Showing posts with label legislation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legislation. 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

Open Letter on Grooming and the need for legislation to criminalise such manipulative behaviour wherever it emerges.

Schoolgirl who faced terror charges is ‘wake-up call about grooming.

Of course, it is not just on Facebook  etc., where grooming occurs. It is a common problem right across our culture, from Religion to Politics, from Populist Rhetoric to Misogynist and Racist Dog Whistles, from Ponzi Schemes to Phishing Emails.


To the Editor

An article on the Guardian, 7th January, 2023, about a teenage girl, Rhiannon Rudd, who was arrested on terrorism charges, which were dropped when it was shown that she had been groomed, tells a terrible story.

Someone knowingly targeted a vulnerable person, having studied that person's biases, lack of knowledge, fears and hopes, provided content designed to exacerbate the emotional dynamics of those vulnerabilities, in order to drive behavioural change that could then be exploited. 

Tragically, Rhiannon Rudd committed suicide a year after this incident. 

Anyone, at any age, can be subjected to such targeting. We can see the adverse impacts of this activity all around us. It's not simply a problem with social media, it is a problem within our culture. 

This is quite clearly criminal behaviour, given the intent to manipulate others, in order to exploit them, wherever it happens, even if legislation does not exist to impose a criminal penalty.

We need  legislation that clearly identifies this activity, that imposes a robust custodial sentence upon anyone or any entity proven to have  engaged in such activity.

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

Open Letter on Facebook : Define grooming, criminalise it, impede predatory media content dissemination.

open letter : long version




To the Editor

Frances Haugen's testimony and evidence concerning Facebook and Instagram speaks volumes.

Media communications that target people’s cognitive biases, their insecurities, prejudices and worries, their misunderstandings, cultural conditioning and their fears, studying those conditions, aiming attenuated content that exacerbates those conditions at the targets,

And doing this with intent, in order to drive behavioural change - more on-line time extracted from users,  to encouraging addictive behaviour, whilst allowing malign actors access to vulnerable people, inciting hatred, nudging target groups into voting or not voting based on emotional and irrational drivers, increasing sales: all of this is economically or politically exploitative. 
 
This activity is psychological abuse. This activity is grooming. 

If we had legislation identifying it, defining it and criminalising it, as psychologically abusive intentional action, then the media providers would be unable to allow such behaviour to be disseminated on their platforms as a revenue stream.  Their AI algorithms would have to be written accordingly. 

This would not be an inhibition of free speech. This would be protecting vulnerable people from predatory actors.  

The asymmetry of power  between the State, the Corporation and the individual human being is immense. Legislation is required to prevent bad actors exploiting that power disparity. This is a question of Health and Safety.

Free Speech is, on the citizens side, the responsibility to speak truthfully, publicly and it is also an admonishment to State and other institutional actors to never use their power to harass honest critics, witnesses, whistle-blowers and truth tellers - the State and other powerful institutions must listen to the honest citizen and hear the honest truth.

Frances Haugen is demonstrating the best practice of Free Speech. The Bi-Partisan response is demonstrating the best practice of the State as an ear for the truth. 

Make grooming a criminal offence.

Yours Sincerely

Corneilius Crowley,
London



open letter short version
To the Editor

Frances Haugen's testimony and evidence concerning Facebook and Instagram speaks volumes.
Media content that targets people’s cognitive biases, in order to drive behavioural change such as encouraging addictive behaviour, inciting hatred, nudging target groups into voting or not voting based on emotional or irrational drivers, increasing sales: all of this is economically or politically exploitative.
 
This activity is psychological abuse. This activity is grooming. 

We need legislation that makes grooming a criminal offence.

This would not be an inhibition of free speech. This would be protecting vulnerable people from predatory actors.

Frances Haugen is demonstrating the best practice of Free Speech. The Bi-Partisan response of Congress is demonstrating the best practice of the State as an ear for the truth. 

Make grooming a criminal offence.

Yours sincerely,

Corneilius Crowley
London

To be fair and honest, Grooming was already a standard behavioural characteristic of our current system. Grooming is a core element in every hierarchy of wealth, power and violence culture. The online media environment has made it possible to direct grooming content to individuals on their own, exploiting their vulnerabilities, exacerbating fears to drive behavioural modification, which can be exploited politically or economically, whereas prior to the online media environment, propaganda was aimed at larger aggregate groups, and was to some degree more obvious and more cautious.


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

Letter to Media : Protecting the vulnerable, defining abuse, inhibiting exploitation.



To the editor,

I propose a discussion about establishing a legal definition of a behaviour that we are all too familiar with.

“Organised operations that target peoples cognitive biases, their social wounded-nesses, their insecurities, prejudices and worries, their misunderstandings, cultural conditioning and fears, and do that through public and social media, through marketing, propaganda and media campaigns operating as cottage industries or at an industrial scale, intentionally targeting and manipulating vulnerable people for ideological, religious, political or economic advantage.”

This behaviour is grooming.

If we had legislation defining this, and then criminalising it because it is intentional exploitation of human vulnerability and thus it is a profound abuse, then media platforms would be unable to permit any publishing of such content on their platforms, and it would be impossible then to exploit as a revenue stream.”

Yours etc…