THE BEADY EYE ASKS: IS SOCIAL MEDIA ALL ITS MADE OUT TO BE.

15 Thursday Jun 2017

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Social Media, Social Media., The world to day., Unanswered Questions.

Tags

Human society, Power of Social Media, Social Media, Social networking, Social world

( A seven to ten minute read)

I know that there are already many opinions out there about the effects of social media, but they all seem to miss the most important fact when addressing the subject.

Social media or as I like to call it Living Algorithms Intelligence feeds on beliefs not truths, till these beliefs become collectively believable, turning Social Media into a new form of religion.

You might think that this is a heresy, but the definition of religion in regarding its association with science is on the whole misunderstood.

Just how does science/ technology relate to religion? They don’t know each other and never will.

However most religions argue that you simply cannot understand the world without them.

This is no longer true.

Social media is now woven into the texture of the relationships in people’s everyday lives.

Social media being used to actually reinforce traditional groups, such as family, castes, and tribes, and to repair the ruptures created by migration and mobility.

Religion is defined by its social function and is anything that confers superhuman legitimacy on human social structures. Religion asserts that humans are subject to a system of moral laws that we did not invent and that we cannot change.

Through filters Social media is becoming a toxic mirror of religion.

Social media favors the bitty over the meaty, the cutting over the considered.

It is not just us but our religious and political discourse is shrinking to fit our smartphone screens. Time and again we are informed that the Internet is transforming human life towards a more enlightened and creative existence.

The public is constantly told that Big Data and the Internet of Things are about to revolutionize human existence. Claims that digital technology will fundamentally transform education, the way we work, play and interact with one another suggest that these new media will have an even greater impact on our culture than the invention of writing, reading and religion.

Just a few years ago, social media was a fairly obscure concept. Now Social media is a broad category that includes social networking sites, blogs, online review sites and photo- and video-sharing sites. It also includes sites where users can “check in” at their location, such as a restaurant or movie theater, and share their experiences and opinions.

Social media includes both sites run by the company, such as its own blog or website, and third-party sites where users can “friend” or “follow” each other.

Predictably the Internet is also an object of glorification by its technophile advocates.

The culture of everyday life has become entwined with the Internet. There is little doubt that the digital technology and social media has already a significant impact on culture.

(Take the example of radicalized jihadist youth in the West. In many cases the Internet has been represented as a powerful technology that incites young Muslims to become radicalized. Often the term“sudden radicalization” is used to highlight the power of social media to swiftly convert otherwise confused young Muslims into hardened extremist jihadists.

The social media provides a medium through which pre-existing sentiments can gain greater clarity, expressions and meaning. It provides a medium for the kind of interaction that can throw up new ideas, new symbols, new rituals and new identities. In this sense it has helped stimulate the emergent Western jihadist youth sub-culture and arguably its online expressions have exercised an important influence on its offline trajectory.)

Through the Internet the segmentation of social experience is refracted and given greater momentum through its powerful technological dynamic. This amplification and intensification of social trends constitutes the immediate impact of the Internet on the everyday culture. If the experience of printing serves as a precedent, it is likely that digital technology will not simply intensify prevailing cultural trends but also provide resources for reinterpreting its meaning.

Authority and respect don’t accumulate on social media; they have to be earned anew at each moment.

However today, with the public looking to smartphones for news and entertainment, we seem to be at the start of the third big technological makeover of modern life both politically/ electioneering and religious beliefs.

The Internet and the social media are powerful instruments for mobilization of people is not in doubt.

However, it is not its own technological imperative that allows the social media to play a prominent role in social protest. Rather the creative use of the social media is a response to aspirations and needs that pre-exist or at least exist independently of it.

This technology ought to be perceived as a resource that can be utilized by social and political movements looking for a communication infrastructure to promote their cause.

Social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace allow you to find and connect with just about anyone making it difficult for us to distinguish between the meaningful relationships we foster in the real world, and the numerous casual relationships formed through social media.

All this provides an illusion of control: The line between a “like” and feeling ranked becomes blurred.

It’s not about don’t spend time on Facebook, but just be aware of what it might be doing to you. Perhaps future generations will recoil with similar horror at the messiness, unpredictability and immediate personal involvement of a three-dimensional, real-time interaction.

We have all witness the election of Donald Trump with a vast web audience—four million followers on Twitter alone is the first candidate and now president optimized for the Google News algorithm.

Even though the ease of social media communication brings major benefits to previously excluded populations, this may not have any overall impact on social differences, or oppression offline.

Poverty restricts the amount of time people can spend on the internet. People avoid political and religious postings. Social media serve local purposes, instead of breaking down international boundaries.

Populations in different parts of the world may use local or regional platforms and their own online “dialects” which keeps people separated and distinct, not united. For some people living away from their family, it can become the main place they live, where they spend most of their time.

Once you send out a message like this one via social media, you can’t take it back even if you delete it. In addition, anything you post is considered public information, and you could see it quoted in the media.

Yet, social media certainly adds crucial new elements: Technology, along with globalization and economic trends, has made “power easier to get, but harder to use or keep” and that brings us to the present dilemma. We now know how to disrupt, but we still have no clear formula for bridging the gap from disruption to legitimacy. Memes have become our moral police.

Power is no longer absolute, but must be grounded in shared principles. If the social contract is breached, there will be a heavy price to pay and social media will play a major part in exacting that price.

All comments appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the Bin.

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: ROLL UP ROLL UP WE ARE ABOUT TO WITNESS THE BIGGEST MONEY FIGHT EVER SEEN. BREXIT IS EUROPE’S LAST CHANCE.

01 Thursday Jun 2017

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., Elections/ Voting, ENGLAND'S SNAP ELECTION, England., European Commission., European Union., Politics., Post - truth politics., Social Media., The Obvious., Unanswered Questions., What needs to change in European Union.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., ENGLAND'S SNAP ELECTION, European Union, What needs to change in European Union.

( This is a good thirty minute read.)

The weigh in:

In the blue corner we have England wearing sterling. In the green corner we have the EU wearing euro.

Regardless of whether you like the sport this fight will be contested across social media keeping the audience at a safe distance while making sure that the fighters don’t withdraw/run away from the fight before it is finished.

Round One:

Put simply, Article 50 gives the 27 continuing member states predominant power.

That comes partly from the fact that, according to Paragraph 4 of Article 50, the withdrawing state no longer counts as a member of the European Council for the purpose of the negotiations. But mainly it comes from the guillotine imposed by the two-year deadline and the requirement for unanimity to extend that deadline.

Clause 4 says that after a country has decided to leave, the other EU members will decide the terms—and the country leaving cannot be in the ring in those discussions.

Britain depends on the EU for half of its exports, while Britain accounts for only one-sixth of Europe’s. For Britain, this means any deal would be better than none at all. Keeping substantial access to the single market and having strict immigration controls are mutually exclusive for the EU: achieving both is highly unrealistic.

After a lot of shadow boxing T May with a reduced mandate and new shoes dances around the ring avoiding the total financial obligations, which are understood by the EU to be around €100 billion gross, according to an FT estimate.

But add on the negotiations fees etc and Britain is facing a £140 billion (7.5% of GDP) or the equivalent of £300 million a week over eight years.

May said repeatedly that Britain could walk away without a deal and be fine. Instead, a painless exit without a cliff-like effect on trade is only possible with a transitional arrangement. To obtain that, the UK will likely have to pay the €60 billion it owes from its past years of membership, as well as a membership fee for access to the single market.

The EU knows that the UK is economically more dependent on the EU; 44% of its exports go there and 48% of its foreign investment comes from them.

This is not to mention the potential damage from a loss of passporting rights to the services sector, which makes up for around 79% of UK GDP.

Hence the UK may try to act tough at the start of fight but eventually will have to compromise to avoid bigger economic fall-outs.

Round Two:

The EU Commission said citizens in the process of acquiring EU rights (such as permanent residency in another country in the bloc) should be allowed to finish doing so, and that the U.K. will be liable for certain financial payments, such as the salaries of British teachers at schools for the children of EU officials, until 2021.

Round Three:

The U.K. remains under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice while all pending cases are completed, and the U.K. would not immediately receive upon departure all the capital it has supplied to the European Investment Bank.

The U.K. is a 16 percent shareholder in the EIB and has €39.2 billion locked up in the institution, which often funds projects with a 20- to 30-year timeline. The U.K.’s liabilities should be “decreased in line with the amortization of the EIB portfolio outstanding at the time of United Kingdom withdrawal,” the Commission said.

Round Four:

Any cherry-picking punches are totally against the rules. “Until it leaves the Union, the United Kingdom remains a full member of the EU, subject to all rights and obligations set out in the Treaties and under EU law.

Round Five:

United Kingdom will be kept separate from ongoing Union business, and shall not interfere with its progress.

The Council states that an agreement on a future relationship between the EU and the UK can only be concluded once the UK effectively leaves the EU and becomes a third country. When the United Kingdom officially leaves the European Union in March 2019, it will still be entangled in the EU’s financial and legal systems for years.

While the terms of divorce can be agreed with a majority vote, the terms of future EU-UK trade relations are very likely to need a unanimous vote.

The deal must be agreed by all 27 remaining countries in the EU. Individual countries can’t veto a treaty governing the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, but could veto a treaty establishing Britain’s new relationship with the EU. It would go ahead if it were approved by 20 of the 27 remaining EU countries, so long as they also represent 65% of the EU population.

Most of the EU’s free trade agreements require a unanimous vote of all EU governments and ratification by all member countries. That’s because they tend to be ‘mixed agreements’, meaning that they cover some ground that the EU doesn’t have power over. That said, it’s possible for the EU to negotiate a trade agreement that can’t be vetoed, depending on what’s in it.

That implies two major agreements: one on the logistics of divorce, and another on trade. (More treaties might be necessary on other issues, like security.)

Round Six:

Compulsory standing count.

Theresa May’s vision is blurred. Polarizing public opinion against the EU and immigration and away from domestic issues was an easy political win.

An independent and truly global United Kingdom without a new customs agreement. Agreements between the EU and third countries or international organisations, for example on trade, would also cease to apply to the withdrawing state, and it would thus need to negotiate alternative arrangements.

Round Seven:

The UK could change its mind about withdrawing from the EU even after triggering the formal process of leaving under Article 50.

Article 50 doesn’t say whether or not a country can change its mind, so it’s arguable either way. Some eminent lawyers think that it can, but there are also those – especially within the EU itself – who argue that once a country has triggered Article 50 it can’t then abort the process without permission.

It would be perfectly possible for the UK to revoke its decision to quit. That Article 50 is silent on the matter of revocation does not mean that a change of direction would be illegal under EU law.

The place this point might be argued, and ultimately resolved, is the EU court in Luxembourg. It’s possible that the UK courts will refer the question to EU judges as part of the ongoing litigation over the role of Parliament in triggering Article 50.

Round eight:

If there’s no turning back from an EU exit once Article 50 is triggered, there would be no point in voting on the terms of a new agreement verses continued membership.

The choice would instead be to take the deal on offer, or reject it and exit with no long-term deal at all.

Round ten:

In the end while us tax payers lose billions, the Lawyers win hands down.

Round eleven:

No deal:

Round twelve:

In their attempt to create a fairer and more equal country, Britons sought to sever ties from what they saw as a weakened partner. The reality is that Brexit will likely make Britain weaker and, ironically, is making the EU stronger.

The irony is that by running away from a European Union they thought was about to fall apart, Brexiteers have instead made it stronger.

Voters in France and the Netherlands are rejecting populism, and politicians in Brussels and Berlin have switched gears towards reforms and pro-EU spending measures.

Round thirteen:

The composition of the EU institutions changes as of the day the withdrawal takes effect, with members from the withdrawing state losing their seats in the various institutions and bodies, although transitional arrangements might be required for the period immediately after that date.

Review of the fight by social media:

The debts accumulated by the governments of the U.S., Japan, Europe and dozens of other countries constitute a gigantic mortgage on the next two or three generations, as yet unborn.

The Euro corner>

As it marks its 60th birthday, the European Union is in poor shape. It needs more flexibility to rejuvenate itself.

However, citizens’ trust in the EU has decreased in line with that for national authorities. Around a third of citizens trust the EU today, when about half of Europeans did so ten years ago.

The latest economic and political developments in Europe are a wake-up call for our political leaders to take swifter action in order to strengthen the foundations of our Union.

The deteriorating geopolitical environment makes matters worse. Turmoil and war across the Middle East and in north Africa were one big cause of the surge in migrant inflows.

It is dying financially, with all the debt bankrupting governments, businesses and individuals. It is sinking economically, weighted down with stifling regulations and taxes. It is being strangled demographically, with birth rates far below replacement and the refugee crisis, which saw 1.2 million people coming to Europe in 2015 will only worsen with climate change and current conflicts.

Given the challenges facing the union, the one-size-fits-all model muddling through may no longer be the safest option. Brexit could yet be copied by another member, leading to the slow collapse of the union. A multi-speed Europe or multi-tier Europe could begin to undo the EU.

Few of the 27 EU member countries that will remain after Brexit favour much deeper political and economic integration.

These 27 are integrated into the EU in many different ways: all are in the single market, 26 in the banking union, 21 in Schengen, a different 21 in NATO and 19 in the euro, to list just few examples.

The European continent is home not just to the 28 EU members but 48 countries in all. Those outside the EU aspire to special relations with the club, and some belong to bits of it already.

To cap it all, America’s new president, Donald Trump, has shown himself hostile not just to multilateral free trade and Muslim immigrants but intermittently to the EU, praising Britain’s decision to leave and urging others to follow.

Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is turning his back on a club that seems to have rejected his membership aspirations, and is spurning its democratic values as well.

By 2018, around a third of the world’s population will be use social media networks. These trends will only accelerate and continue to change the way democracy works and the way the EU evolves.

A big reason for this is the politics in EU member countries which make it doubly important for Europe to gets to grips with a profound digitisation of society. The EU covers four million square kilometres in which there are 500 million citizens. It is the world’s largest single market with second most used currency. However Europe’s place in the world is shrinking, as other parts of the world grow.

In 1900, Europe accounted for around 25% of global population. By 2060, it will account for less than 5%.

Europe’s economic power is also expected to wane in relative terms, accounting for much less than 20% of the world’s GDP in 2030, down from around 22% today.

Too often, the discussion on Europe’s future has been boiled down to a binary choice between more or less Europe. New global powers are emerging as old ones face new realities and there is none older than England that has voted to leave.

There is also a mismatch between expectations and the EU’s capacity to meet them. The EU approach is misleading and simplistic, for too many> the EU fell short of their expectations as it struggled with its worst financial, economic and social crisis in post-war history. If it is to survive the EU must embrace greater differentiation not closer union or face potential disintegration.

That leaves the second type of response, which is to muddle through. After all, the euro and migration crises seem to be past their worst. Excessive austerity may have done great harm, but outside Greece it is largely over. The single market, perhaps the union’s greatest achievement, has survived the financial crisis and can surely weather Brexit. Domestic security co-operation on terrorism and crime is closer than ever. In foreign policy, EU countries have displayed commendable unity over sanctions on Russia, and have been vital in striking a nuclear deal with Iran.

At the moment more than 80% support the EU’s four founding freedoms.

These might have being the foundations to the EU but there is no getting away from the fact that money was in more ways than one crucial from the very start of the European project.

70% of euro area citizens support the common currency.

The euro zone is now a partial banking union, with a centralised bail-out fund and a European Central Bank (ECB) prepared to act as a lender of last resort.

As economies improve and this year’s tricky elections are negotiated, the union will somehow manage to keep going. If EU leaders want to negotiate revised membership (and all do say they want the UK to stay in), they could do so.

Sterling corner>

Britain’s richest and privately educated citizens account for 7% of the population yet makes up two-thirds of judges and around half of journalists and members of parliament, according to a government report. Meanwhile, the Child Poverty Action Group estimates that 3.9 million children live in poverty.

The UK ranks second in the developed world for inequality, after the US.

Brexit will not change that, nor will it make Britain more united:

The English patient was sick long before the divorce from Europe.

With an economy focused on finance and services, and highly dependent on foreign investment, the idea of creating a “truly global Britain” isolated from its closest trading partner is economic la-la land.

Brexit is a symptom of Britain’s deeply rooted economic imbalances: a growth model too concentrated on finance and services and dependent on foreign goods, human and financial capital; record-high social and wealth inequality; a lack of investment in infrastructure and education; and monetary and fiscal policies that have helped create a property bubble and excess household debt.

Brexit will not fix the shortfalls of the Anglo-American growth engine, which ran on credit and rising asset prices over the past few decades, disregarding rising inequality, a lack of inclusive access to education and declining social mobility.

General observations :

Article 50 makes life very difficult for any country wishing to withdraw from EU membership. You might think this deliberate and take it as yet another symptom of perfidious Brussels. But we should remember that the English Government and parliament signed up to it.

However the design of the euro suffered from two big defects that still haunt the single currency. The euro, in short, remains a troubled currency, with question-marks over both its membership and its direction. There is general agreement that it needs further integration, but disagreement about how to go about it.

The EU’s Institutions, built up over six decades, are not ideally suited to responding flexibly to challenges such as the single currency, migration or foreign and security policy. The European Parliament needs greater legitimacy to influence the European Commission is much more than a civil service; it is the guardian of the treaties, the originator of almost all legislation and the sole executor of the EU’s budget while suffering from having too many commissioners. (28, one per member country)

Terrorist attacks have struck at the heart of cities in the EU last year and will continue to do so while NATO continues to provide hard security for most EU countries.

Europe cannot be naïve and has to take care of its own security. There is no point any longer being a “soft power.

Finally:

The Horizon 2020, in Europe is the world’s biggest multinational research programme.

Maybe there are some things that could be done for the people of Europe that are not directly related to selling stuff?. Real efficiency comes from rethinking systems of bureaucracy from the ground up, not just using less paper.

The greatest task today is to consolidate the free world around Western values, not just interests,””digitizing” and “decarbonising” the economy.

Perhaps the idea of a Continental Partnership. Might suit the UK.

Such a partnership could offer non-EU countries partial membership of the single market without full free movement of labour, and also create a system of decision-making that gave them an informal say (but no formal vote) in rule-making.

Perhaps this is the winning blow.

In all fights the promoters set the venue not the result.

England would do well to remember that it is not the EU who promoted this fight.

All comments appreciated. All like clicks chucked out of the ring.

THE BEAD EYE SAYS; IT TIME TO GET A GRIP, IT’S NOT ALL A LIE.

04 Thursday May 2017

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Artificial Intelligence., Humanity., Modern Day Democracy., Modern day life., Our Common Values., Politics., Post - truth politics., Social Media., The Future, The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Leaders

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Artificial Intelligence., Democracy, Post - truth politics., Social Media, United Nations, Visions of the future.

( A seven minute truth read)

IN A WORLD THAT IS LOSING ITS GRIP THE TROUBLE IS KNOWING WHAT TO GET A GRIP OF.

There is nothing new about this, other than the manner and the pace it is happening at where facts are deemed less important than beliefs.

For Example: In an age of Post – truth politics we now have a President of the USA that appears not to care whether his words bear any relation to reality.

The declining societal respect for facts, the rise of deceptive partisan media outlets are creating an echo chamber effect in public discussion.

If people only knew the truth, we wouldn’t have the problems of global warming, economic recession, poverty, War, any Famine.

Most people now get their news about the world around them pre-digested and customised by social media. They do not get the breadth of information supplied by an even moderately impartial news source.

Material is allotted them not by whether it is true but by whether they might like it.

Which is institutionally biased, and more vulnerable to the dissemination of lies.

Something must be surely be done about this.

Our post-truth era, in short, need not be an obstacle to taking common action.

Feelings trump facts and the power of truth as a tool to solve problems is being diluted by False News. For example the EU is now in danger of breaking up due to a campaign of blatant misinformation.

The lost of truth has many roots, and indeed it is a human failing not to seek it out. Life at this juncture is practically unimaginable without the technology we enjoy today.

A large amount of social media feeds on getting strangers to follow each other’s random thoughts or tracking our idle page visits to target advertising, and as a society we seem more than happy to provide.

If you OK-ed the latest update for your Facebook app on your phone, you’ve given Facebook permission to read your text messages?

Everybody knows Google has questionable privacy rules, but Gmail is a really good email provider, and most people don’t tend to make their Twitter private.

Today it is almost heresy to suggest that scientific knowledge is not the sum of all knowledge. Unorganized knowledge is the king, driving Climate Change, down to the survival of the cutest.

The continued societal focus on economic growth, both personally and as a society driven by algorithms for profit are all forcing a consumer society.

With the continued societal focus on economic growth, privacy is now arguably subject to consumerism. Critical thinking is sacrificed in favour of having feelings, reinforced by soundbite.

The problem is that Facebook (which has somewhere in the region of 2 billion users) and other so-called net works do not see themselves as media companies and are for the most part run by algorithms that have put artificial intelligence in charge of spreading False News.

As capitalism really gaining a grip on everyday life technology is a society constant. The majority of the Facebook users tend to share every mundane detail of their lives.

The inverted distinction between public and private.

What can we do about it?

We’ve built an awesome, sprawling web of technology with a astonishing bit rates entering the human mind and emotions through eyes, ears and even noses, all creating an accelerating escalation of intensity which is now out of control.

In a world increasingly devoid of person to person contact we are becoming more and more attached to morally ambiguous technologies. Given such biases it is no wonder we are unable to even agree on facts.

Precious little is said about the human, societal and environmental impact of such intense and increasing post-truth politics.

Are we more or are we less?

What is happening to our relationships, to our sensitivities, to our abilities to be moved, to our abilities to perceive?

Content is no longer a fixed format so there is no provenance as to what is true or false. With countervailing views filtered it is no wonder we get like clicks or news to boost hits.

Most of us now get our news on social media with anyone becoming a publisher. This information revolution can now play havoc with political falsehood.

So when Trump says we need to go to war now. We won’t know if he’s telling the truth.

What then?

We might even see this proliferation of belief systems and worldviews as an opportunity for human development. We can agree to disagree and still engage in pragmatic action in the world.

Modern democracy is not indeed flawless, but so far it is the most advanced political system the human kind could come up with. However the features of modern democracy for which we consider it as the most ‘human’ form of governance now comes with shortcomings.

These shortcomings like poor access to institutions, low-level of participation, rising level of elitism, ossification of state authorities, etc., are often the root of discontent among the public. Such reasons are making the discontent more than just and as a matter of fact.

But without opposition and discontent, there can be no democracy.

We as an audience must take into account the nature of media and subsequently different sources before making any assumptions on the content itself. Things like lack of critical thinking, an absence of fact-checking before accepting statements, inability to put things perspective and so on, provide opportunities for the rise of unpleasantly phenomena like post-truth and post-truth politics.

The concept of ‘post-truth’ has reached a point of saturation in present-day popular discourse and media punditry. Driven by digitally mediatized representations of reality and social interaction. Resulting in many of our world organisation becoming irrelevant.

Democracy requires a citizenship that meets, deliberates and interacts without fear and hatred. It requires organisations that give people a “voice” and a feeling that they have a stake and some influence in the system.

The pervasiveness of presumed causal linkages between environmental degradation, violent conflict and human mobility has been utilized by policy makers and pundits to shape public opinion.

Democracy now needs online innovation.

When Microsoft created Windows, it created the possibility of multiple lenses or views of any issue. Why not build on that? Before we all become Twit’s.

The problem which remains is purely one of logic.

The world is populated by other people who aren’t you. This is one of the major tools of democracy.

What does post-truth tell us about the current and future state of democratic engagement and of democracy itself?

Truth must no longer legitimize the politics of Brexit and Trump. No matter how democratic it is, the rug must be pulled out from under Post – truth politics. We have lost our power to them; we cannot lose our truth too.

The pervasiveness of presumed causal linkages between environmental degradation, violent conflict and human mobility has been utilized by policy makers and pundits to shape public opinion about the predicament we are now in.

What can be done?

“Take back control”

The least we can do to make the United Nations a place where minds, hearts and nations connect for the sake of so many people all over the world.

Obviously, don’t vote for fibbers.

Bombard social media platforms to remove filters.

Create an Online Political platform for the Truth.

Remember that knowledge is power.

All comments appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: COMPUTER ALGORITHMS THAT ARE FILTERING CONTENT ARE STARTING TO ISOLATE US FROM ONE ANOTHER.

30 Sunday Apr 2017

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Artificial Intelligence., Big Data., Facebook, Google Knowledge., Humanity., Privatization, Social Media., Technology, The Future, The Internet., The Obvious., The world to day., Twitter, Unanswered Questions., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Artificial Intelligence., Big Data, ongoing Privatization of the world, Privatization, Privatization of the World., SMART PHONE WORLD, Technology, The Future of Mankind

( A five-minute read)

We all know or at least we should all be aware that our world is becoming less and less transparent thanks to what we call Artificial Intelligence.

The challenge there is:

The false promise of the Internet was that it can connect people from different backgrounds, with different beliefs and across disparate locations.

The trend toward personalization by AI is impeding the fulfillment of that promise?

What is becoming more and more apparent is that while most personalization on the web is algorithmically driven, aren’t we implicitly, informing the algorithms based on the choices we’ve previously made interacting with content?

Couldn’t you then, in theory, manipulate the filter so you see what you want to see or are there too many factors beyond our control?

Consider:

Even if you’re completely logged out of Google, on a new computer, the company can track 57 signals about you — from what kind of laptop you’re using to what your IP address is to what the font size in your browser is. Already, that gives a lot of important clues about age, income and demographics.

It’s ironic — the promise of personalization is that it gives us our own personal view of the world.

But the challenge is that a lot of the time, it’s actually pushing us toward a stereotyped, simplified version of ourselves: “This person is male, so we’ll show him more gadget and car news.”

So let me ask you.

Many of the major social, discovery and media sites on the Internet now implement some type of personalization. Do you feel these sites have a responsibility to educate consumers about how their information is being filtered? Do you think users should be able to opt out of personalization?

I would say Yes, on both counts.

In an increasingly complex and vast media landscape it is crucial that me maintain our private lives.

Why?

Because: Algorithms of all shapes and sizes are monitoring, analyzing, making

decisions, dictating our credit scores etc. They are shaping our lives and economies, our future, so shouldn’t we know what code and mathematical equations, or deep learning go into making them work.

However Transparency alone won’t help.

Algorithms are complicated so exposing the code behind them won’t make them more understandable. Knowing how an algorithm is coded is useless without knowing the data that has being fed into it in the first place.

There is only one solution and that is the:

The Creation of a New World Organisation that is totally transparent, and self financing: To vet all Technology. To ensure that they comply with the core world gold standard of human values.

(See previous Posts)

Let me ask you two further questions.

Can some level of personalization be useful?

What are we missing that we need to see?

Some amount of algorithmic personalization is necessary — there’s just too much stuff to sort through for humans to do it all. However you don’t know who Google thinks you are or on what basis it’s editing your results, and therefore you don’t know what you’re missing.

A lot of the personalization that exists today just serves up information junk food, but a growing portion is being curated by robots — computer algorithms that are filtering content and deciding what we get to see.

It may be delicious, but it doesn’t feed the soul.

Now it’s possible to live in a bubble where that stuff doesn’t ever show up — you’d never know it’s happening.

Take the Facebook “Like” button — the main way that information gets spread on Facebook. “Like” isn’t a neutral word — it’s easy to Like “I just finished a marathon,” and hard to Like “cell phones may cause cancer.”

So some kinds of information get through, and others don’t, and when that’s happening in the Facebook News Feed, where an increasing number of folks get their news, it’s a real problem.

Most people aren’t aware that their Google search results, Yahoo News links, or Facebook feed is being tailored in this way.

Filters can provide relevance and combat information overload, but with so much riding on automated decisions to ensure algorithms deal with humans fairly is now more relevant than ever.

I recently read that in five-year your smartphone could be reading your mind.

Brain- computer interface.

Personalization couldn’t exist without the massive dossiers of personal data being collected by big companies online these days. And it’s a problem because consumers don’t have much control over that.

The current laws around personal data just don’t contemplate a world in which a click on one website changes what you see on an entirely different one.

Almost all popular websites, from search engines to social networks to media outlets, are now utilizing filters in some way to personalize content for visitors.

When websites show us only what we like, we get cut off from the diverse points of view that can enrich our understanding of the world.

We get Donald Trumps.

Privacy is about controlling what the world is allowed to know about you. This is about controlling what you’re able to see of the world — what your filters let through and what they don’t.

Its time to wake up.

We can lose sight of our common problems, but they don’t lose sight of us.

It’s only a matter of time before our Fidelity/ Loyalty cards are linked up to our personal data held by banks, e-commerce sites and social media. If not already.

We will then be looking at citizen character score, which will bring credit scores to a whole new level, turning them more into to life scores, by tracking anything and everything we do. The scary bit is what is tracked and by who.

I hear you saying that this will never be accepted.

It is already on the cards for people living in China and Singapore. Humans and robot algorithms, living in peaceful harmony. Where you go, what you buy, who you know, how many points are on your driving licence, how your friends rate you.

The scores will serve not just to indicate an individual’s credit risk, but could be used in a vast array of applications and organisations such as Governments, Benefits, Hospital Operations, Visa, Education, down to all fields that makes Society including prison sentences, landlords, employers, and even romantic partners to gauge an individual’s character.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of cloud computing"

All stored in the Cloud. Which comes in many different models forms.

Ubiquitous access to the network: Self-service and on-demand access to computing capabilities. This service will most often be performed by the service provider automatically without the need for human interaction.

Cloud Computers is not the easiest of terms to define, or explain what it all actually means. Owned by Google, Twitter, Gmail and Facebook the Cloud is elusive as grabbing a cloud itself.

Perhaps we can blame it all on Leonhard Euler one of the most prolific mathematicians in history, and also a prolific inventor of canonical notation.

( An Euler path is a path that uses every edge of a graph exactly once.)

One way or the other to use a Trumpetism: It’s ain’t going to be great unless we build algorithms that have a sense of civic purpose embedded in them, giving us both entertainment and the information we really need, not profit.

All comments appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.

O sorry about the line spacing in this post just cannot figure out how to correct it.

THE BEADY EYES OPEN LETTER: CALLING ON THE YOUTH OF ENGLAND AND THE EU.

04 Tuesday Apr 2017

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Brexit., England., European Union., Modern Day Democracy., Politics., Populism., Social Media., The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., What needs to change in European Union.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Brexit., Forthcoming Brexit Negotiations., The European Union, What needs to change in the European union

( A five minute read)

Where are your voices?

The decision to leave the EU affects your future more than anyone, so tell me why you are now so silent.

Luckily the responsibility for the outcome of the next two years negotiations still rests on the shoulders of the British people—and specifically, on the young English people.

Do young Englanders really want to isolate their Island even more from the rest of Europe?

It is now imperative you make your young voices heard on the final deal, if any.

If you do not there is little point sitting on you behinds, chastising older Brits, when less of you voted in the referendum than those who did not.

The 51.9 percent to 48.1 percent was so close – if the rest of you had voted, the outcome could have been very different, and if 16-and 17-year-olds were given the chance to have their say in this momentous decision England would not now be clinging on to its colonial history.

(It seems ludicrous that 16 and 17-year-olds weren’t allowed to vote in the referendum that was going to define much of their future. Truly idiotic.)

There is no such thing as a perfect future or for that matter a correct past but the coming decisions will pitted rich against poor like no other.

So here is my plea to the Youth of England and the Youth of the EU.

If you look at the sign at the entrance of your town and you’ll spot a phrase that goes something like this: “Twinned with.

(Town twinning, as an official relationship-builder, started in Europe after the second world war. The idea was simple: repair damaged relationships between France, Germany and the UK.)

You and your twin share something. A history, some DNA.

You’re twinned for a reason and that reason will be positive if you now twin your efforts to have a final say and vote on the final result.

We have seen in Greece the rise of a far-left government. In Spain, there is a similar upsurge. In France, Marine Le Pen and the Front National are closer to power than at any time previously. In Britain, the anger of the ‘have-nots’ has so far been contained — probably because unemployment has been kept down. But it would only take mismanagement of welfare benefits and an excessively high national living wage to change that.

Clearly not everyone who voted Leave is a racist thicko, just like not every immigrant is a jihadi. There are legitimate concerns on both sides of the debate, but I do not see how it is helpful to characterise millions of people in this way.

It can seem like a language that the privileged use to sneer at the poor: a kind of moral snobbery. A striking social division has been exposed in this vote.

I dont know about you but I’m ashamed that the world of ever-closer union among countries which for centuries would kill each other by the million—came to a shattering end on Thursday.

I am also embarrassed and disappointed that your country has been manipulated by the xenophobic, racist and above all incorrect facts that have been spread by a vocal minority of U.K. citizens.

Business and government officials have long grumbled about EU rules and regulations but the 2008 financial crisis, subsequent economic turmoil, rise of immigration and terrorism and general European malaise accelerated concerns about the relative merits of EU membership, particularly on the political right

British advocates of Brexit argue that issues of sovereignty and self-government should override economic ones but as a generation that is digitally connected to other young people across the world, you should be the generation which understands what the European Union is about more than any other, because you have grown up as European citizens.

So clearly, this all comes down to whether life is better or worse separate from the EU.

It is difficult to foresee any tangible benefits in leaving – economic, political or security – that would outweigh remaining and helping to reform the EU, unless the EU disintegrates.

Whatever the outcome of the British and EU negotiations, afterwards Europe will not be able to shy away from a few much-needed debates and significant reforms.

WE ALL KNOW: WHETHER YOUR ENGLISH, SPANISH, FRENCH OR FROM ONE OF THE OTHER COUNTRIES CURRENTLY IN THE EU, BLACK OR WHITE- MUSLIM OR WHAT EVER RELIGION, THAT THE WORLD WE ALL LIVING IN IS IN A MESS IN MORE WAYS THAN ONE.

The picture above is not the world. The picture below is the world.

We are better together and celebrating our multi-cultural, immigration-shaped society.

This isn’t about saying whether young people in England were right and wrong, but it’s clear that they see themselves as citizens of Europe, and quite possibly the world, rather than the UK.

Is there a future for the European Union?

If so, what is it necessary to do, to give a future to this European Union?

More specifically, what is the role of new generations in the rescue operations and in ensuring continuity to the European project?

In the world we live in, acting alone is neither possible nor desirable.

Total independence from others is not possible, even outside the context of the European project, because in a global world we are all deeply connected. Thus, when dealing with issues that go beyond any single state’s borders, it is in every country’s interests to be able to participate in the international regulation and decision-making process.

Europe is obviously much more than a market, after all; it is a cultural space, simultaneously bemusing and splendidly diverse, complementary and enriching.

Europe is more than “Brussels”.

And Europe is not a bureaucratic monster, not a tribe of petty-minded technocrats making the lives of decent citizens a misery with their rules and regulations, but it will never be possible to preserve all the things we value about Europe without a European political framework.

Capitalism, we should not forget, is still capitalism.

Anyone who believes that the blessings of the market can spare us the hard work of solving political, social and ecological problems, who thinks that a single nation alone can triumph in the arena of global financial capitalism, is making a terrible mistake.

Such a fragile cultural entity as Europe can only survive in today’s world of conflict if it is politically strong and – whatever the differences – fundamentally united.

Is it too much to hope that a continent that has succeeded since 1945 – after two horrific wars – in turning enemies into neighbours and mistrustful neighbours into cooperative partners and sometimes even friends might turn out to be a reliable force for peace in the turmoil of the twenty-first century, a bastion of freedom and democracy, a promoter of fruitful communication with other influential regions?

The political Europe was never the great leveler, and never will be. Its raison d’être is its diversity, its vital energy, its obstinacy.

Europe is not the navel of the world, not the yardstick by which all other regions of the world are to be judged.

Europe is a historic continent, perhaps the historic continent par excellence. What singles Europe out most of all is that all the greatest crimes and mistakes have already been made here, and we Europeans have felt the punishment.

None of our problems can be solved by isolating ourselves or expanding into supposedly empty lands. We cannot just “go west!” Unlike the Americans, we know – even if we sometimes appear to forget it – that we can only live in peace if we also pay heed to the other side’s interests.

Don’t let anyone persuade you that we – the rest of Europe – want to take away your different-ness, your obstinacy, your trouble-making.

We need you in Europe precisely because you are so different from us. And you?

Would it be impertinent to suggest that you need us too, if you are to fulfil your potential? And if that is true – or at least not completely false – would it not be a rather poor idea to abandon Project Europe? I think so.

Of course, if the United Kingdom were to leave the EU, it would still be a member of NATO – and it is noteworthy that precisely its most significant partner in the alliance has stated its preference for a strong and united European Union that can act decisively in matters of security and defence.

Now is not the time to turn inwards.

It is obvious, therefore, that the Eurozone project is not solely a matter of a technical-parametric economic optimum calculation, but primarily a political issue.

So what is ultimately at stake in the Brexit debate?

It is only partially about Britain. A British exit would return the UK to its pre-modern constitution. For the EU, Brexit could favour a rebalancing of EU law in favour of social and environmental rights. But it is more likely that the neoliberal turn in EU law would continue as there are many factors now driving it, separately from British influence.

The EU, as much as the UK, is in need of a constitutional settlement which addresses the risks posed by market fundamentalism.

The notion of regaining sovereignty as a solution to the problems we face as Europeans, and Britons, is an oversimplification on the part of those who believe that it is possible to live in a world that no longer exists.

I am certain that the British do not really want to turn their backs on us continental Europeans after all we have been through together.

Europe is above all an ever-changing cultural cosmos that can only flourish if all its parts are permitted to be themselves. Anything else is codswallop.

If you get any group in society that doesn’t have a voice, they’re always going to feel nervous and out of control for the future.

Its time for the Youth of England with the support of Young Europeans to combine in a movement to be heard.

If not should I comfort myself with the thought that national egotisms and separatists are proliferating in many other European countries too.

Never. I deeply love the world, but it would be nothing without its people.

All the selfies, or social media won’t make you a better person, or help you with a fantastic opportunity to engage with politics and have your opinions heard.

Let’s call it Smart by not leaving it to Money, Profit, Arms Sales and I am all right Jacks to shape our lives.

THE BEADY ASKS: WHY IS IT SO DIFFICULT TO ENACT THE BLEEDING OBVIOUS.

07 Tuesday Mar 2017

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Artificial Intelligence., Big Data., Donald Trump Presidency., European Union., Google it., Google Knowledge., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Modern Day Democracy., Politics., Social Media., Technology, The Future, The Obvious., The world to day., Twitter, Unanswered Questions., What needs to change in European Union., What Needs to change in the World, World Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Artificial Intelligence., European Union, Social Media, Technology, The Future of Mankind, The Obvious.

( A Ten Minute read that might open your eyes to the Obvious)

I am sure like me you often wonder why it is that when something is obvious we humans are unable to react. It is obvious that Technology is changing the world and us but nothing hides like the obvious. The obvious is best disguised into itself. One obvious hides another.

Intelligent reason should visit its basic assumptions, regularly; but it doesn’t.

We all know that an own goal is an accident when it comes in sport unless there is some ulterior motive.

In the course of our own lives we have many own goals, some obvious, some accidental, but when it comes to collective action on one hand we cannot bear to notice our children becoming strangers and our parents growing senile. However on the other we are less concerned about Nations heading to war, companies going bust, greed and technology ruining our civilisation.

The obvious turns perverse.

We have too much stake in them to see clear and hear change ringing.

Is this the reason we cannot enact the obvious.?

We do not see what we do not wish to see, hoping that it will go away or solve itself. We grow blind to things we cannot cope with. We see and hear but we keep forgetting at once as if under a spell of neglect.

Our attention is so easily diverted… we just move on with inertia and sleep-walk unable to draw the undesired conclusion and to do something.

We do not grasp the incommensurable, out of proportion with us, with which we have no common standard of measurement: the trillions of billions, the hazy dots shown by the electronic microscope in a cell, or all the same, the blurred dots being huge stars of the infinite, mean nothing to us, exactly like the hypocrite warnings of cancer and death on cigarette packs. Is this because the things smalled below our threshold or amplified huge – in proportions or in meaning – we do not grasp;

If this is so we have a narrow human window of perception and judgement with limited parameters in wavelength, amplitude, intensity and nature.

However we are the measure of all things we conceive.

Whether it be demographic and social change, shifts in economic power, technological breakthroughs or natural resource scarcities, climate change – the world, and those of us in it, need to be more adaptable than ever before.

Overwhelmed by the creativity of Artificial Intelligence, our governments do not protect us anymore, so that the risk is now our own business.

Reason has become asks references, with a hidden price of selective blindness and thus freedom diminished. It is easier to observe other people’s basic assumptions than yours.

If that which is not there is difficult to see, that which is obvious, plain and evident, is at times even harder to notice.

For instance:

Is it not blinding obvious that Twitter now holds unmitigated power when it comes to posting Donald Trump’s tweets.

Is it not bleeding obvious that Google wants to control all knowledge. Very few of us spending an instant to examine Google Fraud answers.

It is beyond the obvious that in a world that is getting more complex and multipolar each and every single day the truth does not cease to exist when it is ignored.

Not missing the things right under our nose is our last protection against danger, loss and disappointment; it grants our judgement to be sound and wise, with feet on ground.

You will agree though that the obvious is the very face of reality.

Take notice of the obvious and suddenly, instead of nodding sheepishly “This is how things are.” you gain the power to make choices which you and most people around you ignored before.

The obvious known, comes alive for us to do something about it only when understanding turns it into personal image, vivid and simple enough to be of our size; otherwise we stay paralysed and dumb.

If you are like me, we need to let people participate in democracy and get collective decisions that are reasonable.

I often think when it comes to politics and our governments that there are things that are so blinding obvious (when all the bullshit is set aside) to do.

For example to reform the European Union.

Is it not blinding obvious that we should stop the moving of the £130 million travelling circus that sees MEPs decamp once a month from Brussels to Strasbourg.

Why should we all be held to ransom by France. On Monday, about 1,000 politicians, officials and translators will make the same journey on two specially chartered trains hired at taxpayers’ expense. If France want it let them pay for it. “Its madness.” Just think how many better ways there are to spend this money.

It boggles my mind as to why we put up with it.

God only knows what the cost of Brixit will be.

There is no doubt that seething resentment over widening inequalities in the wake of the financial crisis played a big role in boosting the Brexit vote but it is also blinding obvious that England is now facing a major realignment that will need the EU market and the free movement of people to survive economically.

There is NO simple solution – if there was it would have been done by now.

How do you know a politician is being dishonest? He blames something on “special interests.” What is a special interest? Why, it is an interest opposed to the “general interest” or collective will. There ain’t no such thing.

That might not be possible. The challenge for me – and you – is to sort out which is which.

But this is not the purpose of this post, rather to examine the broader question.

I am also all too conscious that there are any number of people out there who have deeply held convictions about what’s right and what’s wrong. I may just be right about some things, I may be wrong about others.

In a world predominated by power of a more self-interest nature, has the obvious being consigned to the rubbish bin of politics.

Without having read and understood the instructions book of life, algorithms are switching on an immensely complicated machine.

Once injected into to the political system they can develop a life of their own.

Politics stems from human misbehaviour, which clashes with the terms of modern democratic belief systems in which all adults are assumed to be entitled to behave as they feel inclined, at least within the scope of their income and the constraints of public law and insofar as they refrain from damaging the opportunities of their fellow citizens to do likewise. Algorithms have none of these constraints.

” It is blinding obvious with the election of Donald Trump a man who revels in his own ignorance, racism and misogyny, that there is no single way of acting.”

Even if there was how would we set about determining what it is? Whom can we trust to do so?

Whom is to be judge? What is an advantage to one group of human beings and what is not to the advantage of another.

Until recent times politics and science usually managed to ignore each other.

Not any more:

Social Media which is riddled with algorithms are now blindly leading us down the road of Technological Inequality by turning the obvious into Fake News.

As a result politics appears where the main contours of collective and social life set the principal interests of groups of humans beings against one another.

Where they do not Conflict politics will not occur.

Social Media politics by Twitter will achieve conflict with a plum. Watch this Space.

So where does this leave us.

You would think that when something becomes blatantly obvious it would be common sense with no need for political input to enact or rectify it.

Isn’t that blindingly obvious to everyone except our politicians.

Contrary to popular belief, “the capacity to err is crucial to human cognition” and that “wrongness is a vital part of how we learn and change.” DONALD TRUMP’S LEGACY. Politicians and bureaucrats, naturally, don’t enjoy being criticised. But if the response is to shut out those who criticise then they are making their work even harder and setting themselves up for more criticism.

The view that to understand politics we first need to know what politics is has a certain immediate force. BUT WHAT IS NEEDED is something which reaches beyond the tribe and doesn’t rely on conventional party politics within the existing structures. Instead of “to me” we need to change it “to us”.

I know that people drown in stats and often put their fingers in their ears when it comes to the blinding obvious. The fact of the matter is that all wisdom does not, and never has, resided in government’s. Changes must be initiated with Indigenous people’s informed consent, in ways that resonate with their views of what is legitimate and in ways that gain their support.

This will not happen by coercion and imposition.

Consider this:

The most incontrovertible long-range social observation ever made? Was the Galilean carpenter Jesus’ comment that “The poor will be with you always”

Governments have had 222 years to get this right. On any evaluation, governments have fallen seriously short. Every indicator says government is not capable of solving this alone.

The words that feature prominently in Politic confronted with the squalor are appalling, dismal, neglect, waste.

Without comprehending the magnitude of different cultural outlooks – and without often understanding our own – we make it artificially difficult to create the kind of society we think we are as a nation – or the one we want to be.

It’s blatantly obvious that to solve the world’s problems we need a renewed reformed United Nations that is fully funded. (See previous Posts)

I do speak as someone who gives a damn, I don’t share is any thought that nothing can be done. “ Not bleeding hearts, just the bleeding obvious”

Or will we dare create something that people can point to and say “Now that’s what justice and decently looks like?” The answer, I am convinced, lies with us working – together – for humanity. And that, to me, is just “bleeding obvious”.

Let me conclude by being so bold as to suggest the “bleeding obvious”…..

I avoid the word “solutions” We’ve got to look to the future.”

All Technology must be vetted by a new World Organisation that is totally transparent to ensure that it complies to enhancing our lives, and that is has a source of responsibility.

We cannot have various visionaries tell us that the real world is not what we experience but the one they reveal and proclaim, so that we must follow them.

I invite government to let go of the idea of imposing universal solutions and support those programs that respect and honour the multiplicity of cultural differences.

The useless conclusion is that our senses and memories cheat us, our common sense is no good and our judgement false.

Science does almost the same in all good faith; it invites us not to believe our impressions and intuitive reasoning but to delegate all-knowing to its specialists, the knowers and witnesses of verified truth too-complicated- for- common- people- to-understand.

Knowing our history is part of being human.

What are the seeds our common humanity? What right and decent? And so I ask will our final words be tragic, like those Henry Dunant “Where has humanity gone?”

The passion and commitment of so many decent people out there is constantly being tested. Keeping up the energy and the enthusiasm is a constant battle and it shouldn’t be obvious.

Liberty is not about thinking or saying or doing whatever we want. It is about exercising our freedom in such a way as to make a difference in the world and make a difference for more than just ourselves.

That should be obvious to one in all.

All comments obviously welcome. All like clicks chucked in the Bin.

I am still pissed off.

We need Bottom up development. If Europe does not set social limits to competition then the market outcome will be exploitation of workers and not innovation. European social standards together with massive investment in skills are more than ever necessary.

The Syria crisis will only make things worse for Europe, which remains incapable of fixing its broken migration policy, and the chance for migration reform in the United States has faded away.

Globalisation-induced changes in the sharing of wealth in the world, combined with the demographic trends of the continents will soon generate new needs for regulation

All this is easy to say but what to do about it?

Detecting the obvious, the one which we do not notice any more, is a vital art of liberation; glimpses that can change the world.

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: IS TECHNOLOGY STRIPPING US OF LIVING A LIFE OF PURPOSE, LEAVING US WITH ON SUBSTANTIVE CONTENT.

22 Wednesday Feb 2017

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Artificial Intelligence., Big Data., Facebook, Google it., Google Knowledge., Humanity., Life., Scientific., Social Media., Technology, The Future, The Internet., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Organisations.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Artificial Intelligence., Big Data, Inequility, The Future of Mankind, THE UNITED NATIONS, Visions of the future.

( A Ten minute read, that challenges the reader to leave a comment.)

Something is profoundly wrong with the way we live today.

People’s characters, conceptions and behaviour are socially and culturally are being constructed by Data. We are living in a data explosion.

Like every period of significant rupture and change throughout history, the data-evolution we are witnessing is in urgent need of a stronger ethical and critical backbone.

Big Data is creating a new kind of digital divide: “the Big Data rich and the Big Data poor.” Inequality has become an essential part of the system that creates, stores and makes data accessible.

Tech giants like Google are creating what some call an “intellectual monopoly,” as universities’ best brains are hired to work with their exclusive access to privately harvested data to produce scientific results which are often not shared publically if they are profitable.

The Internet, has become an alternative space of consumption, production and social interaction. It is an increasingly influential space where the future divisions and similarities between people are being formed and the political and economic rules and structures that govern this space called Internet deserve our critical attention.

Ninety percent of data that exists in the world today was created in the past two years. This mass explosion of data – and our increasing reliance on it is creating a very disturbed place devoid of human life and filled with whirring fibre optic cables, servers and generators to convey the vastness of the web through binary code and pixels:

The majority of data which exists nowadays is made not by governments or scientific organisations but by ordinary citizens.

It’s the kind of information that most people share without a second thought, but when compiled in physical form, presents a surprisingly discernible narrative from hobbies and habits to musical tastes and conversations.

I am all for Technology but its impact on organisations and institutions will be profound.

Governments, armies, churches, universities, banks and companies all evolved to thrive in relatively murky epistemological environment, in which most knowledge was local, secrets were easily kept, and individuals were, if not blind, myopic.

When these organisations suddenly find themselves exposed to daylight, they quickly discover that they can no longer rely on old methods; they must respond to the new transparency or go extinct.

They are struggling to cope with transparency.

In my last post I asked the question – are we just becoming fodder for Artificial Intelligence, ie Data.

Don’t get me wrong, data is a treasure trove when it comes to health, predicting the climate, space, and the like. Community projects such as Open Street Map and Safecast‘s work to record radiation levels in Japan.

Big data’s impact on politics can also be beneficial such as Madrid City Council site, which acts as an open consultation platform where people can have their say on issues from bull fighting to transport proposals, something we’ll likely see a lot more of over the next few years.

We will see more and more live data streams on a map of the capital, showing Tweets, Instagram posts and TfL updates, while another by Future Cities Catapult asks users to make decisions about housing, energy, transport and building projects, and uses data modelling to predict the effects those decisions would have over the next 20 years.

Now I am no data mining scientist but it seems to me that the data world is not clear-cut, whilst a good data visualisation is worth a thousand words, it does not automatically follow that it tells the whole truth.

Machines are learning to recognize all sorts of patterns in the data at a scale and speed humans couldn’t possibly manage to do on their own. It’s not just data on its own, it’s data from a gigapixel imaging devices that can scan the whole body for indications of cancer, or data captured by sensors installed in self-driving cars about nearby objects and vehicles in motion that can eliminate sources of human error and make self-driving cars possible.

Whole industries are being disrupted by those who know how to tap the new potential of the right information in the right place at the right time.

The whole Big Data thing started with Google.

Some estimates put the total amount of data generated each day at 2.5 quintillion bytes!

While the massiveness of data boggles the mind with ease, the granularity of it is equally staggering when you consider the individual sources of the stuff.

The Large Hadron Collider at CERN generates about 30 Petabytes per year (as a result of 600 million collisions per second generating data in their detectors.

The Synoptic Survey Telescope generates 30 Terabytes of astronomical data per night.

In 2010 the list of largest databases in the world quotes the World Data Centre for Climate database as the largest in the world, at 220 Terabyte (possibly because of the additional 6 Petabyte of tapes they hold, albeit not directly accessible data). By the end of 2014, according to the Centre’s web site, the database size is close to 4 Petabyte (roughly 2 Petabytes of these are internal data).

Every interaction that every user has with any piece of technology produces more of it, and as people are becoming more comfortable using technology and more reliant on the information it provides, they want to use more of that data in simple and rewarding ways.

Although it may be logical to assume that we retain the power to control our digital privacy, like the bar-coded plastic membership cards that dangle from our key chains, our privacy is quickly slipping through our fingers.

As surveillance technologies shrink in cost and grow in sophistication, we are increasingly unaware of the vast, cumulative data we offer up.

Of course not many of us are concerned in an era when cellphone data, web searches, online transactions, and social-media commentary are actively gathered, logged, and cross-compared, we’ve seemingly surrendered to the inevitability of trade-offs in a digital future.

Mobile devices themselves are becoming the primary access point for information.

There is nothing new about this data digital culture, however significant changes are happening — some are obvious while others are below the surface. We’re only just starting to see how revolutionary big data can be, and as it truly takes off, we can expect even more changes on the horizon.

While digital natives are comfortable with technology, the question is: which technology, in which context?

There are now more mobile phones on Earth than there are people! And most of these phones have cameras. Yet Google Glass feels invasive because of its ability to record video.

As wearable technology is getting its toehold embedded technology, it’s not so much about the technology, but when, all of a sudden, things go from impossible (or immoral) to ubiquitous only a fraction of the world is going to benefit.

The fact is that when we all start to wear wearables, the intimacy level will be much higher that we cannot avoid considering how these devices literally change who we are and our bodily engagement with the world.

For example when one buys a Fitbit because they desire to be seen as fitness-conscious, just as much as they seek truth in quantification. Their exercise routine or daily walks are an act of designing a better self, so the device simply becomes part of that ecosystem.

A teleological view of human nature is inherently dynamic.

We know what things cost but have no idea what they are worth. We know longer ask of a judicial ruling or a legislative act: Is it good? Is it fair? Is it just? Is it right? Will it help to bring about a better society or a better world?

In the words of moral and political philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, this teleological view maps out the journey between “man-as-he happens-to-be” and “man-as-he-could-be-if-he realized-his-essential-nature.”

Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.

The inevitable price of the convenience of opting in is compromise.

The promise of big data cannot be segregated from this price.

Embracing the radical transparency at our threshold, many see a potentiality that far outweighs the threat—after all, what do we have to hide?

Yet, privacy is not secrecy—and while there are things we should be comfortable bearing, our dignity should not be one of them.

Whistleblower Edward Snowden said his biggest fear was that we “won’t be willing to take the risks necessary to stand up and fight to change things.”

Machines will win our hearts with every step they take in evolution. Undoubtedly, this is a co-evolution.

It’s a symbiotic relationship where we are becoming more and more enmeshed and less aware of the capacity of this evolving interconnection. It’s a compulsory affair built on convenience and reward.

Arguably, we are no more mindful of the bits and bytes that we tap, swipe, and key than we are of our own breathing.

The true heirs of this data are platforms like Facebook, Google, Microsoft and others that we have gifted seemingly insignificant data to—under the guise of “sharing.”

As more mobile devices enter the world, they generate more and more data that needs to be understood, analyzed, presented, and consumed.

There is already so much data stored in the world that we are running out of ways to quantify it.

Data is quickly becoming the primary content of the 21st century.

Humankind is able to store at least 295 exabytes of information. (Yes, that’s a number with 20 zeroes in it.)

For 30 years we have made a virtue out of the pursuit of material self-interest: Indeed, this pursuit now constitutes whatever remains of our sense of collective purpose.

The sense of living a life of purpose, meaning, sociality, and mutuality are disappearing. These scenes used to be the backbone to political questions, even if they invited no easy answers.

Modern economics focuses a lot on incentives, but not nearly enough on intrinsic motivation.

Samsung has just warned its customers that their smart televisions may be impinging their privacy.

Facebook is now a public entity. It claims to have upwards of 300 Petabyte of data in their (so-called) data warehouse;

Fortunately there is a series of mixed media installations that encourage visitors to think twice about the information they post online.

If you don’t want them to share your photos and information in your profile updates and statuses you need to issue the following statement. I declare that I have not given my permission to Facebook to use my photos or any information in my profile, my updates and my statuses.

Twitter has produced a millionaire buffoon as president of the USA.

Three examples of a big difference in perception and expectations.

Our lack of control over the data we upload serve as a chilling reminder of global governments’ power to use personal data without our consent, and the extreme lengths used to conceal surveillance programmes.

We must learn once again to pose questions of our governments by taking a fresh look at democracy.

The conversation, both national and world-wide, is terrifically out of balance, with near-total focus on what’s broken and how we should fix it, and so little focus on stories of attractive, desirable possibilities we might agree to work toward.

To tackle social problems in their entirety, organisations need to mount a collective approach. It is the role of statesmanship – always in short supply – to remind us of the enduring commonalities that we are forever in danger of overlooking.

We are currently opting into an unfathomable interdependency with an urgent need to re-evaluate our daily interactions with technology and their impact on the fidelity of our privacy.

What that ecosystem and the devices that inhabit it will look like 20, 10, or even five years from now is anyone’s guess and it’s not at all comfortable.

We need a more controlled understanding of Big Data before headgear and an apps allows users to control products using their brainwaves.

Data itself is of no value if it is just being stored and not converted into useful information or actionable insight.

As I have said in the last post the AI genie is out of the bottle with no way to get it back in. So, knowing what you know now, do you choose the red pill or the blue one?

Red for access to a digital divided world.

Blue for a digital world where all technology is vetted by an Independent totally transparent New World organisation. Called Click.

All comments welcome all like clicks chucked in the bin.

…

THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT THE RISE OF POPULISMS.

07 Tuesday Feb 2017

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Brexit., Donald Trump Presidency., European Union., Modern day life., Politics., Populism., Social Media., Technology, The world to day., Twitter, Unanswered Questions., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Community cohesion, European Union, Populism., The Future of Mankind

( A Popular Four minute read)

It is important to understand this topic since it is apparent that the consequences of the rise of populism continue to play out and they are likely to be profound.

Populist forces have already proven decisive for the outcome of the British referendum on membership in the European Union, and the election of Donald Trump as the President of the United States.

Populists support charismatic leaders, reflecting a deep mistrust of the ‘establishment’ and mainstream parties who are led nowadays by educated elites with progressive cultural views on moral issues.

Since about 1970, affluent Western societies have seen growing emphasis on post-materialist and self-expression values among the younger birth cohorts and the better educated strata of society.

This has brought rising emphasis on such issues as environmental protection, increased acceptance of gender and racial equality, and equal rights for the LGBT community.

In recent decades, however, in Western democracies the backlash against cultural change has become increasingly prominent. Throughout advanced industrial society, massive cultural changes have been occurring that seem shocking to those with traditional values.

Moreover, immigration flows, especially from lower-income countries, changed the ethnic makeup of advanced industrial societies.

The newcomers speak different languages and have different religions and lifestyles from those of the native population—reinforcing the impression that traditional norms and values are rapidly disappearing.

All of the above combined were reinforcing each other in part, with long-term processes of generational change during the late twentieth century have catalyzed culture wars, and these changes are particularly alarming to the less educated and older groups in Western countries.

It therefore would be a mistake to attribute the rise of populism directly to economic inequality alone. The rise of populist parties reflects, above all, a reaction against a wide range of rapid cultural changes that seem to be eroding the basic values and customs of Western societies.

On one hand this cultural shift has fostered greater approval of social tolerance of diverse lifestyles, religions, and cultures, multiculturalism, international cooperation, democratic governance, and protection of fundamental freedoms and human rights. Social movements reflecting these values have brought policies such as environmental protection, same-sex marriage, and gender equality in public life to the center of the political agenda, drawing attention away from the classic economic redistribution issues.

But the spread of progressive values has also stimulated a cultural backlash among people who feel threatened by this development.

Less educated and older citizens, especially white men, who were once the privileged majority culture in Western societies, resent being told that traditional values are ‘politically incorrect’ if they have come to feel that they are being marginalized within their own countries.

As I have said, as cultures have shifted, now a tipping point appears to have occurred with the election of Donald Trump who exploited this change as did the Brixit supporters.

Britain’s decision to withdraw from the EU threatens to reenergize populist forces across Europe with France next on the list with Madame Le Pen. Perhaps the most widely held view of mass support for populism is the economic insecurity perspective–emphasizes the consequences of profound changes transforming the workforce and society in post-industrial economies.

If the cultural backlash argument is essentially correct, then this has significant implications; the growing generational gap in Western societies is likely to heighten the salience of the cultural cleavage in party politics in future, irrespective of any improvements in the underlying economic conditions or any potential slowdown in globalization.

Alternatively, the cultural backlash thesis suggests that support can be explained as a retro reaction by once-predominant sectors of the population to progressive value change.

Populist leaders like Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen, Norbert Hoffer, Nigel Farage, and Geert Wilders are prominent today in many countries, altering established patterns of party competition in contemporary Western societies. The net result is that Western societies face more unpredictable contests, anti-establishment populist challenges to the legitimacy of liberal democracy, and potential disruptions to long-established patterns of party competition.

Education also proves significant, with populist parties winning greater support from the less educated sectors of the population.

Anti-immigrant attitudes, mistrust of global governance, mistrust of national governance, support for authoritarian values, and left-right ideological self-placement.

All cultural indicators that are significantly linked with populist voting and the coefficients. Not surprisingly, given populist xenophobic rhetoric, members of ethnic minorities are less inclined to support Populist parties.

In short, Populist support is greatest among the older generation, men, the less educated, ethnic majority populations, and the religious.

Given that populism does not appear to be waning in contemporary democracies let me ask these questions.

Under what circumstances are populist claims viewed as credible or not by their target audiences?

What accounts for temporal fluctuations in particular forms of populism within specific countries—and possibly across democracies in general?

Which groups are included in the category of the virtuous people and which elites (and associated groups) are vilified as morally suspect?

How is this classification process shaped by the broader political context (e.g., the position of the populist actors in the political field, the relative consolidation of political coalitions, the ability of mainstream actors to employ populist language)?

Populism which can be found on all sides of the political landscape is a thin-centered ideology. Driven by modern-day technology interlinkages of Smartphones, Social Media, Facebook, Twitter and the lack of long-term political aspirations it fill the void between the political space and the need for more equality in opportunity for all.

The burning question of today is, shall we drop all other reform issues and run to meet the populist with open arms? or is the Populist platform almost too absurd to merit serious discussion.

I fear not.

Remember that The National Socialist German Worker’s Party founded in Germany in 1919 and brought to power in 1933 under Adolf Hitler was a fascist populist party.

Call it what you want, Authoritarianism, Elitism, Nationalism, Populism, Trumpism it must never be allowed power on its own.

Trump’s rhetorical is unmoored from any sense of reality whatsoever and there is nothing he says than can be taken at face value.

It is intellectual dishonesty.

A better way to describe populism I think would be cosmopolitan socialists.

Its followers see see themselves in opposition to elites of all kinds with the main bone of contention being a system corrupted by economic elites.

All comments welcome, all like clicks chucked in the bin.

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: CAPITALISM’S IS DRIFTING TOWARDS A CULTURAL APOCALYPSE.

30 Monday Jan 2017

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Artificial Intelligence., Donald Trump Presidency., European Union., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Humanity., Life., Modern day life., Natural World Disasters, Our Common Values., Social Media., Sustaniability, Technology, The Future, The USA., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., United Nations, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Organisations., World Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Artificial Intelligence., Capitalism and Greed, Capitalism vs. the Climate., Community cohesion, Distribution of wealth, European Union, Globalization, Inequility, Technology, The Future of Mankind, THE UNITED NATIONS, Visions of the future.

( A two-minute follow-up read to the Post ” What is happening to what we call common values.)

Perhaps with the election of Donald Trump it has already happened.

Why?

Because capitalism has and still is creating an explosion in economic and geographic inequality which is now fueled by commercial Artificial Intelligence.

The tragedy is that our World leaders and World Organisations seem inapt to do anything about it.

The main lesson for European and the rest of the world is clear:

As a matter of urgency globalization must be fundamentally reorientated.

Trade agreements must be revisited to become a means in the service of higher ends.

They must include quantifying and binding measures to combat the digital fiscal and climate dumping.

They must have a prosecutor capable of enforcing what is agreed.

Its time to change the political discourse on globalization, trade is a good thing, but fair and sustainable development also demands public services, infrastructure, health and education. These demand fair taxation systems

If we fail to deliver these the ludicrous fantasy of Trumpism testosterone imperialism will win with the dignity of world leaders reduced to one’s shopping choices.

Here are a few other thought as to why:

Because: Globalisation it is being replaced in economic by Artificial Intelligence calculation to satisfy consumer demands.

Because: With Trump closing of the USA will change the domination of the capitalism globe. It will now exist for a Chinese Communist party that gives delocalised capitalist enterprise cheap labour to lower prices.

Because: Technology – along with its turbo economic disruption is causing what seems to me to be the hastening of both a cultural and environmental apocalypse.

Because: Digital consumerism makes us too passive to revolt or save the world. Humans have been transferred into desirable readily exchangeable commodities. Culture appears more monolithic than ever. Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, are now presiding over unprecedented monopolies.

Because: The Internet discourse has become tighter, more coercive.

Because: Human personality is being corrupted by false news creating false consciousness that there is hardly anything worth the name anymore.

Because: Common Values are scarcely signifies any more – than white skin, white teeth and freedom from odour and emotions.

Because: Popularising, is a failure of the US and the EU to democratise in an attempt to create a one-dimensional society.

Because: Social Media operates on an eternal feeding loop.

Because: Our world organisations are out of date.

Because: Trade agreements aren’t worth the paper they are written.

Because: If we destroy or Atmosphere , or Seas, or Fresh Water all for the sake of profit, there is little reason to believe in a Christian or Muslim God or for that matter any other Gods that will make a difference.

All comments appreciated. All likes clicks chucked in the bin.

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: WHAT ARE OR WILL BE THE HARD FACTS RE BRIXIT.

17 Tuesday Jan 2017

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in England EU Referendum IN or Out., England., European Union., Modern Day Democracy., Politics., Social Media., The New year 2017, Unanswered Questions.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Brexit., Britain., European Union

( A troubling seven minute read)

Since ancient times, philosophers have tried to devise systems to try to balance the strengths of majority rule against the need to ensure that informed parties get a larger say in critical decisions, not to mention that minority voices are heard.

The Brixit vote is a case in kind.

Originally the European Community was supposed to be a trade agreement to ease all the tariffs and taxes, lower the cost of goods and improve the efficiency of the European member’s economies. The British voted overwhelmingly voted yes by 67.2% (historic high) for this in 1975.

The real lunacy of the United Kingdom’s vote to leave the European Union was not that British leaders dared to ask their populace to weigh the benefits of membership against the immigration pressures it presents. Rather, it was the absurdly low bar for exit, requiring only a simple majority. Given voter turnout of 70%, this meant that the leave campaign won with only 36% of eligible voters backing it.

Does the vote have to be repeated after a year to be sure? No.

A parliamentary petition for a second referendum has attracted more than one million.

Does a majority in Parliament have to support Brexit? Apparently not.

Did the UK’s population really know what they were voting on?

Absolutely not. Indeed, no one has any idea of the consequences, both for the UK in the global trading system, or the effect on domestic political stability.

This isn’t democracy;

Mrs May’s phrase “Brexit means Brexit” has become a tired cliché.

What exactly, is a fair, democratic process for making irreversible, nation-defining decisions?

Is it really enough to get 52% to vote for breakup, in a country that has three devolved parliaments that voted to stay in.

The idea that somehow any decision reached anytime by majority rule is necessarily “democratic” is a perversion of the term.

Modern democracies have evolved systems of checks and balances to protect the interests of minorities and to avoid making uninformed decisions with catastrophic consequences. The greater and more lasting the decision, the higher the hurdles.

The current international standard for breaking up a country is arguably less demanding than a vote for lowering the drinking age.

What we do know is that, in practice, most countries require a “supermajority” for nation-defining decisions, not a mere 51%. There is no universal figure like 60%, but the general principle is that, at a bare minimum this would be the required percentage.

Brexit should have required, say, two popular votes spaced out over at least two years, followed by a 60% vote in the House of Commons.

In this way if Brexit still prevailed, at least we could know it was not just a one-time snapshot of a fragment of the population.

The current norm of simple majority rule is, as we have just seen on TV with her speech on what Britain wants in the upcoming negotiations is a formula for chaos.

I am afraid it is not going to be a pretty picture.

Talks on Britain’s political divorce from the EU and a possible free trade agreement are going to be complex, lengthy and difficult.

So difficult that there will be no agreement that will satisfy both sides.

You don’t have to blind and deaf to realize that The European Union is an economic and political union between 28 member countries that covers more than four million square kilometres. It spans countries with more than 508 million citizens, which means it has the third largest population in the world after China and India.

Turkey and the Balkan states of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Albania are now the next in line to join the EU. In addition, Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina have also been promised the prospect of joining when they are ready to. Turkey, alone would add an additional 75 million EU citizens.

The new unelected Prime Minister Theresa May plans to trigger Article 50 – the step that starts the timer on two years of Brexit talks – by the end of March 2017.

Britain, I believe, had the best of all possible deals with the European Union, being a member of the common market without belonging to the euro and having secured a number of other opt-outs from EU rules. And yet that was not enough to stop the United Kingdom’s electorate from voting to leave. Why?

There is no doubt many in England feel the EU is a “bureaucratic monstrosity”, But what exactly do they mean by this? But most of these relate to the terms of UK membership of the Single European Market, where standardisation is needed to ensure a level playing field for trading nations.

None of these, it seems to me, are reasons to go to war with Europe, and deny the benefits of the single market which has undoubtedly boosted prosperity. Trade within Europe has doubled since 1992, thanks to the abolition of tariffs and barriers to the free movement of goods and services in Europe.

What has changed?

European Union (EU) has remained at heart undemocratic, protectionist, centralist and over-bureaucratic. The EU launched a single currency and the organization now acts as a parliament passing regulations and laws while maintaining an overblown and expensive bureaucracy.

Simply put, unless there was uniformity across all member countries, the aspiration of a single currency and economy, could never hope to be realised.

Here are some hard facts:

On the day of Brexit, the Great Repeal Bill will come into force and end the supremacy of EU law over Britain’s own legislation.

SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon has raised the prospect of a second Scottish independence referendum because most Scots voted to remain in the EU.

Spain’s Government has also called for joint control of Gibraltar and Sinn Fein has demanded a vote to unite Ireland and Northern Ireland.

There is ongoing uncertainty over what will happen once Britain leaves the EU because it has to make new trade agreements with the rest of the world. Under EU rules the UK cannot negotiate a trade deal until after it leaves the bloc.

The Brexit vote has led to higher import costs but was good news for exporters who had struggled with the high value of the pound.

Now Britain has voted to leave the EU, it will no longer have to contribute billions of pounds a year towards the European Union’s budget.

Britain is now free to take back control of its borders in order to curb immigration and increase security. The UK will no longer have to accept ‘free movement of people’ from Europe if this country leaves the EU’s single market.

Companies based in the UK may decide to relocate if they can no longer access the single market.

Eurosceptic populist parties across the Continent have delightedly seized on Brexit in an attempt to further their own campaigns for independence.

Scare tactics and rumours will intensify from both sides and it will be hard to find clarity.

As a result Brexit negotiations will be made more difficult because EU bosses will want to discourage other countries from following suit.

It looks just as likely Scotland Wales and Norther Ireland that voted to stay could find themselves out of the EU by staying in the UK.

The EU has said that Britain will have to allow the free movement of EU workers if it decides to stay in the internal market. Mrs May looks set to take Britain out of the EU’s single market in order to end the free movement of EU workers that goes with it.

There will be a saving ( depending on which contribution figures you believe of about £136m a week. This equates to less than 40% of the amount splashed on the battlebus.

You may rest assured no matter what way these negotiations go they will be very expensive (both politically and economically) and they will “mostly amount to hot air”, rather than concrete plans for the future of the European Union or the United Kingdom’s.

“Whatever the UK vote is in the end , we must take long hard look on the future of the European Union.

The election of Donald Trump as the next US President means that Britain is now at the “front of the queue” for an US trade deal. If you believe that

May also said that “no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain.”

Making threats to the rest of Europe and cozying up to Trump (I hope she wears a cricket box for that first meeting).

It’s the sheer arrogance of the current government to say it’s all about taking back control of our borders and laws.’

Having her cake and eating it. Not on your nanny.

There will be what the EU want and you can bet your life they have their demands.

And if she isn’t going to have her own way – and for the ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’ yeah – try to get those FTA’s if they know you’ll walk out of them when your toys thrown out of the pram – that means anything she signs isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.

Ignoring the fact that, schools and hospitals struggling with budget cuts , a pound worth 20% less than it was in June 2016 and a Scotland that would appear to be now set yet again on the road to independence.

I think the cleaner the break the better.

Change hurts and change is happening at a faster rate than ever before.

In effect you are being sold down the river. Your lives have now been designated as “negotiation capital”. Britannia does not rule the waves.

	bobdillon33@gmail.co… on THE BEADY EYE PUTS: A SPOTLIGH…
	TheWordPolice on THE BEADY EYE PUTS: A SPOTLIGH…
	Bob on THE BEADY EYE ASKS: WHAT WILL…
	Hasheef on THE BEADY EYE SAYS: TO ENGLAND…
	migarium on THE BEADY EYE SAYS: ARTIFICIAL…

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: