Showing posts with label Southport. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Southport. Show all posts

A Discourse on Why We Need Legislation to Criminalise Ideological Grooming. Common Sense approach.

This has been a subject of concern for some time. This post is to serve as an alert.

We know that there is very well organised ongoing, in-depth collection of surveillance data about entire populations. Surveillance Capitalism collects data on our psychology and behaviour, every day, all day long, all the time. 

The platforms collect data on c.4,000 data points for every active consumer. We know too that this data and the analysis of that data is being deployed by the platforms that collect it.

All Social Media and on-line News Content platforms sell their capability to target consumers. They have millions of users, they know a lot about those users, they have categorised the users in great detail, they sell precision micro-marketing which increase sales to ad revenue spend compared to other platforms for advertising.

They can direct content to stimulate very specific traits including psychological characteristics, locations, income range, age range, hatreds, fears, likes, hobbies, work history and much, much more, to offer enhanced marketing effectiveness to advertisers, increasing sales to advert ratios, offering more precision. 

They call it micro-targeting, and it is fed by global data-mining.
Advertisers go to the platforms believing that micro-targeting advertising/influencing will be more effective in generating attention and sales. Influencers.

Ideological Marketing.

In marketing language then the objective of online political grooming is to locate and identify 'vulnerable' people who are then targeted with content that exploits sets of cognitive biases, insecurities, pain, fear, distress and concerns. The objective is to weaponise the targets 'heart and mind' in support of the groomers goals. Here is an example.

Just asking questions?

Bylinetimes published this article looking at the paper and money trails of various 'journalists' who have been inciting bigotry in the 'culture wars' a form of cognitive warfare.


The strategy is to weaponise the minds of a violent minority and a larger supportive base of Nationalists to the point where the violent will present rioting, the supporter base will present supporting oppressive legislation aimed at minority groups, marginalised groups, groups of people who are 'othered' - "they are not like us!"


We know now that in 2016 and before, decades before SCL and then Cambridge Analytica and a raft of affiliates, consultant coders, data analysis experts and on the ground staff were carrying out these kinds of campaigns in many, many countries, influencing more than 100 different elections over a few decades, growing as the tech world grew, but growing out of previous propaganda industries.


Adam Curtis BBC Documentary 'The Mayfair Set' speaks to those industries, and their sponsors in the aftermath of WWII and throughout the 20th Century.


Today sending refined content to micro-target individuals, groups, populations is an expensive operation.  Data Centres eat electricity. Very expensive to run.


Cognitive Warfare requires high tech savvy, funding to pay for distribution, teams of people to work as content producers, journalists to pick this up, mainstream news media to present this as 'another opinion in the room' and refusing to counter it, head on and demolish it in public in the manner of an honest discussion of the issue.


Instead the false logic, the emotionally immature attachment, the propaganda and the naked hatred remains festering.


Posing as 'valid opinion', vague patriots pretend to represent the whole, they are just like us, workers whose masters Rule us all,


Our Rulers are the ones who who curate those opinions as weapons to seed the minds of a restive population, to prevent solidarity emerging.


So...


Funding febrile fearmongering for far fright street theatre.


When it comes to political funding, from election posters to think tanks, those who fund such an enterprise do so with purpose, to serve their interest. Most often preventing accountability for harm already done, and preventing regulation of harm ongoing, because wealth extraction is the only measure of note to those who Rule.


In 2004, The Power Inquiry looked at this and made this suggestion as to how to resolve the issue.


"Fourth, party funding has to be cleaned up. We suggest limits on individual donations of £10,000 and on group donations of £100 per member. Millionaires could still give large sums to a pressure group of their fancy but the pressure group would need to have any political donations authorised by a vote of its members. 


British politics is also generally underfunded by comparison both with its own past and with other social activities today. So we propose an ingenious but modest wheeze for public funding, especially designed to help parties without sugar daddies. 


At each election, every voter would be able to nominate a local political party to receive, say, £3. If you do not vote or you do not want the bastards to have an extra penny, then your £3 would stay in the public treasury to be spent on hospitals and tanks."


A neat solution to get the Wealth as Power Lobby out of the election process. The Power Inquiry had 47 recommendations to shift the balance of power to the electorate, to local government, to make Power safe for people. It takes a lot of wealth to operate campaigns that manipulatively influence millions of people for political purposes. Wealth as Power is a political lobby inside and outside of almost every aspect of this culture. And I think that it goes well beyond parties, because it is a cultural lobby. Wealth lobbies for more Wealth. Wealth lobbies to evade accountability for harms caused. Wealth lobbies subvert a peoples electoral democracy. They must be regulated for us to try to build a healthy functioning democratic system.


"This may seem an ambitious programme, spread as it is over three fronts: reviving elections and parties, rebalancing our institutions, and giving voters a direct say in national and local decisions. But we should reflect that over the past twenty-five years we have reformed almost everything in Britain from the trade unions to soccer's offside rule. 


The one area that remains more or less just as it was is the political system, which has become shabby, vandalised and unloved like a bus shelter where the buses don't stop any more. Time, I think, to take pity on a set of British institutions which used to be so widely envied and imitated and could be made a source of pride again."


Good governors govern well, Wealth Extraction Rules in its own interest. I think that we, as a population majority, have a choice t make as to which of these we consider a necessity, and which is not.


The funding that incites and organises a wide range of politically bigoted groups can be traced, and it should be.



What do I think of the Southport Riots?

  1. Targeting vulnerable people selected through studying their biases, insecurities, fears - psychological profiling, criminal intent 
  2. Disseminating content designed to exacerbate those vulnerabilities - incitement, criminal intent 
  3. Tweaking the content, increasing the tension and emotional charge to drive or nudge behaviour in a desired direction - manipulation, criminal intent 
  4. Providing mechanisms for multiple small groups to form to take actions designed to inflame public political discourse - undermining healthy democracy, criminal intent 
  5. Be ready to mobilise a group action at a few hours notice, maintaining targets in a febrile state. Inciting hatred, fear and vengeance, heightening emotional rhetoric, lying about events to provide 'reason' for the violence. "We are protecting the children".

Vulnerable people are being exploited and their exploitation causes even more 

harm. 


The people who incite and orchestrate this are the ultimate criminals - the rioters are not the cause, they are the symptom. 


They have been groomed. Some quite willingly, admittedly. These are carefully selected unhappy, emotionally immature violence prone people. Their emotional immaturity renders them exploitable. They are vulnerable. They need help, they too are being exploited.


This is not to offer excuses, because there are none when violence and abuse are perpetrated, rather it is to try to understand many dynamics feeding into this deliberately provoked street violence as political theatre.



Surveillance Capitalism - a short talk.


By all means hold those who participate in violence to account. 


By all means hold those who are abusive on our streets to account. 


And for all our sakes, do not allow the people who cause this, the politically and commercially powerful who fund all of this, across the board, to go unaccountable. They must be held accountable, their behaviour must be described accurately, the harm they cause witnessed, survivors needs met and prevention must therefore be the next stage.


Because it is dishonest, grooming, at any level, in any relationship or setting, is not Free Speech.


Because it is manipulative and causes emotional harm, it is psychological abuse.


Because it incites hatred and fear, aimed at marginalised identified groups, it is bullying.


Because it is designed to undermine healthy public debate on democratic governance it is political.


We need to legislate ideological grooming as the psychological abuse that it is, to recognise it as a criminal activity, to define it as an offence, with a custodial sentence as a rational reasonable preventative measure, more health and safety than punishment.


We already define psychological abuse within Domestic Violence.

The legal precedent of criminalising gaslighting, bullying and other forms of psychological abuse within a relationship, human to human, exists.

The relationship of human to human in this dynamic contains a Power Disparity, the more powerful party being the sponsors of the most public figure, the funders of the ‘research’, content creation, content dissemination compared to any of the vulnerable targets.

Preventative Legislation would mean the platforms would have to shut all that grooming down, which they could do. They have total control of the platforms. They would have to uphold that legislation in order to operate.

Protecting the vulnerable from avoidable harm is a fundamental duty of care.


Kindest regards

Corneilius

Thank you for reading this blog.

"Do what you love, it is your gift to universe."

This blog, like all my other content creation work is not monetised via advertising. If you like what I present, consider sharing my content. If you can afford the price of a cup of coffee or a pint of beer/ale/cider for a few months, please donate via my Patreon account.

https://patreon.com/corneilius - donations gratefully received

https://www.reverbnation.com/corneilius - .mp3 songs

https://www.soundcloud.com/coreluminous - .wav Songs

https://www.corneilius.net - Archive

#folkmusic
#singersongwriter
#blogger
#music

Facebook is looking more like The Vatican with every passing day.

Political Ideological Grooming Gangs are undermining our democracies, escalating social tensions, disrupting our communities, inciting hatred and fear, escalating political street violence. 

Institutions of Commercial power adopt a defensive stance, they do not target the root cause.


Update
August 3 2024


Nigel Fearage just asking questions?

We know that there is very well organised ongoing, in-depth collection of surveillance data about entire populations. Surveillance Capitalism collects data on our psychology and behaviour, every day, all day long, all the time. The platforms collect data on c.4,000 data points for every active consumer. We know too that this data and the analysis of that data is being deployed by the platforms that collect it.

The sell an enhanced capability to target very specific traits, characteristics, locations, income range, age rang and much, much more, to offer enhanced marketing effectiveness to advertisers, increasing sales to advert ratios, offering more precision. 

They call it micro-targeting, and it is fed by global data-mining.
Advertisers go to the platforms believing that micro-targeting advertising/influencing will be more effective in generating attention and sales. Influencers.

Ideological Marketing.

In marketing language then the objective of online political grooming is to locate and identify 'vulnerable' people who are then targeted with content that exploits sets of cognitive biases, insecurities, pain, fear, distress and concerns. The objective is to weaponise the targets 'heart and mind' in support of the groomers goals.


What do I think of the Southport Riots?

  1. Targeting vulnerable people selected through studying their biases, insecurities, fears - psychological profiling, criminal intent 
  2. Disseminating content designed to exacerbate those vulnerabilities - incitement, criminal intent 
  3. Tweaking the content, increasing the tension and emotional charge to drive or nudge behaviour in a desired direction - manipulation, criminal intent 
  4. Providing mechanisms for multiple small groups to form to take actions designed to inflame public political discourse - undermining healthy democracy criminal intent 

Vulnerable people are being exploited and their exploitation causes harm. 


The people who incite and orchestrate this are the ultimate criminals - the rioters are not the cause, they are the symptom. 


They have been groomed. Many willingly, admittedly. These are unhappy, violence prone people. Their emotional immaturity renders them exploitable.


By all means hold those who participate in violence to account. 


But do not allow the people who cause this to go unaccountable.


Because it is dishonest, grooming, at any level, in any relationship or setting, is not Free Speech.


Because it is manipulative and causes emotional harm, it is psychological abuse.


Because it incites hatred and fear, aimed at marginalised identified groups, it is bullying.


Because it is designed to undermine healthy public debate on democratic governance it is political.


We need to legislate ideological grooming as the psychological abuse that it is, to recognise it as a criminal activity, to define it as an offence, with a custodial sentence as a rational reasonable preventative measure, more health and safety than punishment.


We already define psychological abuse within Domestic Violence.

The legal precedent of criminalising gaslighting, bullying and other forms of psychological abuse within a relationship, human to human, exists.

The relationship of human to human in this dynamic contains a Power Disparity, the more powerful party being the sponsors of the most public figure, the funders of the ‘research’, content creation, content dissemination compared to any of the vulnerable targets.

Preventative Legislation would mean the platforms would have to shut all that grooming down, which they could do. They have total control of the platforms. They would have to uphold that legislation in order to operate.

Protecting the vulnerable from avoidable harm is a fundamental duty of care.


Update February 24 2024


"This article characterises the nature of cognitive warfare and its use of disinformation and computational propaganda and its political and military purposes in war and in conflict short of war. It discusses both defensive and offensive measures to counter cognitive warfare and, in particular, measures that comply with relevant moral principles."
Cognitive warfare has been defined in various ways.
Here are a couple of influential definitions to give the flavour of what is meant by this term: “Cognitive Warfare is a strategy that focuses on altering how a target population thinks and through that how it acts” (Backes & Swab, 2019)
“the weaponization of public opinion, by an external entity, for the purpose of (1) influencing public and governmental policy and (2) destabilizing public institutions” (Bernal et al., 2020, p. 10)

example : encouraging a cohort of voters to not vote, convincing them not voting is cool, in order to give another group an advantage ; behavioural modification driven by online and real world grooming operations informed by harvested behavioural surplus data.

example : running a decades long mis and dis-information news media campaign slandering the EU

example : encouraging a cohort of voters that their lives are at risk unless the vote for a certain candidate

example : Brexit!

example : Covid masks are Muzzles!

respectfully suggest readers read the paper linked above, and then decide whether or not this piece is worth your time. The paper certainly is.

~ end of update ~



Knowing that abuse is happening, paying lip service to addressing the situation (even as the abuse continues with no meaningful remedial action being taken) in order to preserve public status, image and income is dysfunctional behaviour and it causes more harm.



I don't buy the apology, until I see behaviour that confronts the harms in full, openly and honestly.

Political Grooming Gangs are abusing Facebook and deliberately undermining our democracies, escalating social tensions and disrupting our communities with lies, manipulation, gaslighting, emotional hijacking, neuromarketing false narratives....

Apology is oft taken as meaning remorse, when in fact what we see with powerful institutions that it is a line of defence, a public relations exercise.

The etymology of the word 'apology' is revealing : "defense, justification," from L.L. apologia, from Gk. apologia "a speech in defense," from apologeisthai "to speak in one's defense," from apologos "an account, story," from apo- "from, off" (see apo-) + logos "speech".

The original English sense of "self-justification" yielded a meaning "frank expression of regret for wrong done," first recorded 1590's, but it was not the main sense until the 18th Century. The old sense tends to emerge in Latin form apologia (first attested 1784), especially since J.H. Newman's "Apologia pro Vita Sua" (1864).

Thus when The Church or The State apologises, it is most often adopting a position that defends it's current image, status and power. Truth and Reconciliation processes are likewise marred by competing institutional interests and the wish to avoid the most honest accounting of harms caused, the parties culpable seeking always to mitigate the costs of facing the truth, addressing the harms, accepting the punishment.

Make no mistake about this - powerful Institutions of all kinds understand the intent and the meaning of the words they use, for both State and Church and Corporation are the source of all legal language, and this language and it's use allows these and other institutions to continue to maintain their status and power. Apologies most often avoid the necessary full accounting of the consequences of their actions. Polluters pollute. get caught, are fined and continue business without ever fully confronting the externalised costs dynamics of their industries. The Vatican fights every case, yet withholds information on thousands of untried cases. Facebook was fined, and their stock rose.

Sorry, but not sorry: they paid the fine, it is a business expense.

We see this is so with the way both Church and State in Australia  have responded to the emergence of living witness evidence with regard to Residential School Systems in which poor and Aboriginal children have been incarcerated by force and brutally harmed in systemic fashion, over long periods of time. 

We see it in terms of  Institutions defence of themselves against the interests of Survivors  and the genuine demands for Justice within every State on Earth.

It is a pattern of behaviour.

Saying 'I am sorry' or 'We are sorry' has no meaning unless there is material action to back it up, unless there is a clear indication that whatever transgression occurred will not occur again and that any perpetrators will be made to account for the harms they have caused.

And in cases where the harm caused is beyond remediation, then corrective legal punitive measures against Institutions,  and judicial incarceration  of individuals who have caused harm must follow, to protect from any future harm and to provide a meaningful deterrent.

In the case of The Vatican, and Facebook, there has been no internal driven action to correct the situation where known abusers operate within and through their structures. They resist rather than putting their hands up, and admitting responsibility.

To be fair, they are not the only institutions feigning apology for allowing abusers to operate within their systems. It is a standard behavioural pattern within in every powerful institution, every gang,  every dysfunctional family - to protect their status, image and ability to operate, at all costs.

Facebook, Masks, Brexit and Donald Trump

Facebook permits micro-targeting of content that absolutely has caused harm, is causing harm and will continue to cause harm - for example, the current issue of anti-mask wearing freedom conTheory content.  We know that activists are using Facebook and other social media to organise protests and live events.

That content is helping spread the SARSCOV2 virus within the United Kingdom and The United States of America. That is causing harm.

We know that military grade disinformation and disruption campaigns are being waged on Facebook, and that Facebook is earning billions from this activity.

"Emma Briant, a scholar of propaganda at Bard College who has spent years studying SCL, says the company’s mix of work demonstrates how military-funded psychological research can be exploited to wage domestic political warfare, establishing a dangerous template for political campaigning. During elections, tactics intended for battlefields could be used to foment division and extremism or discourage voters."

We know for certain that Brexit was in large part 'won' using these techniques against an unknowing population, a vulnerable population.
"Vote Leave’s campaign director, Dominic Cummings — now a special advisor to the UK prime minister — wrote in 2017 that the winning recipe for the leave campaign was data science. And, more specifically, spending 98% of its marketing budget on “nearly a billion targeted digital adverts”.
Targeted at Facebook users."
We know for certain that Trumps election in 2016 was in large part 'won' using these techniques against an unknowing population, a vulnerable population.

Facebook's position is similar to the Vatican knowing that pedophiles and adults who beat and bullied children were operating within their ranks, and yet it did all it could to preserve it's external image and income revenue stream.

2020 US Presidential Election

Committee to Re-Elect the President (CREEP) was Nixon's baby. I remember reading Hunter S. Thompson's scathing writings on that odious little man and that disgusting campaign.

Nixon, Johnson and Trump are not too far apart in morality.

'Making the economy scream' so it hurts the people.

Now it is online micro-targeting and political grooming gangsterism.  News media are part of the corruption.

Trumps re-election campaign has a $1 billion dollar 'advertising' budget just for Facebook in the coming months.

And it is already well under way.

"Thousands of micro-targeted ads had flooded the internet, portraying Trump as a heroic reformer cracking down on foreign corruption while Democrats plotted a coup. That this narrative bore little resemblance to reality seemed only to accelerate its spread. Right-wing websites amplified every claim. Pro-Trump forums teemed with conspiracy theories. An alternate information ecosystem was taking shape around the biggest news story in the country, and I wanted to see it from the inside.


I was surprised by the effect it had on me. I’d assumed that my skepticism and media literacy would inoculate me against such distortions. But I soon found myself reflexively questioning every headline. It wasn’t that I believed Trump and his boosters were telling the truth. It was that, in this state of heightened suspicion, truth itself—about Ukraine, impeachment, or anything else—felt more and more difficult to locate. With each swipe, the notion of observable reality drifted further out of reach.
What I was seeing was a strategy that has been deployed by illiberal political leaders around the world. Rather than shutting down dissenting voices, these leaders have learned to harness the democratizing power of social media for their own purposes—jamming the signals, sowing confusion. They no longer need to silence the dissident shouting in the streets; they can use a megaphone to drown him out. Scholars have a name for this: censorship through noise."

What the writer is describing is grooming


Studying populations to source vulnerable people who are then targeted with content that exploits cognitive biases, insecurities, pain, fear, distress and concerns in order to exploit them at the ballot box, by triggering and re-inforcing those biases. Truly evil behaviour and activity.

Zucked! and MindF*ck.

I have just finished reading two important books - Zucked! about Facebook and MindF*ck about Cambridge Analytica


Here's a few pertinent quotes from Mindf*ck!

“In psychological warfare, the weak points are flaws in how people think. If you’re trying to hack a person’s mind, you need to identify cognitive biases and then exploit them.”


and

“We were spying, pure and simple, with cover from Trinidadian leaders. It felt bizarre—unreal—to be observing what people were watching on a tiny, faraway island, somehow more like we were playing a video game than intruding on the private lives of actual people. Even today, thinking back on it, Trinidad seems more like a dream than something we actually did. But we did do it. The Trinidad project was the first time I got sucked into a situation that was grossly unethical, and, frankly, it triggered in me a state of denial”


and

“perspecticide – the active deconstruction and manipulation of popular perception – you first have to understand on a deep level what motivates”


So notice the terminology - psychological warfare, notice the anger and abuse that is being 'stimulated', notice the irrationality of the to and fro of online 'debate' - that is warfare!

When we have well funded, well organised entities observing people as they are manipulating content being broadcast to the people they are observing,  and when they are refining the manipulation of that content in real time to better exploit the reactions of the targeted people, all the time actively working to undermine the perceptual dynamic of an entire population, person by person, intimacy at scale, in order to exploit the people for political advantage, we have a huge problem.

Political grooming gangsterism, no less.


I had not read these two books when I wrote my first blog pieces on Political Grooming Gangsters.

Even back then I was pretty on the money in terms of the dynamics, the influence, the covert nature of the manipulation.

Now I know a little bit more, I have some extra detail, I have some witness testimony and all I can say is this - our social systems and our democracies are being undermined and harmed by the most abusive grooming type behaviours imaginable and the grooming is operating at scale. To be fair, it's not like there were not problems before this micro-targeting emerged. The dynamic of propaganda is old. It is the way that the digital online tech has created intimate access to people's psyche at scale that is new, and extra harmful.

Zuckerberg and Sandberg are allowing this to happen on their Facebook platform, and Amazon and Google likewise and others - and I cannot say it is just for the cash, because if any of them took action to prevent this abuse happening (and they could) they would make immeasurable gains in reputation, and that would translate into long term business stability, and therefore I have my questions about why they are allowing this to happen.

I cannot see into their minds nor would I want to.

That they are allowing this to happen is a best feeble, greedy and arrogant and at worst, it is truly evil.


Here's the thing, if you - the user - know and understand what is being done you can counter it. 
If you do not know, then you can be adversely influenced by this activity.

At the collective level, across a society there needs to be regulation, and intense, legal or law enforcement level active opposition to political grooming gangster activity. We need both. Now.


Kindest regards

Corneilius

Thank you for reading this blog.

"Do what you love, it is your gift to universe."

This blog, like all my other content creation work is not monetised via advertising. If you like what I present, consider sharing my content. If you can afford the price of a cup of coffee or a pint of beer/ale/cider for a few months, please donate via my Patreon account.

https://patreon.com/corneilius - donations gratefully received