrupt and the only setting that makes sense would have been bombing near immediately. The fact that we get timeline stretching is another setting that influences it all. But 3 minutes ago Al Jazeera gives us ‘Pakistan says it is engaged in diplomacy amidst ‘egos’ and ‘distrust’’, I personally believe that Pakistan needs to get involved to safe face with both the UAE and Saudi Arabia, but they are right in one part. Whatever the United States gives us is flawed if not, an outright ‘miscommunication’. ‘So whilst we all see the ‘tirades’ President Trump gives us all we deny, looking in the corner where nobody wants us too look. Add to that all the generals who got fired (apparently 8 in total) a setting that shifts a few lines and the derived consequence to the switches I mentioned at the start by them.

Whatever is taken from a convoluted timeline that we see now seems to be the flimflam orchestration which only reaffirms my thoughts that the United States is on its last energy and when that runs out, the hostilities begin. Do you really believe that President Trump will admit to being out of funds? I reckon that we better reenforce the defence of Canada, because as I see it, the United States is likely to get 65,000 troops as reenforcement. So suddenly I sound a little less crazy don’t I? And it comes at a time when CUSMA is under review, the Hill gives us “Canada and Mexico have suffered the ire of Trump, ranging from blanket tariffs to threats of annexation and invasion. As a result, economic policy uncertainty is at historical highs in Canada, while in Mexico, the devaluation of the peso and a 10-25 per cent U.S. tariff on many Mexican goods has hit the economy hard. Beneath the headlines are more muted negotiations over policy choices on matters of tariff exemption and content requirements for a range of sectors. While automobile manufacturing and steel steal the headlines, the critical minerals and energy sector is now at centre stage in the CUSMA review.” The setting is ‘pre-arranged’ as it is the United States that is in a crunch, not Canada or Mexico and it is the United States that requires critical minerals. And in that setting both Mexico and Canada are the strong players, even whilst we are given “economic policy uncertainty is at historical highs in Canada” all whilst Canada is making new headways in the world with the Middle East, Europe and Asia the new stages of economic strength. Not policy uncertainty. As I see it, there are more settings in play.

There is a setting under the surface that screams misalignment. I personally think that the United States is playing bluff poker with a “dead man’s hand” all whilst his opponents Iran, Europe and Canada knows what he is holding. I think this is the best analogy I can come up with. So when the shouting and bully tactics end, the United States is holding the cards they have and they are not good. So they either bluff their way into everyone not playing, or they will win. Even at this setting Canada needs a mere three two’s to win the hand and that might be the weakest setting it needs. No one has a clue what Mexico has, but its catering to the shortages of Cuba gives them a few short term advantages. So whatever the United States is proposing in this setting will have a few set backs. The first what the Venezuelan failure brought and the second is the 6 week failure that Iran is bringing to the table. I reckon that they might have a claim of a few hundred billion to the table of the International courts of The Hague. No matter how you slice this, it will be seen as an illegal war. No matter whatever the US administration calls it (they called it not a war) and in that setting it is the courts that will have a field day (and those lawyers making the good cash) and all of this comes out of the near empty coffers of the United States. So whilst we see all this, a mere two days ago we are given “Fox News’ Bill Hemmer cut off President Donald Trump’s top economic adviser when he tried to blame former President Joe Biden for high gas prices amid the Iran war. Oil prices have surged as Iran has effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway in the Middle East that carries about a fifth of the world’s oil. The national average cost of gas has exceeded $4 a gallon in the U.S. as Americans bear the brunt of Trump’s war against Iran.” So is this the path of this US administration? Blame the previous administration?

And I apologise in advance of jumping over these hurdles (articles) like a horse on steroids. But it gives us a larger setting that is over all the images. The media are pretty good of merely looking at one part, hoping the people doesn’t see the larger image. It reminds me of the person showing is the image of a worm and we think ‘Oh, goody’ but the image becomes a little weird when we zoom out, only to realise that we were looking at the tail of a rat and the ones manipulating the images are all about misdirecting our interest whilst we should be focusing on rat extermination.

So whilst I might be wrong to focus on a broke United States of America, it is where the exposed data leads me. And whilst the United States tells the world it is doing great, we need to realise that things are bad. Consider that last week we were given “According to March 2026 data, the US labor market showed remarkable strength with 178,000 jobs added” and whilst we see a few days later “Oracle has laid off approximately 30,000 employees, representing about 19% of its global workforce” all whilst we are also given “Since the start of 2026, Meta, Autodesk, Salesforce, Workday, Google, Pinterest, Block and other firms have announced layoffs” so how great is the employment setting of the United States? In all this it is merely another element towards the broke setting of the United States, all whilst the media is no help in giving us what we would need to give ourselves a neutral view on the matter. A setting that this US Administration is using (read: abusing) to get the populist vote, but things really are not that rosy at present for the current administration. I reckon that the expected filtering on the speculated ‘deleting of bad news’ in California will aid the economic downturn that the United States is currently facing.

The ice is slippery and not enough to bare anyones weight (especially mine) but as the media is not doing its jobs, I have no choice but to speculate with the (incomplete) data I have and this is the conclusion I come to. The United States is broke, I have said so before, but the evidence is now becoming malleable, which it should not, I agree with people opposing that thought. Yet the images of President Trump going all out like the proverbial mad dog with his threats

All whilst people focus on the threat and not on the stage surrounding that threat and it goes way beyond Iran.

So have a great day and consider the thoughts I am leaving you with.

The A-social network

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!

The way of cowards

This is not the first message we see in the news and it will not be the last. We see the everlasting rumble of facilitation and the need to sweep under the carpet the actions of others and never holding them to account. Last week many in the UK were given ‘Instagram bans ‘graphic’ self-harm images after Molly Russell’s death‘, the article (at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/feb/07/instagram-bans-graphic-self-harm-images-after-molly-russells-death) gives us a scenario that should kick us all into action, yet not in the way that some believe is the right one.

Even as we saw: “After days of growing pressure on Instagram culminated in a meeting with health secretary Matt Hancock, the social network’s head Adam Mosseri admitted that the company had not done enough and said that explicit imagery of self-harm would no longer be allowed on the site“, we should be angered by the words of Adam Mosseri, yet we are not. The image in this is not as simple as it is given, but it should be. 2 days ago we see ‘Instagram urged to crack down on eating disorder images‘ (at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/feb/08/instagram-urged-to-crack-down-on-eating-disorder-images) where the quote: “The Guardian has discovered thousands of hashtags and accounts promoting anorexia, including diaries of weight loss, alarming pictures and comments on goal weights“, we get the advice “Please don’t report, just block,” and that is also the first path where the solution is found. It should instantly apply to Instagram, Facebook, Twitter and all other forms of social media.

The simple solution

You as the poster are responsible for the content you post, you can be prosecuted and sued if need be, if a case goes to court all data and information of the account, as well as its posting history will be made available to the prosecuting parties. You are responsible for the created account and the content posted through it.

It is this simple; those who are on that path of chaos and anarchy must bear the responsibilities of the impact. No matter your age ‘I did not know’ is not a valid defence in court. Your life over, no tertiary education (the fast food industry always needs fresh blood).

It is time that we stop facilitating to social media to grow their numbers any way they can, even as the death of Molly Russell is out now, we need to realise that the matter is worse than: “But critics said the changes should have already been made and remained skeptical they would be enough to tackle a problem that some said has grown unchecked for 10 years“, political inaction and facilitation are a direct cause here and it is time to stop fretting and apply every brake we can. The measure ‘including the removal of non-graphic images of self-harm‘, the poster needs to be dealt with, In case of self-harm it might have meant that the proper people talked to Molly Russel immediately, which now implies that Molly Russel could have been alive today if action had been taken earlier. Those who posted fake alerts might find themselves prosecuted, their equipment seized and they can revert to spending hours reading, their library card giving a clear “no internet access” part. There needs to be a price for the damage inflicted. The response ‘I thought it was fun!‘ will not hold water, we have given enough leeway for the longest of times and we need to realise that the parents are often not blameless either.

Dangerous message!

So as we are given: “young people also faced being confronted with pro-anorexia images” we need to be extra alarmed. So when we are confronted with that slogan, how can this be seen as “an ascetic Journey“? If we look at ascetic we see “characterized by severe self-discipline and abstention from all forms of indulgence, typically for religious reasons“, yet most of the younger people will have considered that they meant aesthetic which means “concerned with beauty or the appreciation of beauty”, what I would call miscommunication through words that sound alike. You see, ”abstention from all forms of indulgence“, does not include do not eat what your body requires to stay healthy, because the message bringer was pretty clear of remaining in the dark to what constitutes indulgence, and whilst we see: the element of “more than is good for you” to be ignored, we see the sliding scale of danger towards that persons health. So even if we agree with “There is a social obligation and whether there is also an industry obligation is an important point that is coming out at the moment as well.” We see that in the end, the poster is not held to account and whilst we look at the statement of images, it is clear that there is every change that the slogan is kept online, which is more dangerous as slogans can become meme’s in the mind of the troubled person hammering second after second until it grabs hold in daily life. The damage is done!

When we set into law the prosecution of the poster, we also see a first step into resolving the state of cyber-bullying, these cowards are hiding in the shadows, feeling that they have fun, yet when the data becomes available for prosecution as they can no longer delete their activities, we see the impact of their fear reversed, we enable the bullied to go after those bullies. These people will now step into the spotlight and they tend to not like it at all.

All elements solved by properly holding the poster to account and that is what most social media fear, because when accountability comes into play posts decline by well over 30% and that is the fear of social media, to be made responsible is also to be made less flammable and social media grows with every online flame, it is a consequence of participation and when there is an emotional flame everyone wants to participate and have their say in it all.

It is Jade (19) who gives us more in the Guardian, who at age 11 engaged in “When my eating disorder and depression were at their worst, I scoured apps like Instagram to find these images which only worsened my self-image. At this time the posts were few and far between. Clearly the amount of images is now vast across almost all social media platforms,” Now we can understand that this is not the fault of social media that people ignore age requirements, yet this is the common issue that has been around for too long, so when we see “It isn’t only Instagram that is riddled with these potentially distressing images, sites or apps like Tumblr, Pinterest and Weheartit are also full of these posts.” we see the stage where the poster needs to be held to account, we see the stage that has been avoided for a decade and all the players know that they have been avoiding the stage. Now there is a new trend, the image of cutting, even as some sources are about the dream, about: “Cutting oneself indicates family problems“, it is now linked in several ways to self-harm and as such the picture becomes less and less transparent to resolve, yet the first option, hold the poster to account is still there and this path has been avoided for close to a decade, the question becomes why?

Age is no longer a valid point, the transgressors had no issues lying about their age, as such they need to directly feel the impact as they throw away their lives, it puts them and their parents in the picture, it needs to become about this as overworked parents all rely on giving their child a tablet or mobile as a toy so that they can be quiet as they are too exhausted, all replacement towards the failure of raising a child (in some cases). In other cases it is the lack of discipline and peer pressure, it has to stop, holding the poster to account has become an essential first step. There is a secondary need to do this, we see in some parts of the world how social media is used to spread extremism (Indonesia), how long until they start looking for tools to do their work for them? How long until we start seeing the impact of “extremist network Jamaah Ansharut Daulah (JAD), which has pledged allegiance to Islamic State (IS)“, via a fictive 17 year old boy named Kevin living in Springfield (IL) or Richmond (Vi)? He’ll tell you that they gave him a cool video game for promoting and retweeting something he could not read, and his classmates all did the same because Kevin got a really cool video game, that was money in the bank. For the JAD in the end it would have been money in the bank all that visibility for $59 (plus shipping), Google Ads could not have given them a better deal ever. The federal investigation teams will unable to untangle that mess for months, the perpetrators will have moved on weeks before.

That is how I see it!

We need to change gears on all social media fronts and holding the poster to account is a first step. To remove dangers form people like Molly Russell is a first, but it goes beyond that. Even when we see the sceptical foundation of: “Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s PM programme, the digital minister, Margot James, said the government would “have to keep the situation very closely under review to make sure that these commitments are made real – and as swiftly as possible”” people like Margot James and her various international counter parts need to realise that it is way too late for ‘keep the situation very closely under review‘, it is over half a decade too late already, we need to change gears and make a first step towards holding posters accountable for what they post, when it results in fatalities a freedom of expression will not hold water and even if the court decides to do just that, the people have a right to know who that poster was. It gets to be even worse when we consider the factor that Apple played in all this. Their part is less easy to see because privacy is set and at times privacy is just that nobody’s business, yet when it results in the death of a 14 year old and it was a cyberbully that was behind it all? Should Apple be allowed to protect the identity of the murderer? It is not an easy matter and some drawers should justifiably be kept closed, yet the image still remains and that too is a moment where the poster could have been held accountable and holding them to account might have stopped a worse matter earlier on, it was not to be the case.

I believe that dozens of lives could have been saved if political players had acted a lot earlier and a lot more decisive.

Tag Archives: Pinterest

Where we go next

The A-social network

The way of cowards

Recent Posts

Archives