Tag Archives: Social Media

The return of the man

That is what I had to see when I engaged myself to what I had lost. The Khaleej Times (at https://www.khaleejtimes.com/business/tech/is-bluesky-the-next-twitter-why-millions-are-ditching-elon-musks-x-for-this-new-platform) where we are given ‘Is Bluesky the next Twitter? Why millions are ditching Elon Musk’s X for this new platform’ And we get the starting sentence “As discontent with Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter) grows, Bluesky has emerged as a fresh alternative, attracting millions of users in search of a better social media experience.” I currently have both. Hoping that this setting is the one that starts the cleaning services of X at the behest of Elon Musk. You see at present (at ZDNet) we get “According to the newest stats, it has shot up to more than 16.7 million since Tuesday, up from 9 million in early September and 12 million around mid-October.” At present the numbers give us 18.9 million users or a 9.3 member growth per second. Now we get that like me there are a few users that remain in both camps, but this will hurt the Musk advertisement numbers to no end. The giggle moment I had that there is even chance that at present X (yes, I use the expression now), there is a chance that bots are paying revenue to advertise to other bots. The reality is that brisk. To optionally lose 20 million people by December 1st should be a warning sign to Elon Musk (and not the first one mind you). And there is a larger concern for him. If every member attracts 3 to 4 other people The power of X will have been decimated to the largest effect before January 1st 2025. So what will come of this 45 billion dollar Edsel? Well, to close it down is to early to say, but there are a few suggestions that people from the FBI gave others, and I reckon that the NSA is on board with at least two of those suggestions. 

I gave the idea to Google a few months ago (merely because I wasn’t sure what Bluesky was up to) and I leave it to you to see where it goes from here. 

As I see it, there is a larger option for Bluesky and Nostr to get the bulk of what was formerly known as twitter to reduce its sentience to a mere hollowed out cadaver. How far this goes is up to Elon Musk and Linda Yaccarino to decide, yet in this I think that the shareholders would want to make a massive turn about. Merely because the idea of bots advertising views to other bots might seem hollow to them. Its like a salesperson engaging with a non-decider in a company. It is a waste of both times (well, the non-decider might get a few meals and drinks out of this). So as ‘advertisement’ revenue drops (like brick) in that setting the shareholders will be massively unimpressed and so they should be. As such Elon Musk and Saudi prince and billionaire Al Waleed bin Talal al Saud, who rolled over $1.89 billion in former Twitter shares at the time of the deal. Might presumably see their stock diminish in value for a little over 40% by the end of the year. Well, I gave prince Al Waleed bin Talal al Saud the option of control of an idea to the extend of $5,000,000,000. An expected idea, that was merely the setting of IP in the first phase, which could grow to a lowly estimated $15 billion to $20,000,000,000 annual, after the second phase would be possible (not guaranteed). This would have costed him my fee of $50 million (post taxation) plus 3% annual revenue for 20 years (pre taxation). I think there is a chance he missed out on both. The first failure I personally did not see coming. 

I expected Elon Musk to be more mindful of his sink (that visualisation can be used in both directions). A friend of mine had evidence ready to be presented to Elon Musk showing him that the 45 billion was too high a price (his data showed the valid reason of diminishing that amount by 30%-45%, not a speculation, he had lot more data than I did. So as I see it, this setting will bring back the man Jack Dorsey by a lot more visibility and overly carrying suitcases full of dineros. As such The recent reports of the UAE taking the steps to set the stage with X could be faltered by the mere reason that they should have included Bluesky. I reckon that before the en of the year that move would be evidently clear. 

I wonder how this all plays out at the lemon-lime brand named X at present and the closure of this year. We’ll just have to see it. Anyways my day goes to fruition nicely as I do not own any stock in X. Still I have no stick in BlueSky either, as such I could be doing better.

So hasta lasagna to everyone and a fair Monday to all as well.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media

Doors and Windows are the same

This is the setting my mind went over when I had the fourth issue since yesterday with Twitter (I still refuse to call it X). And the setting is one that Google can pretty much solve overnight. You see they already have the technology and preparing that should not take too long. In the meantime Twitter is pushing boundaries and pretty much pissing off everyone but Trolls, Karens and MAGA supporters (as I see it).

Yet this morning I had a nice thought. Google can hand us an alternative. It is actually based on their YouTube solution. I am not sure why they hadn’t considered it. You see they have Google Blogger. I wanted to switch 2 years ago, but I have written over 3000 articles, so it is a bit iffy for me. Yet that doesn’t mean that it wouldn’t work.

We have the blogger interface and as I see it merely one option needs to be added. Instead of a blogpost, we would write a short post. 

With the short option (not yet created), you will get a few limitations. A short post is a maximum of 256 characters including the references and the tags. Apart from that you could add an attachment or a few images. And that is it. And with the short blog (or Tweet) would be added and as I see the anger of the people versus Twitter, it should be able to gain millions of fans in a short term. If you are able to cut down on the trolls I reckon google would be off to the races soon thereafter. The nice part is that as others like Telegram did not get any issues, I expect neither would Blogger, and with the short blog (a direct descended of YouTube Shorts) there is merely a continuation of Blogger and now with Youtube attached. The stage becomes that any original source (Blogger, YouTube and Youtube Shorts) could also share this to the Blogger short, as such traffic should near exponential grow in the first year alone.

I reckon that the only real part is to create a new optional timeline in the other programs. As such the blogger will have a short line, a combined line where the Blogger has for the user a clear timeline of blogs and shorts. YouTube will get a display line (for the user) to see Youtube, the YouTube shorts and the blogger shorts. It will set itself apart from Twitter up to that point. 

A simple setting that will gain Google a much larger following. Optionally when Twitter (or X) is diminished to a mere billion, Google can buy it out and clean that mess up as well.

I merely wonder if Google ever considered this path, because I cannot have been the only one who came up with this. And I have to wonder why didn’t Google proceed? There might be a very valid reason, yet I fail to see why. It could be that this stage was less of an option a mere two years ago, but now? I fail to see the reason why not. As Musk is growing its population of Musk haters, it seems to make sense to consider this. 

With these options where Google could harness the populations of WordPress and Twitter almost simultaneously, I fail to see why this step wasn’t taken. And all whilst Jack Dorsey seems to be dragging his feet regarding Bluesky (which he left for the ‘freedom technology of X’) as I see it the options for Google becomes increasingly clear and there is no reason to harness the optional stage of more (or better) advertising, which seems to be the deciding threshold for all big-tech now. 

If there is a reason to avoid this platform, it is clear that I am not seeing this. And Google will gain a lot more, it would be the first serious ‘attack’ on TikTok and that gives people in the American administrations of government a hard on (no idea why). If they had not considered this I would have been awake at the wheel more than half a dozen times. Oh, and I see that this could open a few more doors (if certain governments see this as an opportunity).

Have a great day, Vancouver joins us on this day in less than 15 minutes.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Media, Science

Envoy of Coca Cola

This all started with a weird dream. In the dream I was meeting up with a marketing friend in Sweden who had become the new Marketing director of Coca Cola. He was bringing me gifts. There was a box with 12 bottle of cola (4 classic, 4 cherry and 4 vanilla cola). There was a second box with all kinds of swag, embroided polo shirts, T-Shirts, and the piece the resistance a metal model of the original cola delivery truck from 1927. We were talking in a seating corner in what I think was supposed to be his office. We were going over some details and then I woke up. I might have woken up, but the elements were already in my brain and I went to work.

The Envoy system
You see social media has become unreliable, even unpredictable at times. As such I came up with the envoy system. To see the larger frame, lets take a look at its Twitter profile. 

As you can see 3.3 million people follow Coca Cola, not bad. But the untamed fields are there and the larger corporations are the first who can wield in the results. To see this lets take a look at the envoy system. There is the company and their server(s), the envoy and the instance. Every cycle the envoy needs to make sure that their instance is up to date. Their instance is a personalised setting for every social media setting. As such the instance will cover Facebook, Threads, Twitter, Instagram and whatever else is out there. As such one person can have well over 4 connections and in that one instance all five are reached and inform so that all their friends get the message. This is not direct marketing or mass marketing. This is personal marketing and it is set in a new light. This is not some blanket setting, this is one department optimising the message, their mission statement and the envoys are the way to get there. 

So as I see it, the the aware person sets the instance (the unaware person), both message the server (a verification of A and B) and from there the message starts and now those people lets say 100K envoys will give message to 1-50 million people, none of them following Coca Cola, but they are still getting the message. No advertisement money used and it will have larger impact. Would you believe a company stating that they are good, of a friend or influencer stating that this company is good? This is not an easy track or the small or the faint of heart, but I reckon it could send a much larger message than we currently see and I reckon that at some point all the larger players will some kind of system like this.

Well that is another nice day, all ready to go towards an evening of gaming and perhaps a movie, enjoy yours and remember, tomorrow is Friday. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Science

Influenced by license holder

Yup, this could be a setting according to the BBC. It started on March 19th 2022 when I wrote ‘57 seconds until the next sucker’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2022/03/19/57-seconds-until-the-next-sucker/), there I discussed two types that go for your budget. The deceptors and the influencers. Now we see (at https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60787296) that gives us ‘Influencers in Australia risk jail for breaking finance tips rules’. In this article we get to see “The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) says they may need a licence to give such advice. A 2021 ASIC survey suggested 33% of 18 to 21-year-olds follow financial influencers. And it also found that 64% of young people in Australia changed a financial behaviour because of an influencer.” And here the issue starts. You see, the difference between a flaccid proclamator and the gung-ho prosecutor are mere results. So If “A 2021 ASIC survey suggested 33% of 18 to 21-year-olds follow financial influencers” means that 1-4 people are now facing prosecutions, we could say OK, thats nice, but 1-4 out of? It implies that the female influencers are about meeting a man who can skin a gator so that they can get a really cheap handbag and the male influencers would be about how to best poach a gator and turn that into a handbag to score the sheila in the wild (a subtle Crocodile Dundee reference). But if this implies that you are reporting on 50-100 influencers the message becomes “So, WTF are you waiting for?” Influencers have been on the radar for years, as such reporting on this NOW implies that you need to find your viagra stash, that stash has tablets that looks like (see below)

So as we see “In February, the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) urged caution over the use of influencers in the marketing of financial products. “Retail investments’ use of social media influencers on various platforms to market investments is becoming a concern for us,” the financial watchdog said. “Firms should ensure they have taken appropriate legal advice to understand their responsibilities prior to using influencers.” And there has been particular concern about the use of influencers in cryptocurrency marketing.” I personally wonder why this news is not 2+ years old. Because as I personally see it at present influencers will now react to the degree of “I did not know it was illegal, I only saw the news last Tuesday”, impeding prosecutions. Yes, that a really bright idea. We would like results, not excuses and according to one source an influencer “is someone with a loyal and larger than average social media following. Some influencers have as few as 3,000 followers! Influencers are paid by brands to create and post promotional content.” So we get two settings now, the influencer and the brand who engages the influencer. I would state that the brands warrant investigations as well. And lastly we get “In the same month, Spain’s National Securities Market Commission also revealed plans for new rules for advertising crypto-assets, including promotions by social media influencers.” As such Spain might be 2 years late, but Australia? How up to date were they, how many influencers were confronted, how many brands were confronted? We see nothing of that here and that beckons questions. How behind are the lawmakers and their governmental watchdogs exactly? A simple question and train of thought that the article raised, are you not curious how protected you actually really are?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

The media caper

I set the stage in an earlier article responding to CBC in ‘Six of one’, I set a few issues there and even as I did not oppose the Canadian view, the stage is a lot bigger. And what happens? To my surprise it is ABC News who gives us another angle, one I contemplated and dropped because it requires evidence. This they handed to me when the search tool gives us “Chinese developer Evergrande is likely to be in default, amid reports it has missed a final bond payment deadline, but markets are shrugging…” the article (at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-12-08/evergrande-default-debt-developers-china/100682242) gives the goods, yet there is the stage. You see It is the search text we see (as above) and the added “but markets are shrugging…” is not ANYWHERE in the article.

The article gives a lot, but someone using the media is playing a game with all of us. A stage that is about the fine parts, about the innuendo. It is a lot more subtle then “Why are your boobs so big? Are you a free-diver or do you have a pneumonia?” There is a real chance that a collapse hitting investors for their $18,000,000,000 out there and the media plays games? Yes, you think this is trivial, and to some degree it is. But this stage happens EVERY day. It happens in all kinds of ways and it happens all over the field, but we keep slamming China and Saudi Arabia, all whilst we get a distorted view by the media and it overwhelms millions of people. 

Why does it bother me?
Well we have some serious issues and our votes are buttered by alternating and adjusted views that the media gives us. They claim to be informing us, yet they adhere to other voices and those voices decide what we see. To be honest I was a little surprised to see ABC on that stage. For the most, them and several other papers are not inclined to be that active, so it is a rare find. When we go to the ABC site, we get a little more “but markets are shrugging off the news amid stimulus from China’s central bank.” Yet the article has merely one mention of stimulus “China’s growth slowdown in 2014-15, and the large stimulus [that] drove the economy’s recovery after the COVID-19 shock early last year”, as such it is not “amid stimulus from China’s central bank”. It is also hindered, and the article’s reference to the central bank is a mere “to lower borrowing costs”, to be honest this is the first time I notice ABC in such an action, they tend to be above board all the time that I looked into matters, so this was a find, there are other media outlets that have a simpler approach to their reporting integrity as I personally see that. 

So is there no issue with Evergrande? Yes there is and when that companies implodes and defaults the damage in China and far beyond those borders will be massive. There is an added station that it will almost directly halts China’s economic growth and it will impact Chinese lives all over, one firm losing that much will have larger impacts all over China. So the news is correct, the setting is not a positive one, yet the search-line and the article shows that the media is playing a dangerous game and when people do wake up they will want their pound of flesh. And when the people will demand the names list of stakeholders, I wonder how long the delay will be and how quickly these stakeholders will run (for their lives) to the nearest airport. 

We see the stage of social media and “Deception is a distortion with an intention to mislead users, analysts, organisations, etc.” So when that gets dealt with, will someone also deal with the generic media? I doubt it, but I can hope. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media

As Credit Cards run dry

That was pretty much the first thing that went through my mind as Reuters gave me ‘UK could speed up criminal sanctions for big tech, minister says’ an hour ago. The article (at https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-could-speed-up-criminal-sanctions-big-tech-minister-says-2021-11-04/) gives us the first dangerous setting ““It will not be two years, we are looking at truncating that to a shorter time frame,” she told lawmakers. “I’m looking at three to six months for criminal liability”” in the first I have all kinds of emotional outbursts as to the uselessness of certain political players. Then there are a few more chapters, yet it is not yet the moment for that (it will come soon enough). When we see “Powers to make executives liable have been proposed as a “last resort” to be introduced at least two years after the rules have been set, the government has said”, we see the first part that it is a timeline change of almost 75%, then there is the statement ‘as a “last resort”’ and I personally believe that none of it will hold up to scrutiny. There is of course the ‘old’ setting of “In general, Facebook may not be held liable for slanderous or defamatory posts due to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 protects internet service providers, like Facebook, from liability for content posted to their platform by third-party users” Yet it also means that a demand could be made to hold Journalists up to those same standards, and that is where the shoe stops fitting and the dance ends real quick.

Consider Stephanie Kirchgaessner, someone at the Guardian. On July 19th 2021 she gives us “A phone infected with NSO malware, as Kanimba’s has been, not only gives users of the spyware access to phone calls and messages, but it can also turn a mobile phone into a portable tracking and listening device. In the period before she was alerted to her phone being hacked, Kanimba said she had contacts with the US special presidential envoy for hostage affairs, British MPs, and the UK high commission office in Rwanda – all of which could have been monitored

We now see:
A. ‘A phone infected with NSO malware, as Kanimba’s has been’
So where is that evidence? As such the guardian could be just as liable and hiding behind ‘big tech’ optionally constitutes a case for discrimination and the Guardian is also on Facebook, Twitter and so on, so what gives there?
B. When was the phone infected? Can the moment of infection be proven?

The Daily Mail reported on October 25th 2021 “The alarm was raised after an online harms issue known only to a few people at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport was raised by a senior executive at Facebook in a recent meeting” So we see “I’m looking at three to six months for criminal liability”, basically Facebook would be prosecuted for events that the employees of that government leak on Facebook? How insane is that train? Who would be the conductor of that crazy brain train and with that in sight, when we consider that some of these messages come from all over the globe. And in plenty of those cases the so called trolls are to blame for some messages. When we consider that the track record in the US, UK, EU and larger commonwealth fails to deal with trolls, can we demand more from Facebook? Consider that the Council on Foreign Relations reported on June 7th 2021 “Chinese trolls are beginning to pose serious threats to economic security, political stability, and personal safety worldwide”. So how long until not so intelligent politicians see a larger string of attacks and fine Facebook whilst the business shifts to China where the US, UK and EU have no say in the matter? How stupid does one need to get to consider their stretched credit cards to get fines whilst losing billions in taxable revenue and optionally global revenue? When it all shifts to China (as well as the Russian equivalent) people like Britain’s Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries were too close to clueless to understand the digital media? Yes, we get it, Zuckerberg created a Behemoth, one a lot larger then even he thought was possible, but the rest had no idea whatsoever (I used to work for a few of them). So in all this we see lofty words like ‘criminal liability’, yet that same government (as the BBC reported) gives its population just 1.6% of rape allegations in England and Wales result in someone being charged, something the government has said it is “deeply ashamed” about. Charged, not convicted, that is a mere 80%, leaving 98% of the assailants free to do it again. That government who failed its population for well over three decades thinks it can judge “big tech firms already had the capability to make their platforms safer”, how is that insight gotten? Because as I see it in too many places the people have no clue on digital media issues, especially in social media. 

I believe that this is another ‘tax the wealthy’ stage, this time it is on what I regard as ‘false grounds’. And in that light, lets take a gander into another stage (adjusted stage in this case) of ‘flawed reasoning’

6 Most Common Causes of Wrongful Convictions

Eyewitness misinterpretation.
The stage where the observer does not comprehend all the elements of a digital track and uses his or her status as expert witness, or witness to the event all whilst the stage cannot be seen as a lot of the variables involved are not visible to that witness.

Misinterpretation.
Misinterpretation is set to what is seen, the data behind it and the stage on why and who placed it. In many cases (especially with flamers and trolls) several of these elements are faked and wrong values are captured mainly because flamers and trolls know what to change. This is similar to all the scam calls showing a UK/US number whilst the scammer is in India. YouTube is filled with those examples.

Incorrect forensics.
Is slightly the wrong term, it is incomplete forensics, because governments listened to self righteous pinko’s who demanded privacy and as such digital platforms cannot capture what needed to be captured to do more, so first (overly graphically stated) the government cuts off the hands of the media giant and then tells the media giant to pick up the right ‘pick-a-stick’, how lame is that part of the equation?

False confessions.
There is the cry-baby (hoping to get freebee’s), the trolls and flamers and those with a natural aversion to one side (abortion, politics, vegans), take a subject and there will always be a crying opponent and they are willing to embellish their side and optionally lie on what they feel, all sides that goes straight into social media and often several times over.

Official misconduct.
Basically is is seen on both sides and always will be, I used the government staff leaking lists, but the opposite side is also there (like Amazon staff greasing personal (family) needs. Several options and these things happen and time is the only way to get there, yet the issues mentioned earlier drains close to all resources.

Use of informants.
That is the larger problem, who is a real informant, and who is there to play some political game? The data will not reveal either but it also constitute a wrongful case.  A seemingly small but growing issue on a stage where size is the least visible element of all.

Inadequate defense.
The largest problem issue. It overlaps with technical abilities, privacy abilities and false confessions, they all impact the defence that is offered and as such is the easiest overrun in court or in a hearing. This also is a stage with documentation and as we see with some players at the ICIJ (Pandora papers) as well as the NSO group. There is no adequate defence as the presented attacks are too often absent of evidence, yet still there is a conviction against the players and the media became part of that problem. A stage where defense was not possible because some players were allegedly tainting the field. 

Six elements and they are out in the open, so when we see “Britain’s Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries, who was appointed to the job in September, said she wanted the powers brought forward” I personally wonder whether she is clueless on what is involved, or is this a mere ruse to get fines so the governmental Credit Card is not cut into pieces by too many banks? And if the UK is in that stage, how deep is the EU and the US at present?

Before we leap to rush to the small minded people, lets make sure that they do not end up driving business to players like WeChat. A site that will not adhere to anything that is seemingly non-Chinese.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics, Science

The left corner

Yup, we have all heard it on TV, in movies. In the left corner weighing ……. Yada, yada, yada. The beginning of a match. You heard it, but did you realise it? It hit me today, I was thinking back to the good old days (Google Plus), it had a side others ignored and they are still ignoring it. I joined Facebook in 2004, or was it 2003? The setting was that I was travelling the globe, most of the direct family (when they were still alive) had a travelling bug. As such Facebook was part of a solution, yet it turned out that Google Plus was a much better fit. Reality shows that I have 2 best friends, I have a number of ‘sort of friends’ and I have relatives. Apart from the relative members I would happily shoot with an M-24, I did try to stay in touch with those I had no need to shoot and then time caught up with them and they died. 

Family solution

Time is the eternal equaliser and it will claim me too at some point (once). Yet today I considered how the need for greed of Facebook is leaving an untapped side to social media. They were all about boasting that everyone wants to know everything (better for advertisement), yet the foundation of Google plus was that you decided to give to certain circles, and family is its own circle. Facebook forgot about that part and the others that followed Facebook is overlooking that too (as far as I can tell). You see, the world is not interested in the desk you bought (unless it comes with a naked lady) and then they are merely interested in how visible the nudity of the lady is. But family members are different, they are interested in your new desk, your new quilt cover, especially when there is more than an hour of travel time involved. Some are a lot further away and they want to see the birthday pics of your little one, the rest of the world has no business to see those. So why did social media evolve into an advertisement space where we see all no matter how trivial, or how convoluted the message? 

And as far as I could tell there was no one, at least that was the case, former Facebook employees caught on and created Cocoon. It is not free, it will cost you $39.99 USD per year, yet as they say (at cocoon.com) “Thirty days after you create a Cocoon, one person in the group will need to sponsor it on everyone’s behalf to keep it going. You don’t need to decide upfront whether to pay for Cocoon, only after you reach the end of your trial period. A Cocoon costs $5.99 USD per month or $39.99 USD per year for the entire group”, so one family member pays the amount of slightly less than $40 a year to keep it going and only ONE member needs to pay. That is a very different story and it is one that could take off. So as we get “The app itself does not cost money to download. Pricing is per Cocoon, not per person, and you can be in as many Cocoons as you would like”, it is actually brilliant, to get back to the true foundations of social media, of true socialising and I am amazed that others had not caught on here. Consider a family with nieces, nephews and other riffraff (read: family members) and one price per family. I am decently amazed that they have not cornered that industry yet, because as I see it that setup could grow far and fast over the next three years. As Google lost its Plus side, Cocoon might be all that remains for a lot of people who are sick of the 17 advertisements an hour and the nobodies who have something not so nice to say about your niece’s new dress or your nephew’s new bike. Yes we all make fun of family, yet that is the right of a family member, to say to auntie bertha that her hat went out of fashion when Black and White TV’s did. 

I am equally aware that Cocoon is not advertising, which is debatable as a choice, because there are globally millions who have had enough of Facebook in some regard. I am not totally against Facebook, it has its space and its function when it is about schools, friends that are not family members. And with Google Plus out of the equation Cocoon has a much larger stage to play on. And as they end their sales pitch with “You can be in as many Cocoons as you’d like, but they’ll remain separate from each other and you can navigate between them using the Cocoon switcher. Your nickname, picture, and colour are distinct in each, and contents from one Cocoon can’t be shared or forwarded into another.” We can clearly see that they are on the right track, they are heading into a direction where Social media should have headed in to a much larger degree than it has been doing. If there is one downside it will be the case that I can have it on my iPad, but not on a MacBook. At times I prefer to do my socialising on something with a decent keyboard, I am just wired that way, but that is me, some will find the iPad, android phone and/or iPhone sufficient. I also believe there are a few flaws in the initial stage, but that might be me (I don’t think so though), as such it is a great setting and it does have a real future on a stage where people are being drowned on advertisement and personalised information mining. Yet cocoon is new and fresh, just like the 1985 movie which was all about family as well. 

When you have a family that you do not want to shoot at a moment’s notice, Cocoon is a bright choice in a field where most choices are smitten with some level of darkness.

1 Comment

Filed under IT

Using the limelight

It all started a few days ago and for the most I kept you all informed. The latest news was in my possession for well over an hour. I waited because I wanted to see how the others were reacting. And I was not disappointed, they did exactly what I expected, basically, they did nothing.

It all started with ‘Saudi Arabia says it took down ‘terrorist cell’ trained by Iran’ (at https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/9/29/saudi-arabia-says-it-took-down-terrorist-cell-trained-by-iran), so should we say it is real or not? It is a fair question to have, yet the quote “Saudi Arabia says it has taken down a “terrorist cell” that had received training from Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, arresting 10 people and seizing weapons and explosives”, leaves me with the setting that this is factual. We are also given “Among the items seized were improvised explosive devices (IEDs), dozens of stun guns, kilos of gunpowder and a variety of rifles and pistols, according to the statement. It did not say where last week’s raid or arrests were carried out”, yet the western media has nothing. Not the BBC, not Reuters, not European news offices, and not FoxNews. It seems to me that Iran is given an option to get away with any action that is not set in America or Europe. And this is where we get the larger issue, the news is filtering what they think we need to know, as such we see a totally destabilised view of what is going on. 

This news matters because it gives strength to something else I stated, which was speculative at the time. I speculated that someone was painting the Aramco targets so that the drones would be more effective. These 10 men could have done just that. The arrest off the 10 men does not make my setting any less speculative. It does however open a larger stage, the news was avoiding a lot of what happened, eager to use ‘speculative’ and ‘alleged’, which is not unacceptable, yet it sets the stage that the western media is optionally complicit is setting a stage that is not part of what happened (like the Khashoggi disappearance). We see even the UN side with Turkey (where the most incarcerated journalists in history are), blatant statements even as there is no evidence is supporting any of it. 

So in this we have a much larger guilt, we are part of the problem, the media is filtering what is happening and no excuse makes up for that. It goes beyond the media, there is some indication that Google and the social media are part of this. Google calls them omitted results, social media merely hides the events on the timeline altering most results and chronological results, the last part is speculative, but the seems to be happening.

Why does this matter?

The UK, US and EU have been throwing the ‘terrorist’ word at us for the longest time, and we merely had to swallow it, now that there are additional indications that Iran is part of the problem we are left in the dark. The Saudi government gives us ““The competent authorities will conduct investigations with all those arrested to find out more information about their activities and the persons connected to them in the kingdom and abroad,” the statement read”, yet I wonder if the is enough, I wonder how much shielding Iran is receiving, Yemen and the Houthi actions made it clear that this was happening, now we are set in a stage where shielding is a lot larger making the media less reliable, I wonder who they are working for, because as I personally see it, it is not the advertisers. This all does not make the 10 men guilty, but it sets a stage of questions that most do not want to entertain, what is Iran actually up to?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military, Politics

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!

 

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Politics, Science

Can’t stop the message

That is the name of the game, at times, no matter the source, we cannot stop the message, we can optionally reduce the impact, that is as good as it gets and that has been the centre stage, not for a day, a month, a year, a decade, but for several centuries. The message will get across, history is filled with examples of that all over the world.

So when I wrote “the same model could optionally be used to misinform (or disinform) the person through links that have ‘altered headlines’ One party could use it to flame to larger base of the other party and no matter what claims Facebook makes, the PDF report shows that they are seemingly clueless on how to stop it.” In ‘Presidents are us’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/07/11/presidents-are-us/) I knew what I was talking about, as such it gives me great pleasure to see the BBC give us ‘ISIS ‘still evading detection on Facebook’, report says’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-53389657) with the added text “One network’s tactics included mixing its material with content from real news outlets, such as recorded TV news output and the BBC News theme music. It also hijacked Facebook accounts, and posted tutorial videos to teach other Jihadists how to do it. Facebook said it had “no tolerance for terrorist propaganda”.”” They are basically all stages we have seen before and stages we will see again. History has shown that you can not stop the message, you can merely delay the spread and optionally the impact. That is as good as it can get and the fact that we still see: “The researchers believe that at the centre of the network was one user who managed around a third (90 out of 288) of the Facebook profiles. At times, this user would boast of holding 100 ‘war spoils’ accounts, saying: “They delete one account, and I replace it with 10 others.”” People basically never learn. 

And it is not better, not gets to be worse, I wrote in 2013 “This technology should also include Microsoft services including their search engine Bing. Tracking in mobile devices remains a key point. The big advantage of Microsoft’s emerging technology is that it could track a user across a platform.” In the article ‘Patrons of Al-Qaeda’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2013/10/22/patrons-of-al-qaeda/) that was more than 6.5 years ago, do you think that these people sit on their laurels?  So if big-tech can be flaccid and automated to keep track of nearly anyone, what do you think that Trolls and Terrorists will use to get their message across and this is not new, it is not news, it is the situation that has been out in the open for years. As the BBC gives us “another key to the survival of ISIS content on the platform was the way in which ISIS supporters have learned to modify their content to evade controls.” Yes! And that is news how? Consider that the top 10 technical universities graduate close to 15,000 every semester, so 3 teams a year. Now consider that these parts can only persuade 0.1% (which is massively low), that implies that these players gain 15 tech savvy experts every 4 months and that is before we add those who cater to organised crime, in that numbers game we see that the government’s involved are not in a place to compete, their infrastructure had been downplayed for close to a decade and as salespeople from big-tech come around on the ease of automation we see that the mess merely gets worse and that INCLUDES several defence departments in Europe, the Commonwealth and America. That is the situation and there will be no release any day soon (except for the tech person on the help desk relying on his right hand, plenty of release there). So when you consider that I was merely looking at 10 schools, and the mess is actually a lot larger, how much of a joke is the entire ‘dealing with election bias’? If players like Facebook cannot stop or largely diminish a group that nearly all want gone, how about a situation where a larger group is in doubt of acting? How many backdoors will be given to the Cambridge Analytica minded people? That question becomes a lot more important when we consider the LA Times giving us less than 5 hours ago ‘How Facebook keeps its biggest advertisers happy’ with the quote “The social media company made nearly all of last year’s $71 billion in revenue from advertising and has worked hard to build relationships with both brands and advertising companies through a clubby network of invitation-only groups called client councils”, do you think that people spending $71 billion are kept happy with “offering everything from birthday cakes to ski trips, and dinners at the Silicon Valley home of its chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg.” Do you think that is all it takes? So the people ending up having dinner at that place will also get access and that is where some will be looking, the people with access and that is why the message cannot be stopped, that is why some will persevere and that is before my 5G IP hits the markets. I honestly have no idea to stop some, because some will not be stopped, I can only minimise the dangers, but I am also at the mercy of some Telecom minimisers (or was that mini-misers). Anyway, if Trolls and Terrorists get through 0.5% of the time, those with election needs and other message needs are likely to get through 20-40 times as often and any of the Big-Tech players will remain unable to stop them, unless we employ the bullet through the back of the head solution, this will not ever stop, history has proven me right and the fact that I saw this well over 6 years ago and the BBC got up to speed just now (OK, that was an exaggeration) gives wind to a much larger problem. 

You can never stop the message. Wake up! It is actually that simple.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Military, Politics, Science