Social media is it Toxic Bubble...

facts, polite discourse, alternative points of view are to be ignored or ridiculed as only they are right.

Twitter and facebook are prime examples of this, a small number of people, mainly of the left wing chattering classes spend endless hours rebroadcasting each others group
This sounds pretty much like any Arse thread I've ever replied to. Being a Labour Party supporter on Arse is like being Michael Jackson at a Klu Klux Clan meeting. Just insert the word right where you have left above. Are you upset about people with a differing view to yourself being able to express their views using free speech? if so I think you should get on the next plane to North Korea, or a cheaper option would be just to ignore them.

Personally I enjoy certain types of social media as it gives me options, versus the countless etabllishment lies sprouted out by the BBC and Sky. A good example of this was the way the BBC,and Sky News gave a one sided view of the Rohingya crisis in Myanmar while failing to mention the insurgency, and Muslim terror attacks on border posts.
 
I have not read The Times interview (paywall and I am cheap).

This might be a bit fun:


Social media companies ignoring pleas over extremism could face tax hikes

I did wonder about a couple of things:

He [Sy Minister Ben WALLACE] accused them of putting profit before public safety and that “if they continue to be less than co-operative, we should look at things like tax as a way of incentivising them or compensating for their inaction”.
-So we've magically sorted out the issue of off-shore companies and UK tax? Like that Amazon issue?

Mr Wallace said in an interview with the Sunday Times that obstruction and inaction by social media companies is costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of pounds as law enforcement agencies pick up the cost of tackling radicalisation.
- Social Media is the vehicle for radicalisation, it delivers the message. The medium is not the message. I get that it is more difficult to address one than the other, and you wish you had a magic off button. But really, do try and use your wits.

- Obstruction is a very loaded word here. Because you are reliant on what is technologically possible, and what is legally compellable. Check the T&C's of any website, they will state the jurisdiction to whom they will answer. Without a court order, or relevant protocol, you are reliant on willing co-operation. What is illegal here, may not be illegal there - so why would someone strike it down, especially if it is a matter of protected speech?

In an interview with The Sunday Times, Wallace said reliance on the internet means Britain is vulnerable to terrorists and rogue states, admitting: “That’s what keeps me awake at night. We are more vulnerbale than at any point in the last 100 years
Not so vulnerable though, you cannot loose 20,000 police officers since 2010 or have the borders guarded by a volunteer militia?

I get that the Home Office has a butthurt from failing to ram through all their fantasies of clipper-chips or whatever back door they want to achieve a panopticon level of insight.



I am fairly sure we faced a greater threat from, oh I don't know, The Blitz or the V-weapons? You dull numpty.

Go take a Udemy course about the Internet works, Mr Wallce. The OU has a good free one, if you are cheap -or have not heard of Torrents :)

Happy New Year, by the way.
 
I have not read The Times interview (paywall and I am cheap).

This might be a bit fun:


Social media companies ignoring pleas over extremism could face tax hikes

I did wonder about a couple of things:



-So we've magically sorted out the issue of off-shore companies and UK tax? Like that Amazon issue?



- Social Media is the vehicle for radicalisation, it delivers the message. The medium is not the message. I get that it is more difficult to address one than the other, and you wish you had a magic off button. But really, do try and use your wits.

- Obstruction is a very loaded word here. Because you are reliant on what is technologically possible, and what is legally compellable. Check the T&C's of any website, they will state the jurisdiction to whom they will answer. Without a court order, or relevant protocol, you are reliant on willing co-operation. What is illegal here, may not be illegal there - so why would someone strike it down, especially if it is a matter of protected speech?



Not so vulnerable though, you cannot loose 20,000 police officers since 2010 or have the borders guarded by a volunteer militia?

I get that the Home Office has a butthurt from failing to ram through all their fantasies of clipper-chips or whatever back door they want to achieve a panopticon level of insight.



I am fairly sure we faced a greater threat from, oh I don't know, The Blitz or the V-weapons? You dull numpty.

Go take a Udemy course about the Internet works, Mr Wallce. The OU has a good free one, if you are cheap -or have not heard of Torrents :)

Happy New Year, by the way.
It's nice to see joined up thinking in government.

Wallace wants to see internet companies fined for allowing extremists a platform while at the same time Jo Johnson wants to see universities fined for... erm... not allowing freedom of speech.

The fact that universities are compelled to deny platforms by his own government's PREVENT legislation and the Charities Act is neither here nor there, apparently.
 
- Social Media is the vehicle for radicalisation, it delivers the message.
Which raises the big question: Why the f'kin hell aren't we using the same weapons to shoot down the radicalisation? I don't mean the government issuing a statement on facebook saying 'Blowing people up is bad, m'kay.'
 
@Listy

Well.... *allegedly* they are.

Jut they don't talk about it much openly.

Counter Extremism :: Research, Information and Communications Unit (RICU)

Or more dramatically from The Guardian.

Revealed: UK's covert propaganda bid to stop Muslims joining Isis

Those of a Cold War history type may well have read of the Information Research Department (IRD), which allegedly functioned the same with regards to the undermining of the threat of the Soviet appeal

IRD: Origins and Establishment of the Foreign Office Information Research Department, 1946-48
 
@Listy

Well.... *allegedly* they are.

Jut they don't talk about it much openly.

Counter Extremism :: Research, Information and Communications Unit (RICU)

Or more dramatically from The Guardian.

Revealed: UK's covert propaganda bid to stop Muslims joining Isis

Those of a Cold War history type may well have read of the Information Research Department (IRD), which allegedly functioned the same with regards to the undermining of the threat of the Soviet appeal

IRD: Origins and Establishment of the Foreign Office Information Research Department, 1946-48
Fair enough. Guess they aren't as passive as we thought.
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
But why? Undermining trust of Government?
It's an interesting technique.

Reduce target audience's belief in ' traditional media ' - that is :
  • Aunty
  • Fleet Street
  • UK based terrestrial broadcasters.
  • Fact based journalism.
( C. 1989 ' It states here - in the Daily F'Narr - and therefore it must be true ' )

Preferred outcome: target audience turns increasingly to Web Based media reporting.
( C. 2017 ' If it's on the web it must be true!' )

The military like to pay lip service to fighting the enemy on ground of your own choosing

' Conditioning the battlespace '


Some people truly believe the former CCCP ( under their former FSB Tsar) is busily fighting a new Cold War in cyberspace.

If so, they intend to dominate that space. Then control it.

Given the deliberately diffuse nature of t' Interweb - good luck with that.
 
Wasn't quite sure where to put it, but here is something rather relevant for people to consider in the on-line world.

The report from the Interception of Communications Commissioner, has a particular reference to something very troubling.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ta/file/670219/IOCCO_annual_report_2016_2.PDF

IP Address Resolution Error -

I am concerned by the increasing number of errors that occur when public authorities try to resolve IP addresses. These have resulted in the wrong people being arrested for extremely serious crimes. I am devoting a chapter of my report to this issue in order to raise the profile of this issue within public authorities and among victims and their legal representation.
I'll skip over the boring geek bit, but should the police misidentify an IP address as being of interest in an enquiry this could have catastrophic results. To add this to recent high profile errors of disclosure during a rape trial (failing to disclose material which assists in the preparation of the defence case or undermines the case for the prosecution), the potential is chilling.

I was fortunate enough to work with diligent Comms Data Single Point of Contact whilst I was a DC, as a lot of my work hinged on telecommunications or IP data. I was scrupulous about the IP data and times (and indeed was often spartan in what I asked for, only asking for slightly wider paramaters based on SPOC advice).

But that is because I had the luxury of not being in "volume crime" at the end of my career, having a lot of familiarity with the concepts involved and being a slightly OCD personality.

The potential for incorrectly resolved IP data is horrific. Lives can be ruined, the guilty escape and should mistakes not be admitted to the faith in the investigative and judicial processes be undermined.

Seldom has the Spiderman rule been so important'

with great power, comes great responsibility
 
A thoughtful piece here about the problem of allowing proxy forces (or cyber vigillantes) to police national security topics.

Cyber Vigilantes & Hacktivists: Double-Edged Sword Against ISIS

Bottom Line: Cyber vigilantes and “hacktivists” increasingly fill the void left by governments in combating terrorist activity online. While such politically motivated non-state hackers are relatively effective at removing the presence of terrorist content, their continued operations could damage overall counterterrorism efforts by undermining intelligence operations – say by taking down a website that the CIA or NSA is monitoring. By letting these groups run loose – if even for a noble cause – the U.S. risks undermining international norms of cyber operations among states by legitimizing the phenomenon of “patriotic hackers” used as proxies by governments engaging in deniable operations
It is (i imagine) difficult enough working out who is undercover LE, who is a journalist, who is a terrorist on the darker corners of the information superBahn.

By giving tacit support to free actors, national agencies work is arguably undermined.

One cannot rely upon them anyway, a principal reason for schism in Anonymous is the co-operation by some members with the US Govt to take down ISIS sites. This was met (predictably) with a "no platform policy" by others who thought this a sell out.

However, it must be said the government blue forces are frequently between a rock and a hard place. This sort of capability is hard to recruit and harder to retain.

Take for example a recent advert? I believe this is the sort of thing that comes with "would suit recent graduate". I cannot imagine it would attract industry standard applicants. Plus staff turnover (and thus institutional memory is going to weaken the mission.
Screen Shot 2018-01-08 at 9.16.42 AM.png

(Good luck if anyone is applying, would be great fun I imagine. I don't like bad guys having freedom of movement on the internet).
 
You see all these posts and stories pop up practically daily (depending on how often one uses "X" site) and what are they in real terms? A story about a cat who hugged a chicken? One person out of literally millions that has a life-debilitating disease that will - for some reason, be cured provided you pass it on to everyone you don't even speak to and that they also get 52,000 "likes" or tweets etc, the medium isn't important.

My problem with it is this: Who told you to like that post? Who told you it is a good idea to send some Internet empathy to that person you will never meet who is struggling to maintain even the smallest amount of optimism? And how do you even know whether these stories are true? And what do people do? They go and click like or share or whatever, and it gets passed on. The circle continues and the "so sad" comments or the "oh man my girlfriend's mom's cousin did that once, I saw it...I was there..." situations increase exponentially.

I guess, I am writing this as a person who generally isn't easily persuaded to go and watch a movie because the trailer told me so, nor am I the sort of person to listen to pop music just because it's in the charts. Surely it should be the other way around - I like it, so do thousands of other people, so therefore the artist benefits from this. Why are we constantly told what to like, what to discriminate against and WHY DAMMIT DO WE SOAK IT UP SO EASILY? People are too suggestible these days and it's far to easy for marketing companies or content generators of the seediest kind to take advantage.
 

New Posts