Tag Archives: Social Media

September 8, 2026 · 00:30

Setting of a trial

This is a speculative article, it is all speculative. I might have degrees in law, but I am only casually using those. But the premise is that some people are using the media to push a guilty verdict. Isn’t that immoral? Now, I do not know any of the Tate brothers. Never met them and I am not into Kickboxing. It always makes me go back to the oldest joke I know about kickboxers. “Why do kickboxers refrain from sex the night before the fight” Answer: “They really don’t like each other that much” you see, the joke opens up the premise of relativity of known fact and the BBC is very much involved into that. You see, the article is two days old, but the parts that were bothering me weren’t mentioned. The Tate brothers were accused of these acts in 2022, the initial 2022 arrests and human trafficking accusations against the Tate brothers in Romania and they had house arrest for the longest time and there was no evidence. I found debatable evidence that some were involved in trying to capture their money making options in 2022. I wrote ‘When is a ball not dropped?’ (At https://lawlordtobe.com/2023/08/05/when-is-a-ball-not-dropped/) as well as ‘Andrew Tate, the man, the exploited’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2023/01/10/andrew-tate-the-man-the-exploited/) both settings gave me the setting that the law found close to zero evidence, but now 4 years later there is new evidence? And the BBC is very committed to omitting this part of that caper. In addition in March 2025 I wrote ‘What does it take?’ (At https://lawlordtobe.com/2025/03/02/what-does-it-take/) where I came to the conclusion that Andrew Tate was being set-up. There were a few things wrong with the YouTube that I saw and I was in the mindset that the father was using the daughter to get his money in. Personally if I had a daughter and that was being done with her. I would entertain the use of an Accuracy International .380 and within a mile his skull would go bye bye. Simple. And I am not even a father, as such that setting did not make sense. As I personally surmised it the YouTube video was off. And the other blogs implied that the Tate brothers were innocent. I had no evidence, but the settings alleged me to accept their innocence. It isn’t the same as being an actual law lord, which would have needed a court. And I cannot prove their innocence because I have no access to the evidence, but consider that this has been going on since 2022. And now there is ‘new’ evidence? 

Now we get ‘Tate brothers officially indicted with trafficking and sex crimes in Romania’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c7v4npv1m22o) Another attempt with large assistance from the media to get the convicted of a crime they were not part of. The evidence? The first year of house arrest should have brought it all up. There was enough time, there was enough drive. The only thing that makes sense is that people are still trying to take over the money making engines of the Tate brothers. But that is pure speculation from my side. Consider all the parts the BBC left out and gave us “Romanian prosecutors have officially indicted social media influencers Andrew and Tristan Tate with a range of trafficking and sex offences. They are accused of making more than $1.2m (£888,000) by coercing a girl to perform sex acts on video chats, according to the Romanian Directorate for Investigating Crime and Terrorism (DIICOT).” As well as “Andrew, 39, is charged with trafficking minors, money laundering and having sex with a minor. Tristan, 38, is charged with complicity in trafficking in minors and money laundering. The Tates – currently in a Miami jail fighting extradition to the UK over separate charges – deny all the allegations.” I would fight that too when I realise that the BBC is set against me. And consider that it took 4 years whilst they were in Romania  moved from jail to house arrest in August 2023, and later placed under house arrest again in August 2024 following a secondary investigation before being moved to judicial control in January 2025 and all that was missing from the BBC story. Considering that in over a year they found nothing and now they have new evidence? It raises questions on the Romanian government and the BBC part in all this. 

There is a set trial in motion and the media is (as I suspect) trying to get people to get tainted guilty. It is the oldest premise there is. Guilty until proven innocent. That would taint the burden of proof which is now no longer requires the state or prosecution to carry the entire obligation to prove the charges and the standard of proof also gets thrown out of the window, guilt needed to be typically be established beyond a reasonable doubt and it becomes a populist game for anyone jealous of the money making system the Tate brothers achieved, it becomes a whole new ball game.

Have a great day. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

August 19, 2026 · 14:31

Representing Mr Morningstar

That is the setting I see and it is the one I have been bound to. As Lavrinthi of Tartarus, I have been ‘summoned’ to represent a certain mr. Morningstar in docket 0520260819-666/05 in this to unravel the settings of what is seen as sourced by the BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly5r7vr7q1o) where we learn ‘Meta hooked children on Facebook and Instagram, US court hears’ and the evidence presented (as I have seen it, is rather flimsy) but to unravel this I need to ask questions. So whilst some will argue that this is on Megan O’Neill, a lead attorney for California. I merely giggle, soon she’ll be dead and she becomes food for the pits of tartarus. She gets a chance to prove herself gains peers and that is when the dual opportunity ends. The first choice will be the Biden, the trident or the the xiphos and shield A rule my grandfather set in motion and he is after all Lord Hades of Tartarus. She might want ‘hide’ behind the armor of the law, but the rules of tartarus are simple. Win and survive or lose and become food for the winners (quite literally). It is a solution that has been in play for over 5000 years and if you are good enough, you become one of the winners and serve in on of 5 phalanxes of Tartarus. But that is later, first you must survive 20 fights and as you are made a kappa, you get assigned patrol duty and a much better weapon. At present we need to see the evidence (as little as there is).

So when we are told “Meta found “millions” of 11 and 12-year-olds were on Instagram and “did little to keep them off” as the trial opened on Tuesday.” So where are these ‘children’ from? What is the law on these kids being on Facebook and/or Instagram? What exactly is ‘keeping them off’? Are there clear legal settings? The article does not bare that out. It is written to tell the story that regardless Meta is guilty. So what exactly is “social media addiction” you see, parenting is also a need and most kids do not have it because both parents are up to their eyelids in work, they seemingly have no time for parenting. Which is a first setting. Then we get that the United States and several other nations are whining doubt the freedom of speech, but never about the accountability of the spoken word. They tend to go hand in hand. As such we are given “Meta has put forward in at other litigation this year – that social media addiction does not exist” If there is, it must be proven and that is where the trough goes leaking all over the floor. You see, Is this addition clearly described in the ‘The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition’? If not, what evidence is there? So, whilst we take notice on ““There can be no dispute that Meta has recognised people struggle, or can struggle, with their use of social media, and has come up with tools to try and address that,” Schmidt said.” But what is a struggle? And whilst we see and take notice of “The trial stems from a lawsuit filed in 2023 by 29 US states, including California and New York. They claim there have been numerous violations of federal and state privacy laws for children.” My question becomes “What violation and what laws were broken?” You see, nearly all children lie (around 99%) they do so out of peer pressure and peer pressure through influencers, to being to a group and they want to belong, especially as the parents are often no where to be found, but that is my take on this and I am not a parent. So when we get to the greed driven stage we see “The states seeking billions of dollars from Meta and are demanding it make changes to Instagram and Facebook, including ending “like” counts and infinite scroll.” So what exactly are these ‘like counts’ and infinite scrolls? There is a like setting to nearly all stages (LinkedIn, BlueSky and Twitter have them too), so what is the problem? Social media is less then 30 years old, less than one generation and there are things that would required adjusting, but for that matter. How was this addressed in Microsoft products? “The “like” feature in Microsoft ecosystem applications lets users quickly react to, endorse, or acknowledge messages, comments, and files without sending a full reply. It is available across tools like Teams, Outlook, and Word”, it seems to be all over the IT and internet field. What makes Facebook stand out? It is a part of social media, deal with this. And it is not merely Microsoft, Google has this too. So either show the whole field or that setting is merely discriminatory. So as I go into my usual ‘funny’ setting of “I hate discrimination and Xbox users” you might get the point. And this case is seemingly set to over 3 years as we were given “a lawsuit filed in 2023 by 29 US states” so which states? And more important what “state privacy laws for children” were broken? There is a lacking summary and I get that this is not the setting people like Megan O’Neill might like, because if it was all good then we would see this broken down here. I reckon that there are sides that she is ‘unhappy’ with because she might lose at that point. So when we get to this we see “In her opening arguments Megan O’Neill, a lead attorney for California, relied heavily on information found in millions of documents provided in the case from Meta. They included internal research, employee emails, and chat logs that went all the way up to Zuckerberg.” So the simple question becomes. Who tested these millions of documents? You see when we see “internal research, employee emails, and chat logs” there is the setting of verification and validation. And as I wonder if she read them all, she shouldn’t be using statements like ‘millions’ and how many times did Mark Zuckerberg papers interact with these papers? A mention of his name doesn’t do the legal settings. Which is why as Lavrinthi of Tartarus I can see beyond the light of name calling and Auntie Aphrodite always says “People note that personal growth and confidence are often internal psychological shifts rather than strict proof of divine contact.” (It was something about yearning) which makes sense. As such I see the evidence stack against Megan O’Neill’s statements. So what is in a chat log? Were all the people verified and validated? Because who will see me as Lavrinthi the speaker for mr. Morningstar and not ‘some’ cook? Baking the preserved nature of non-data driven academic essays (an eloquent way of stating fiction)? 

So then we get the ‘good’ stuff. We are given “One piece of internal research on Instagram stated: “Teens have an addict’s narrative about use.”” Merely one piece of internal research? There are allegedly millions of documents and you only have one piece of research? So was it merely one piece or one peace of research showing what YOU needed? Then we get “Despite Meta’s awareness of potentially negative impacts, O’Neill argued that Meta targeted young people as users of Facebook and Instagram. Meta, she said, went out of its way to “assure the public that its platforms were safe for kids”.” So what is potential impacts? 

Negative of not, Meta is a business and it needs evidence showing that impacts are negative. Which is a loaded setting as plenty of youthful adults are inclined to lie, as such the data becomes a wisp of claimed settings. So whilst we get that “assure the public that its platforms were safe for kids” was it a lie? Where is the proof that there was danger to children? I don’t know if either is true, but the BBC is not giving us those details are they? Neither are others (as far as I can tell) so that is the stage were it all goes dark and that is when (as I personally see it) that O’Neill needs to really on a warped sense of needs whilst trying to get favour for children and let the dice fall where they may. 

And when we get to “O’Neill outlined to the jury how Meta’s business model could be summed up. “Hook the users; hold them for as long as they can; harvest their data; hide the truth from the public when making public statements,” she said.” My question to that ‘defense’ would be “Show evidence of ‘hold them for as long as they can’” Pretty please? Users can quite Facebook any moment of the day, I did that 2 years ago when Facebook made a turn for the filtering of data. I merely gave up. They could too and this raises the stage of ‘hold them for as long as they can’ as trivial and untrue, because it is not up to Meta, it is up to the user and O’Neil cannot prove any of that, she can merely imply and hope it is enough for a jury. It is what you can prove that sets the court right and by my reasoning she failed to make the case, they can merely let this ride on and on and hope to get as much coins out if it as they can. And as I see it, Meta is merely being used to get a few cats and turn them into fat cats. As I see it, it is not evidence, merely wasting the courts time (as I personally see it).

So have a nice day and consider if you are a parent if you are watching or talking to your children about social media and about personal safety in these spaces, which any parent really needs to do.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,

July 15, 2026 · 21:01

Where’s the blame?

That is at times the question, is it Elon Musk, its version of Twitter, the ABC News, or the hacker? Personally I do not think that ABC is to blame, but they are connected to it all (they are the unwilling participant). So how did this get started? I got last night a tweet, it wasn’t the groundbreaking news I was looking for, but I needed a new idea (and I got one as you are reading) so I decided to click on it. (See image below)

So here we see a few ‘facts’ or basically news given that makes the mind curious about what is involved. I saw the ‘tweet’ with a reference to Amazon (it merely mentions that) and I do not show the on the list, so accept that. In the background was the Australian Parliament House, as such I got interested. And I got this image several times in the previous few hours (I only saw them later) but they were allegedly tweeted by @Amenenyo1, @greciaibarra528, @DriftyGar, @Lundstromm04, @MarcelWagenveld and @ezcxs I am not connected to any of them, as such they might be trolls, or spam/scam facilitators. 

Anyway it reflects towards this article from ABC news:

The article is speculatively used because it is a long article. I reckon that the scammers need time to get information from this who push the “A few minutes after yesterday’s release” article. The link goes to TR.EE, which is an Estonian address, but the article seems to reflect an address ‘ferrariracinglegends dot com’ (I used the letter to replace the character, so that you will not fall into that same setting) all this makes me think that ABS is the unwilling participant in all this. And the larger question becomes. Who is to blame? I might have fallen for that trap last week as well and I got a call from an internet phone with an IPv6 address (which I did not answer) and after that my phone gave no evidence it was called, there was no blocked call, there was no rejected call. No evidence that I was called at all. As such I am making a few assumptions and they are mine to make. But it is clear that whomever is getting into this is using more powerful tools and more agility in the internet workings all over the field. 

  1. What is Elon Musk (his Tweety setting) amounting to?
  2. Is social media to blame?
  3. Is the advertisement department to blame?
  4. How is this managed in X (formerly known as Twitter)?
  5. How is advertisement in X managed, controlled and monitored?

5 questions that are important. Because this is inhibiting what reliability X has left, when X becomes a plaything of scammers and phishers X is pretty much done for. 

So can we blame social media? It relies of propagation and influencers, and as such scammers are top tier influencers, you are basically the tool they will use to propagate their need for cash. This sound ominous, but that is what it amounts to.

So how are advertisements managed in X? That is the first real culprit, the fact that I had that advertisement any least 6 times in an hour, with 6 different addresses makes me thing that something is very wrong in this setting, especially as I am not connected to any of them. Yes I know that this could be replicated, but that evidence (which I do not have) makes the blame squarely on the advertisement department of X (as I personally see it). And as I see it, whomever manages the advertisement setting of X has some explaining to do (optionally to Elon Musk, who might be seeing a massive drop in credibility, at the max of $44,000,000,000 and he might not like what this is amounting to. Then we get to the control and monitoring of advertisements. Because this setting has references to Amazon and ABC News who are seemingly not part of this and they might be seeking legal council in all of this. 

So as you see, I have questions. I reckon I have answers too, but without clear evidence there is no way I can comment, but the questions remain and until they are resolved anyone clicking on an advertisement is setting himself up for a long fall. That is merely how I see it and I thought it ws important to spread this news as far as I could.

Have a great day you all.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

April 16, 2026 · 05:47

Lying for revenue

That is the simplicity of this construct. It is not an error, it was not an oversight and it was not the non existing AI, there is the chance that someone fucked up on programming the ML that connects certain procedures, but the truth is that LinkedIn likely is lying to you.

To illustrate this I am giving you

Here we see 3 profiles looking at individual ‘xzddbv’ it doesn’t matter who this is, because it could be you. I know for a fact that there were at least 4 profiles, but that is outside of a few kinks that LinkedIn gave permission for. It comes with the territory I reckon, the elemental part is that the second sample gives us 

That person (the stated ‘xzddbv’) has zero profile views. Isn’t that odd? A system like LinkedIn that is now accepted as a near global setting for jobseekers, they have no money, they have no options because the job settings on a near global bases is based on lies. I showed in 2013 that some places were unreliable, giving us that there were 1600 open Unix positions in Sydney, whilst most of them were bogus. And it went downhill from there, it ended up being a breeding ground for spammers and scammers and whilst these ‘job sites’ made their money for ‘marketing’ purposes they never cared what happened to the people looking for a job. Wasn’t that the revelation of the century?

But now there is every chance that LinkedIn is becoming as unreliable as others and that is just not on. On the other hand I just learned that Microsoft owns LinkedIn, as such the surprise fades (rather fast). So to fire up their engines, can we see if there is a Chinese alternative we can live with? A version of for jobseekers that operates with critical views in the Commonwealth and/or Europe? 

There is only so much we can forgive, it is time for change. Have a great day.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

March 22, 2026 · 23:29

Are we really that dim?

I saw an article that the BBC put out last week. I must have missed it, because I tend to look at BBC news each day. So the article (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqj9kgxqjwjo) is giving us ‘Meta and TikTok let harmful content rise after evidence outrage drove engagement, say whistleblowers’ and here I am not really that clear why needed whistleblowers. The media has been doing this for the better part of a decade. These morning shows (what they call entertainment) are driven to push the boundaries of engagement. A carefully placed half witted word is all it takes to drive up engagement. And driven to all this is the digital dollar, because these pages also drive advertisement money for all concerned. As such it is to be expected that Meta and others (in this case TikTok) would be on that same horse. So whilst we are given “Social media giants made decisions which allowed more harmful content on people’s feeds, after internal research into their algorithms showed how outrage fuelled engagement, whistleblowers told the BBC. More than a dozen whistleblowers and insiders have laid bare how the companies took risks with safety on issues including violence, sexual blackmail and terrorism as they battled for users’ attention.” And this comes with the added “The whistleblowers who spoke to the BBC documentary, Inside the Rage Machine, offer a close-up view of how the industry responded following the explosive growth of TikTok, whose highly engaging algorithm for recommending short videos upended social media, leaving rivals scrambling to catch up. A senior Meta researcher, Matt Motyl, said the company’s competitor to TikTok, Instagram Reels, was launched in 2020 without sufficient safeguards. Internal research shared with the BBC showed comments on Reels had significantly higher prevalence of bullying and harassment, hate speech, and violence or incitement than elsewhere on Instagram.” I am not surprised and it comes with the added concerns that we aren’t being given here. You see, the word “Advertisement” isn’t given once in this article. And advertisement is driving this. Simply because advertisement is money, it is printed money that can be handed over anywhere and the second stage that the advertisement lobby is now quietly becoming a lot bigger than the NRA or the National Association of Realtors (NAR), which spent approximately $63.5 million in the USA, followed closely by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce at over $53 million. The advertisement lobby knows that they need to stand in the shadows (for now), so whilst we might think that the Association of National Advertisers (ANA), which  represents over 1,000 companies and 15,000 brands, focusing on marketing strategies and lobbying against restrictions on advertising, or the American Association of Advertising Agencies (4A’s), they represent advertising agencies, focusing on industry standards and advocacy. And there are a few more. None of them is making any sounds to the setting of these settings, because their pennies are depending on all this and these pennies when multiplied by a few billion become a serious amount of money and that money is coming in every day through engagement and flames. So at what point will we see the deeper story behind all of this?

Because at some point this lobby becomes too large to be unseated and whilst the NRA is in the United States, the advertisement lobby is working on a global setting and no-one is taking that serious. So, whilst some agencies (locally) are vetting for legality, decency, and truthfulness. The moment it crosses borders they become pretty silent.

In this I wonder when the BBC takes up that baton and takes a much harder look at what they are leaving in the dirt. What parts of all this is not being picked up by anyone? 

These are simple question, but the answers might show that there is more to all this and that is seemingly not seen.

Have a great day. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

January 2, 2026 · 19:38

Cracking on the down

That is at times the setting, but it is not always clear. As I personally see it, it has nearly always been clear as glass, but the ‘powered that could be’ doesn’t want to hand over any of the greed it can get, and as a result people get scammed. So I have a few issues with the Reuters article (at https://www.reuters.com/investigations/meta-created-playbook-fend-off-pressure-crack-down-scammers-documents-show-2025-12-31/) and as we read its headline ‘Meta created ‘playbook’ to fend off pressure to crack down on scammers, documents show’ we might think that this giant (aka Meta) is the cause of it all, but that isn’t exactly true. To see this we need to look back the last half century, slightly before Meta (then known as Facebook) was born. So as we are given “As regulators press Meta to crack down on rogue advertisers on Facebook and Instagram, the social media giant has drafted a “playbook” to stall them. Internal documents seen by Reuters reveal its tactics, including efforts to make scam ads “not findable” when authorities search for them.” We are shown a half truth that I see as a near blatant lie. You see, in 1961 a man named Luther Simjian came up with the father and mother of the ATM. An experimental Bankograph (as they named it then) was installed in New York City in 1961 by the City Bank of New York, but removed after six months due to the lack of customer acceptance. But on 27 June 1967 it was reintroduced by the actor Reg Varney as a push to control people pressure at Barclay in London. Think of this as the starting point. As security was upgraded, most security was still set to older concepts, they were not bad, but it all comes from this point. And as the law was set to this setting, it fell behind fast. As such things like Two-Factor Authentication are still concepts to be implemented in banking and auto banking and beyond. So as Meta and others are trying to make the sale of advertising ‘easier’ scammers are really happy to bank in on such opportunity. 

Consider three points, the advertiser, its payment and its location are three separate issues, whilst the initial setting is almost never confirmed as these players are set to ease of business and commerce instead of security of business and commerce.

And we see this in the article as “Meta, owner of the two social media platforms, feared Japan would soon force it to verify the identity of all its advertisers, internal documents reviewed by Reuters show. The step would likely reduce fraud but also cost the company revenue.” This is true, but the setting goes far beyond Meta and that is as far as I can tell not set either. So as Reuters gives us “Meta launched an enforcement blitz to reduce the volume of offending ads. But it also sought to make problematic ads less “discoverable” for Japanese regulators, the documents show.” Which bus likely true, but it is a larger field. If the EU, the Commonwealth and America keep shoulder to shoulder to “verify the identity of all its advertisers” we could actually get somewhere, but then the conversation goes into the direction of complication and such, the greed driven are ready to hand victory to the scammers. And as we are given “The documents are part of an internal cache of materials from the past four years in which Meta employees assessed the fast-growing level of fraudulent advertising across its platforms worldwide. Drawn from multiple sources and authored by employees in departments including finance, legal, public policy and safety, the documents also reveal ways that Meta, to protect billions of dollars in ad revenue, has resisted efforts by governments to crack down.” The setting that Japan is trying to overcome, the establishment of identity of advertisers become frightfully clear. And that costs Meta revenue, but it goes far beyond Meta, Amazon is likely to have similar settings and they accept that as the cost of doing business, but the people caught in-between are  settled with the bill of BigTech doing business. So as Sandeep Abraham, a former fraud investigator at Meta gives us “Instead of telling me an accurate story about ads on Meta’s platforms, it now just tells me a story about Meta trying to give itself a good grade for regulators.” We are being told the picture that regulators are part of the problem. In stead of the cold hard question “How is the identity of the advertiser established” the people are told a different picture. It would be regarded as Artsy, but not the truth. So whilst the world is ready to accept “The tactic successfully removed some fraudulent advertising of the sort that regulators would want to weed out. But it also served to make the search results that Meta believed regulators were viewing appear cleaner than they otherwise would have. The scrubbing, Meta teams explained in documents regarding their efforts to reduce scam discoverability, sought to make problematic content “not findable” for “regulators, investigators and journalists.”” The larger question on what happens when these fraudulent go getters get access to more finely trained DML/LLM solutions, to capture the wallets of millions more? That question remains in the background and soon it will be too late, because soon places like America will try nearly anything to keep their shareholders happy and that comes with additional cost of doing business. And that setting is given with “The playbook, as it’s referred to in some of the documents, lays out Meta’s strategy to stall regulators and put off advertiser verification unless new laws leave them no choice.” And again, the lawmakers are shunning their duty, not merely in America, but in Europe and partially the Commonwealth as well. And that is, as I see it, the gist of the setting and whilst we might want to blame Meta, the direct setting is that places like Apple, Google, Microsoft are at least equally guilty. So, as I see it, Microsoft could have done something years ago, but they were chasing Google, instead of becoming real innovators. They might have trailed, but at this point they could have taken a lead and as I see it, they did not.

So as we see Meta, no one is asking where Amazon and Apple were at that time. So how many scammy advertisements did they make way for? I don’t know the number and it will be less than Meta, but is it small enough? I fear not (a speculation on my side).

Oh, and before you think this was all new stuff, consider that I raised this issue in ‘Enabling Crime’ and article I wrote in 2017 (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2017/12/02/enabling-crime/) so this has been over 8 years in rotation, 8 years that BigTech and lawmakers did close to nothing and I was taught an issue like “Two-Factor Authentication” in University (aka UTS) in 2012. So it is over a decade where legal Impotency is shown. It was in the trend of non-repudiation where you and you alone could have set this in motion. The law seems uneasier to bind itself and tech doesn’t want to be bound by this. So as I showed close to 13 years of inability to do something about that setting we are given a slightly different setting, not an incorrect one, but one that is slightly larger than anticipated. 

So I wish you all a good day and a lovely time enjoying coffee (I just had mine). Those lazy bastards in Vancouver are likely snoring the night away, it’s half past midnight this morning there.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

December 18, 2025 · 16:38

Upgrade, next chapter

Yesterday I was thinking of a game I used to play and it left me a little underwhelmed. It was not the fault of the game maker, the game was awesome. It gave me the thought that I was in the deep with the dodo’s of the Kremlin, or the White House. The game did what they promised, but I was thinking what this game could do with current technology and settings of DMS and some LLM. There is also the thought that the game was originally a little 2D. It all fitted on an 800KB disk so I am not surprised. But consider the idea what the current settings allow for.

The idea that they had with the political tables of then (1987) and what Mindscape was able to achieve. It started as a game of geopolitics during the Cold War, created by Chris Crawford and published in 1985 on the Macintosh by Mindscape, followed by ports to a variety of platforms over the next two years and I got the AtariST version in 1987. And as sources reveal, takes the role of the President of the United States or General Secretary of the Soviet Union. The goal is to improve the player’s country’s standing in the world relative to the other superpower. During each yearly turn, random events occur that may have effects on the player’s international prestige. The player can choose to respond to these events in various ways, which may prompt a response from the other superpower. This creates brinkmanship situations between the two nations, potentially escalating to a nuclear war, which ends the game. It is my advice not to ‘antagonise’ the opponent in the Pink Kremlin, or the Black House to avoid the nuclear holocaust that follows. And why leave it there, the complications of a EU could be added, so you can see how likely little you can do as as King Gustav on charge of that small sided Sweden (population 10.5 million) and we can build on this, we can evolve this with corporate powers and the influence they hold with the likes of Strawberry, Hippolytics, Smallsoft, and a whole range of power players. See what happens when you tweak that power (or nationalise their goods) then we get to the impact of social media like SnoutTome, QuickOunce, MyTransistor, DingDong, Toucan, Connected, ScryingStone and a whole range of other groups. You could see the direct impact that trolls have when they are clearly exposed and optionally with scenarios to solve. I would recommend to leave the intelligence groups to a later date (or a DLC) to properly test the settings you have there. It could be the first simulator for audiences and students of geopolitics and social standings later. That is before you add the mess that (WatchMyGrey, AmiSix, and their offspring in France, Germany as well as Mossad does to the worlds chaos (under their tutelage) 

I wonder how no one enacted this setting, it seems to be a decently solid training and educational simulator giving students to study multidimensional settings that geopolitics present in todays industry. I’ll bet you you can’t fit that on a 800KB diskette, but there is every thought that it can be done, the social sciences tables still exist and they can vouch for the until recent messes and they are basically ready for deployment. And now that we see the world for what it is, we might also include global religion as an influence and show you why the Catholic Church doesn’t have as much as it used to be.

It is merely a small snag that escaped my brain this morning, but I reckon that the old software settings could still apply to settings of today, you merely have to upgrade the setting and there is plenty of options here and as they were solidly stated on those basic settings of Social sciences, in todays world they could be used through Deeper Machine Learning to a much more powerful extend. See what some see and what you are not supposed to know (sorry Blaise Metreweli) but that is also the next challenge. Instead of shouting at Toucan, you could investigate the trolls on Toucan and see what the expected result is and who the culprit behind these pretentious stages are, not to be coy, but using that Strawberry Studio to see it on the big screen, or even as a user of the Hippolytics Moon streaming service get a new lease of opportunity. An educational simulator for students and investigators of humbug gets a new side of life.

Well anyway, that was my thought I had this morning. And the names have been changed to avoid  the guilty and make me less liable, a decently appreciative setting

Have a great day. I wanted to take a nice walk, but it is 34 degrees celsius out there, bit much for a long walk. Oh and Strawberry, fix your DoDo Dos version Hawaii 26.1, when you switch off your router before you switch off your wireless, the wireless keeps on scanning the ether, even AFTER you switch of the WiFi. Sloppy programming. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Gaming, Media, Military, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

November 7, 2025 · 01:52

Blame who?

You see, we all like to blame the first party we see and the richer that person is, the more guilty he can be painted. That was the setting I saw in the Reuters story (at https://www.reuters.com/investigations/meta-is-earning-fortune-deluge-fraudulent-ads-documents-show-2025-11-06/) where we are given ‘Meta is earning a fortune on a deluge of fraudulent ads, documents show’ and the underlying text “Meta projected 10% of its 2024 revenue would come from ads for scams and banned goods, documents seen by Reuters show. And the social media giant internally estimates that its platforms show users 15 billion scam ads a day. Among its responses to suspected rogue marketers: charging them a premium for ads – and issuing reports on ’Scammiest Scammers.’” Seems to lay the blame squarely in the lap of Sir Mark Anthony Zacharias of the Zacharians from the city of Rome (I need to introduce drama here) but is that correct? I am not claiming he is innocent, but is it completely there? Or is there another side to this. You see, Meta, Facebook and legions others are in that same setting. What brings out the stage of Meta is the numbers of ‘willing to be fooled fish’ in that batter. And when we are given “A cache of previously unreported documents reviewed by Reuters also shows that the social-media giant for at least three years failed to identify and stop an avalanche of ads that exposed Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp’s billions of users to fraudulent e-commerce and investment schemes, illegal online casinos, and the sale of banned medical products.” We see the blame and the blame at the top of the hill is a youthful young sprout (41) called Mark Zuckerberg with his $251,000 million in his wallet (I am willing to wager that this amount does not fit in his wallet) and there is a reason for my approach here. You see, everyone is so happy that there is a setting for advertisements and that ball is thrown all over the place and as I personally see it, I reckon that LinkedIn is in a similar place and there another setting exists. The scammers place an job ad in LinkedIn and from there they get their pool of optional gophers to dig into. In the last week I have had over half a dozen scam attempts and I believe the source to be LinkedIn. As such I have a different setting. I reckon it becomes a massive essential development to tackle the Advertisement settings of these settings. Better protection is required and larger systems are required to vet the advertisers. I know that all kinds of people will object for whatever reason, but that means that you do not get to whine if you are scammed. And what about the FTC? The FTC has primary responsibility for determining whether specific advertising is false or misleading, and for taking action against the sponsors of such material. You can report consumer fraud to the FTC. So what did they have to say? And that becomes interesting as the Article by Jeff Horwitz does not mention the FTC, not even once. So what did they have to say? Or was the win here to paint the guy with the big wallet? So how does that play out with LinkedIn, what about TikTok (I am not on TikTok, so I am clueless here), I also dropped Facebook over a year ago. 

But the setting is clear, the Reuters story is massively not-finished. And there is a bigger setting. We went with the old settings and applied them to social media, but there are different rules that need to be applied and a simple portal or over the phone advertisement sale will not be sufficient for the safety of the consumers getting scammed. So, basically I am merely on LinkedIn and as such (with the scammers to try me) there is every chance that they have a similar problem and in that setting there are several job sites that need thorough sanitation (my personal view) because they are in the setting that every advertiser is revenue in the bank and that is not always the case. 

So the short and sweet of it is that there is little doubt that Mark Zuckerberg holds some of the blame, some, not all. Because as I see it, the FTC has a much bigger problem. And where is the Federal Trade Commission in all of this? And when we see “A cache of previously unreported documents reviewed by Reuters also shows that the social-media giant for at least three years failed to identify and stop an avalanche of ads that exposed Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp’s billions of users to fraudulent e-commerce and investment schemes, illegal online casinos, and the sale of banned medical products.” As such the FTC remained dumb dumb for over three years? And Reuters never fave that any thought? Neither did many other players and the FTC never went to the media saying that the advertisements require a larger overhaul giving them a new setting of hunting down scammers. And as most of them are abroad, other settings need to be considered, but Reuters missed that part too.

Have a great day and if you get an email from a prince in Nigeria telling you that you inherited a million dollars, there is a chance that this is not on the up and up.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

July 31, 2025 · 10:22

Drowning in misrepresentation

That is the setting as I personally believe it to be. The problem isn’t me, the problem is that politicians are clueless and as such the people will end up suffering. As we get the article (at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jul/30/zuckerberg-superintelligence-meta-ai) telling us ‘Zuckerberg claims ‘super-intelligence is now in sight’ as Meta lavishes billions on AI’ the dwindling situation is overlooked. This is not on Meta or on Mark the innovator Zuckerberg, well, perhaps it is a little on him. But the setting of “Whether it’s poaching top talent away from competitors, acquiring AI startups or proclaiming that it will build data centers the size of Manhattan, Meta has been on a spending spree to boost its artificial intelligence capabilities for months now”. So, what are you missing? It is easy to miss it and unless you are savvy in data, there is absolutely no blame on you. I will blame politicians shoving the buck to a pile that has no representation and I do see that the political mind is merely ‘money savvy’, it does not have an alleged clue on data verification. There is a second point, it was given to me by someone (I don’t remember who) who gives us “All AI startups are their own shells linking to ChatGPT” I see the wisdom of that, but I never investigated that myself. You see, all these shells have issues with verification and these startups don’t have the resources to properly verify the data they have, so you end up having a bucket with badly arranged and misliked data. You would think that if they all link to ChatGPT it is a singular issue, but it is not. Language is one, interpretation of what is, is another side and these are merely two sides in a much larger issue. And hiding behind “build data centers the size of Manhattan” is nothing else than a massive folly. You see, what will power this? Most places in this world have a clear shortage of power and any data centre relying on power that isn’t there will crash with some regularity and these data links are maintained in real time, so links will go wrong again and again. And that link is seen by ‘some’ as “A new study of a dozen A.I. -detection services by researchers at the University of Maryland found that they had erroneously flagged human-written text as A.I. -generated about 6.8 percent of the time, on average” that implies that 1 in 15 statements are riddles with errors and there is no way around it until the verification passes are sorted out. Consider that one source gives us “monthly searches to more than 30.4 million during the last month”, this gives us that AI events resulted in 2,026,666 possible erroneous results and when that happens to something that was essential to your needs? When technical support and customer care fails because the number, aren’t right? How long will you remain a customer? That is the folly I am foreseeing and when all these firms (like Microsoft) are done shedding their people and they realise that the knowledge they actually had was pushed out of the side door? Where does this leave the customers? Will they remain Microsoft, Amazon, IBM or Google customers? This is about to hit nearly every niche in America business. The ones that held on the their people knowledge base tend to be decently safe, but the resources needed to clean up the mess that this created will scuttle the European and American economies as they overextended the new they spun themselves and when reality catches up, these people will see the dark light of a self created nightmare.

So in retrospect consider “Behind the hype of Microsoft backing and a $1B+ valuation, the company reportedly inflated numbers, burned through ~$450M funding, and collapsed into insolvency.” This setting was hyped on every channel and praised as a solution. It took less then a year to go from a billion to naught. How many even have a billion? Considering that Microsoft backed it, implies that they were unaware how they were, driven by a simple setting that should have been verified before they even backed it to over a $1,000,000,000 plus.

Now, we can feel sorry for Zuckerberg, not for the money, he probably has more in his wallet, but the ones wanting in on such a ‘great endeavor’ are bound to lose everything they own. This is a very slippery slope and as governments are seeing what some call as AI as a solution to solve a expensive setting in a cheap way are likely to lose the ownership of data of their entire population and these systems do not care who the owner is, they copy EVERYTHING. So where will that data end up going? I wonder who looked at the ownership of collected data and all the errors it has within itself.

The fear is not what it costs, but for billions of people is where their information will end up being and these politicians sell ‘sort of solutions’ which they cannot back with facts and in the end it will end up being the problem of a software engineer and that setting was too complicated to understand for any politician who was too eager to put his name under this and merely will shrug saying ‘I’m sorry’ whilst he is exiting through any side door with his personal wallet filled to the brink to a zero tax nation with a non-extradition treaty.

A setting we will see the media repeat time after time without seriously digging into the mess as they told us “Wall Street investors are happy with the expensive course Zuckerberg is charting. After the company reported better-than-expected financial results for yet another quarter, its stock soared by double digits.” All whilst the statement “Zuckerberg did not provide any details of what would qualify as “super-intelligence” versus standard artificial intelligence, he did say that it would pose “novel safety concerns”. “We’ll need to be rigorous about mitigating these risks and careful about what we choose to open source,”” is trivialized to the largest degree and in all this there is no setting of verification. Weird isn’t it? 

So feel free to enjoy you cub of toffee and don’t worry about the jacked setting of demonstration which was tracked by the original AI as “enjoy your cup of coffee and don’t worry about the impact of verification” because that is the likely heading of the coming super-intelligence

Have a great day (not have a grate clay).

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

March 29, 2025 · 11:33

Retrospectively the media

That is what is happening, but how did it start? Around In 2007, News of the World royal editor Clive Goodman and private investigator Glenn Mulcaire were convicted of illegal interception of phone messages. According to the News of the World, this was an isolated incident, but The Guardian claimed that evidence existed that this practice extended beyond Goodman and Mulcaire. It started a whole mess which was shown to the world and as such the media was no longer any reliable source. Several cases hit the limelight, but for the largest setting, it was the media that was largely the problem. At some point (after Leveson) Hacked off was created with amongst them Hugh Grant Board member, actor (famous for comedies like Love Actually and Heretic) as well as one of the phone-hacking victims. I do not want to skip the Leveson enquiries. Yet that part is the larger issue, not the inquiry as much as the blatant support of the media by political players and basically the larger stage of a corrupt media. Hacked off gave us “In March 2013, the three main political parties supported the implementation of Leveson’s reforms, and so did the public. In fact more than 175,000 people signed our petition calling for immediate implementation. 10 years later however, this has still not happened. Press abuse continues and in the place of the PCC, the majority of newspapers in the UK are ‘regulated’ by another toothless complaints-handling body, IPSO.” Yet a week ago in ‘A letter from Hugh’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2025/03/20/a-letter-from-hugh/) I got a letter from Hugh Grant giving us all the option to write to our MP’s and today I received 

Here we see that “Our records show that a staggering 97% of MPs have now received letters from the public calling for action on press reform.” Now, we get the larger view. You see, the media doesn’t want the Leveson papers implemented and the people do. So what will the politicians do? That is the larger setting because the Media will see its visibility crumble when this happens. So what will the politicians do? I have set this stage in my blog several times over the last few years. The media is no longer reliable to any level and the pro-Hamas stories from the BBC is showing too many that the media is basically done for. Consider the fact that the UK is characterised by a comparatively large national press with 11 national daily newspapers, and 10 Sunday sister titles (this is more than France, Germany and USA). Seven of these titles publish special editions for Scotland, and these compete with three Scottish dailies. National newspapers are typically divided into three sectors which relate to their physical size, as well as the quantity of news, values and quality of content: broadsheet (also known as quality), mid-market, and tabloid. They are (mostly) all vying for the attention of the 69 million people in the UK. The turnaround is with “Print newspapers are read by 1 in 4 adults over 15 every day (13.6 million daily) and reach larger audiences weekly (24.9 million) and monthly (30.8 million). Print Circulation has fallen approximately 40 percent between 2010 and 2018.” And all these newspapers have advertising and that is the larger issue. That is money for the publications and as that 40% is cutting deeper and deeper. The media will resort to larger non-news steps, mostly to gain digital dollars from their audience. And with 97% off the MPs are getting requests to act, there is not much to do and I reckon that action will follow. Perhaps we will see another episode from some editor in chief stating like a little cry bitch that they can be trusted, that they will give a tooth to IPSO, but the larger setting of people are over the stage of misbehaving. Oh, and before you all think I am exaggerating, on March 14th 2014 I gave you all ‘Bad Journalism’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2014/03/25/bad-journalism/) where we were shown “Flight MH370 ‘suicide mission’“, so where is the evidence? Was any evidence ever given to us? The media is done for and I see it as places like the Khaleej Times, the New Arab and Al Arabiya are now more reliable than the western press has been for over 10 years.

So now the wait starts for action from British political parties. I wonder how long they can sit on their hands before the people have had enough. I wonder how many editors will cry like the little bitches they have been for years. And IPSO? Well they are soon to be under a microscope too.

Have a great day. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,