#childsexualabuse

Zucker feasted on your consent to be a sucker

Whatever the outcome of this hearing, much of the data collected was willingly offered by Facebook users. It was they who told people where they took vacation, the restaurant they ate or birthday they celebrated. It was they who adorned their avatar with a transparent French or rainbow flag as a back drop after another terrorist attack or to show support for same sex marriage. It was they who clicked the check box to agree to the “terms and conditions” immediately without reading it. Is that Zuckerberg’s fault? Questions however must be asked with respect to the ability to access microphones and cameras unbeknownst to users. How flagrantly was privacy law violated beyond that agreed by users?

For as much as Zuckerberg might look an evil violator of privacy laws (he may yet be proved to be so), if one wants real anonymity, social media is the last place to find it. It is doubtful anyone posts happy snaps on social media as a pure storage back up device. Many people crave attention and more than ever their self-actualisation stage in the ‘hierarchy of needs’ is driven by likes and shares rather than the Abraham Maslow’s original theorem of 75 years ago. The higher the ratio of “selfies” would probably be highly correlated to attention deficit disorder. Protesting the use of the data provided is a grossly naive assumption if not borderline negligent. Tucked away in the fine print of the words and conditions would surely have FB gaining their complete consent.

Ted Cruz took it to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on whether the social media giant ‘censors conservative’ news. He replied, “Silicon Valley is an extremely left-leaning place.While denying that he knows the political affiliations of the 15~20,000 staff who police content he said the group does its best to remove things that are considered hateful (e.g.hate speech, terrorism), hurtful or distasteful (e.g. nudity). It was brought to Zuckerberg’s attention that black conservatives (and Trump supporters) Diamond & Silk had their page blocked with 1.2 million followers on grounds of  “being unsafe to the community”. In any event, Zuckerberg deflected many of the questions in his testimony on grounds of the size of the organization but admitted not enough was done to police itself. Power corrupts…? Absolutely…?

Which brings the whole argument surrounding ‘free speech’ and social media sites exercising subjective political bias. It was only several years back that openly gay shock-jock Milo Yiannopoulos was banned from Twitter for causing ‘offence’ to a Ghostbusters actress. Yet what is offence? Where is the line drawn? What offends one might not offend another. However the censor would seemingly be able to use his or her subjective opinions, values and biases which makes it pretty clear what the outcome will be. President Trump learned that when a disgruntled Twitter employee temporarily suspended his account. Do not be surprised when we’re simply told to “get with the times” and accept the party line. Resistance is futile. It is the simplest way to shut down sensible debate.

Anyone active on social media is well aware of the risks of being targeted, trolled or attacked for expressing differing views. However do users require, much less want to submit to the machinations of the thought police? Shouldn’t they be free to choose what they view or pages they subscribe to? Indeed hate speech (not to be confused with difference of opinion) has no place but the majority of users are likely to be able to make that assessment without it having been arbitrarily made for them.

Then again, surely as a publicly listed corporation Facebook can decide what it wants to do with its site and let participants in the free market (who use it for no charge) decide for themselves that the obvious bias forces them to seek social media platforms elsewhere. Twitter share price was badly thumped for its blocking of certain groups and its share price is around 1/3rd the peak. It’s overall followers have fluctuated in the 316-330mn range since Q4 2016. The market works. It is taking Facebook’s shareprice to task on the grounds it will suffer for treating its users as mugs. Perhaps a look at activity post the hearings will show just how many mugs are still as active as before despite the threats to abandon the evil Zuck. The share price will respond accordingly.

It begs the question as to why a more conservative outfit hasn’t decided to make a Facebook equivalent which does not censor outside of clear violations of hate speech. Surely offering a replicated platform that didn’t censor free speech would be a massive winner. Users would also sign up to a simple (and SHORT) legal agreement that there is a risk of being offended and to commit to accepting it. Where clear violations of hate speech (e.g. threats of murder, terrorism etc.) are found such things can be reported to the authorities (with terms and conditions EXPLICITLY warning of such repucussions for violating easy to understand rules). Then again maybe Zuckerberg is right. Silicon Valley is indeed an extremely left-leaning [alt-left?] place! So this is why conservatives are behind the 8-ball on a free speech social media platform.

The sad reality is that social media is policed by the left and authorities seem keen to exploit the powers that provides. The examples are too many. Controversial conservatives have been blocked, banned and restricted for the most spurious of reasons. Diamond & Silk are hardly a danger to society. It is almost comical to think that.  Yet aren’t the subscription rates/followers of particular sites indicative of the ‘moods’ of people? Could it be that black, conservative and Trump supporter must be mutually exclusive terms in the eyes of the left’s identikit forcing the Facebook apparatchiks to enforce a subjective shutdown? If a public explanation was provided it would probably just say, “trust our objectivity’. Whaaaat?

At some stage if enough people feel they are being played around with they will choose of their own volition to leave and seek their social media thrills on other platforms. Or will they? It maybe too late. Blatant exploitation of social media by governments looks like an obvious trend. If we are only too willing to give up our data and cede any visibility of the inner circle’s terms of use of it we are on a slippery slope of our own making. Think about how your mobile device allows you to be tracked whenever and however. It can turn your camera or microphone on. It can triangulate your whereabouts anywhere across the world. What you’ve read, listened to and watched. Where are the privacy laws surrounding this? Is your local rep fighting in your corner? Probably not.

Could private conversations with a lawyer (client-attorney privilege) be bugged and used as evidence? Don’t laugh. As an aerospace analyst many moons ago, teams of specialists with anti-bugging devices trawled through the suites of the aircraft manufacturers’ chalets to ensure the opposition didn’t get wind of negotiations with airlines they were both competing to win large orders from. Illegal in the extreme but seemingly exercised by all parties. It was an unwritten rule.

However social media censorship hides deeper problems. It is also increasingly a tool to shut down debate and people like London Mayor Sadiq Khan has met with social media execs to collude on cracking down on ‘hate speech’. Surely policing spurious claims of hate speech is a lesser issue to the immediate threat faced by a capitol which saw its murder rate surpass that of New York. Not so. This is the dangerous turn in social media. Not whether our data is used for targeted advertising for cheap flights but used to pillory, interrogate and shut down innocents. After all social media has a half-life of infinity.

Take the controversial figure Tommy Robinson in England. The UK authorities and media wish us to believe he is an unhinged far right wing bigoted racist thug. Yet despite all of the times he has been jailed (for mostly trumped up charges), silenced and muzzled for publicising what he sees as a major problem in his community (i.e. radical Islam), the growth in followers continues to rise on his Facebook page (706,000). Maybe the authorities should keep tabs on them? Arrest them on suspicion of potentially causing hate crimes. Surely they are cut from the same cloth as Tommy? Afterall it is better to arrest a comedian for teaching a dog to do a Nazi salute to annoy his partner as it is less controversial to the state than tackling real issues. Perhaps authorities should pay attention to why Robinson’s following is so large? It is irrelevant whether one finds his viewpoints offensive or not, a majority of over half a million clearly don’t. He is no saint and would be the first to admit it. Still the authorities are trying everything to shut him down. Social media is being used as a watchdog.

Robinson has two best selling books –  ‘Enemy of the State’ and ‘Mohammad’s Koran: Why Muslims kill for Islam’. Is that not evidence that there are more people than the authorities would care to admit to that actually concur with his assessment? Maybe some want to read it out of curiosity? However when many of those same people see an undercover scoop done by the left leaning publicly funded Channel 4 on the inner workings of one of England’s most conservative mosques, praised by politicians as they true face of a peaceful religion. Even though the mosque had promised to clamp down on radical imams, the documentary revealed that despite assurances to government authorities, teachers still encourage students to believe that the only remedy for gays and apostates is to be killed. So maybe Robinson’s followers aren’t as fringe or minor in number as we would be made to believe? With the widespread outing of child grooming gangs across the UK, maybe Brits have had enough of the political hand wringing over politically correct discourse. The more the movement is pushed underground the harder it will be to stop vigilantism. We’ve already seen signs of it emerging. Think of the Guardian Angels in NY during the crime waves in the 1979.

What the Zuckerberg testimony brings to the surface is yet another example made clear to the public of the two tier dispensing of free speech. What worries the public more is that justice seems to be operating under the exact same framework. What the Channel 4 programme exposed with respect to blatant hate speech is incontrovertible. Yet will authorities arrest, charge and jail them as they would a Tommy Robinson? Not a chance. To encourage the murder of people that aren’t part of an ideology can’t be viewed as anything other than a willful threat.  Will the judiciary demand that scholars have their pages scrubbed from social media?

The shoes are on the wrong foot. Earlier this year, Austrian conservative Martin Sellner and his girlfriend Brittany Pettibone were arrested on arrival in the UK, detained and deported. Sellner for wanting to deliver a speech at Speaker’s Corner in Hyde Park (later delivered by Robinson) and Pettibone for wanting to interview Tommy Robinson (which he later conducted in Vienna). Neither look in the least bit dangerous. In this case, social media backfired on the state. In both cases, the public once again saw the double standards and the pervasive political posturing to beat the ‘controllable’ element into submission. Just as it is easier for the police to fine speeding motorists than actively pursue solid leads on catching grooming gangs the public rightly grows increasingly livid. Social media is being used more widely as a policing tool, with negative connotations. It isn’t just being used to foil terror plots but stomp on the rights of the average citizen.

Still there is some sympathy for Zuckerberg in that many people volunteered their information. If it was used in ways that violated ethical and more importantly legal rights it only goes to prove that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. To that end, can we really expect lawmakers to cramp their own style when Zuckerberg has only highlighted how powerful the information he possesses can be used to sucker us more than they already do. That is the real crime we are seemingly becoming powerless to stop. Talk about the real Big Brother!

Domestic Violence & Child Abuse – a global issue

DV.png

Domestic violence and child abuse – inextricably linked to the breakdown of families. Two distasteful topics to be sure and the stats seem to be getting much worse. In 2015 authorities in the US recorded 3.4mn child abuse investigations from 3.1mn in 2011. For 2015, a nationally estimated 1,670 children died of abuse and neglect, mostly at the hands of their mothers. Alcohol, drug and other substance abuse has been a contributing factor. DV hotlines in America receive approximately 20,800 calls a day according to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. In 2016, 57,335 URLs contained child sexual abuse imagery and 2,416 domain names worldwide were linked to this content. This is a 21% increase from 1,991 in 2015. Until recently, most child sexual abuse images were found in the US(57%), but Europe now hosts 60% of all material. 21,000 of these sites are run out of The Netherlands. Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) notes a 258% increase in new website domains being bought specifically to show the abuse of children.

Even in peace loving Japan, domestic violence (DV) has seen a very sharp upturn according to the National Police Agency this week. DV reached almost 70,000 recorded cases in 2016. Between 2010 and 2016, victims of DV have doubled and over 4x since 2005.  The Ministry for Health, Labor & Welfare (MHLW) has 208 child consultation centres which fielded over 88,000 cases in 2014, a 20.5%YoY increase or 22x the level of 20 years ago. Child pornography cases continue to rise in Japan too from 1,342 in 2010 to over 1,800 in 2014 . While a law was passed in July 2014 banning possession of child pornography, sentences only carry a maximum 1 year jail sentence or ¥1mn fine. Sexually explicit manga, anime and computer graphics which display child pornography are exempt because lawmakers view these as outside the scope of real children.

In Australia some 264,000 DV incidents were recorded in 2015.  In 2016–17, about 72,000 women, 34,000 children and 9,000 men seeking homelessness services reported that family and domestic violence caused or contributed to their homelessness according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.

The number of children receiving child protection services in Australia has risen by about 20% over the past 4 years—from 135,000 in 2012/13 to 162,000 in 2015/16. Nationally, emotional abuse was the most common primary type of abuse or neglect substantiated for children (45%), followed by neglect (25%), physical (18%) and sexual abuse (12%). Overall, just over half (51%) of children who were the subject of substantiations were girls (23,000 compared with 22,200 boys). Girls were almost twice as likely to have a substantiation recorded for sexual abuse than boys (16% compared with 8.5%). Boys had slightly higher rates of physical abuse, emotional abuse and neglect than girls (19% compared with 18%, 46% compared with 43%, and 26% compared with 23%, respectively.

According to the American Society of  Positive Care of Children (ASPCC), 14% of all men in prison and 36% of women in prison were abused as children, about twice the frequency seen among the general population.

The Department of Health & Human Services notes that child abuse reports in America involved 7.2 million children. More than one-half (54.1%) of perpetrators were women, 45% of perpetrators were men, and 0.9% were of unknown sex. The majority of victims consisted of three ethnicities—White (43.2%), Hispanic (23.6%), and African-American (21.4%).

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, children born with fetal alcohol syndrome may develop learning and behavior problems including hyperactivity, poor concentration, and memory problems. The National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health conducted a study on neonatal abstinence syndrome and determined babies suffering from opiate withdrawal were more likely to have low birth-weight and respiratory complications. 11,000 babies are born to crack dependent mothers each year and cost the state $750mn p.a. to treat. Victims reported with the alcohol abuse child risk factor during their first year, 87.9% of the victims were reported during their first month of life.

These trends are worrying. As an increasing number of countries make it easier to divorce by offering extra support to single parents, responsibility and accountability are being cast aside. The government essentially endorses families to split and get the single parent to marry the state. 40% of White and 70% of black households in America are now single parent. In Japan one quarter of families are now single parent. As we wrote last week, children that grow up in single parent households are far more likely to suffer emotional problems and issues with self-esteem.

Since 2007, the rate of suicide deaths among children between the ages of 10 and 14 in the US has doubled according to the Center for Disease Control Prevention(CDC). Most children under 13 who kill themselves are boys: 76% of those who died in 1999-2015 were male. Since 2014, suicide has become one of the leading causes of death in children aged 10-19 in Japan. 60% of the children and 46% of the young adolescents in the US who died from suicide had problems with friends or family members. School problems and recent crises were noted as common triggers.

Per our previous post, the police department that encouraged school kids to walk up to and communicate with outcast kids as opposed to walking out on school would have far more positive long term impacts. Yet authorities seem more keen on policing political correctness. Running school programs that reinforce ideals of celebrating identity politics that openly discourage traditional families.  Reading through the many years of warnings both school authorities and law enforcement/intelligence authorities had prior to the Parkland, Florida shooter, Nikolas Cruz, committing his schoolyard rampage the egg-shell culture of not tackling his issues head on led to a potentially avoidable tragedy. Yet in today’s culture shaming innocents, scapegoating unrelated organisations, vilifying corporations and pushing expedience after the fact take priority to taking responsibility and looking at ways of preventing the root cause rather than the method.

After reading through these depressing statistics, it is not too hard to envisage things going from bad to worse from here. It isn’t just an American issue but a global trend that only gets harder to treat the longer it festers.