Current Affairs

This article was in reply to an argument about the control of information and how that information could be secured and the parameters determining how information could be held safely. The conference was during the pandemic and held in Berlin, it was chaired by a German aid worker in Ethiopia, who was having problems securing the information held by the organisation, but during the conference other arguments were brought up and questions concerning platforms and the dissemination of information became part of the conversation.

Germans need structures, they want structures and have to have structures that make sense. The concept that the cyber argument can be structured challenges the argument of the creation of the elements that make up the cyber world and how it acts and works. Structurally building an argument determined by the Geneva convention is a wonderful argument, especially when so much military argument today is structured by military dependence on over the horizon targeting, but the reality is that the Geneva convention already covers this argument under the specifics of international responsibility and culpability. So the argument that maybe it is a question of whether the structures that do matter cover corporate culpability, because a lot of the arguments determining the building and outsourcing of elements of the cyber world to corporate entities, means that that executable culpability is beyond the composition that covers legal responsibility, and as such is beyond the rules that govern the Geneva Convention.

The problem lies in whether this argument itself is determined by the way that governments do business and whether the argument is that rogue elements are beyond corporate malfeasance and that those elements determine outcomes beyond the democratic argument. But in reality the argument has always been beyond conventional argument, and where do you place the blame for these actors who are beyond the control of state structures. The complexity of the debate is whether the argument conforms to understanding who and what determines responsible argument and whether the forum that determines an outcome, is itself capable of understanding whether these outsourced entities are ethically determined by arguments within the rules and structures that have sufficed for the past seventy years.

Is the Geneva Convention outdated and out manoeuvred by the elements that make up today’s world, the answer is no, because the basic structures determining outcomes are and will always be determined by conventional and international legal argument. The problem like anything else in this world is the enforcement of the rules that determine outcomes and whether, state, corporate or rogue actors are responsible for an action, and whether these actors are acting beyond ethical standards that underpin the structures determining the agreements that the states are signatory to.

Like everything, there are structures in place that determine whether the state is a central element to an argument and whether it has oversight of the actions of its entities, that would argue that they have been sanctioned or resourced in such a way that has empowered their argument. Whether the state takes action is another argument. But the concept that the state takes no responsibility for these actions, whether sanctioned or rogue, challenges whether the argument has been resourced privately, publicly or illegally.  

There have already been actions whereby actors have cut off power supplies, frozen structures, placed bots, hacked software companies and created chaos across nations. But this itself is nothing new; there are those that are driving around in Ferraris and Lamborghini s today, who have held state, private and other structures up through implanting ransom ware into systems. The problem is that the law exists internationally, it already determines the criminality of the arguments determining these sort of outcomes, but it is also the failure of state actors to enforce the laws that govern these arguments, and in failure to govern the argument and failure to enforce the argument determines the state as culpable, and as such responsible for the acts committed.

You can argue that the state does not have oversight of the actions determining the criminality of the acts taken internationally, but in the sense that failure to prosecute when the evidence has been presented, means these actors have used structures within a state, and even though the state argues that these actors are beyond state control, means that the state clearly sanctions the actions of these actors.

There is an argument that the digital footprint needs to be enhanced, and as such structures determining the classification of the user of any structure within the cyber world. There is an argument that accountability itself can be determined through the introduction of arguments that structurally the identity of the user can be recognised by what is described as an emblem that delineates whether the user is military, civilian or even an NGO, but this argument itself is undone by the reality that identity is transferable on the determinants raison d’etre. The moral compass and high jinks of the past where Presidents, such as Nixon, burgled the filing cabinet of his opposition was a daring and highly illegal argument that challenged the democratic principles of a nation, no longer exist. Yes, a digital footprint would leave a trail, but today it is immaterial, because the world is dependent on the argument that a filing cabinet can be stored on a digital platform that has been hooked up to a server that the world can see. It is not locked in an office, it does not take a torch and three men falling over chairs to find what they have come to look for, it takes milliseconds to open the cabinet and download its contents. You could argue that the world has changed, but in reality it has become more distrustful and accepting that knowledge is the essence of arguments determining outcomes. But the reality is that the cabinet is protected by levels of cyber security determined by conventional arguments that the cabinet itself needs to be protected, and the contents are secured. That is not necessarily true, the safety of the cabinet is now dependent on a number of arguments and the most powerful of these is, what is in it? Would a digital footprint with an emblem identify the thief, not really, it would just add to the confusion of why they are interested in the cabinet in the first place.

As said the Germans need structure, they need structures to exist to delineate difference, but the the manipulation of these structures is the essence of those determined to circumvent the ethical arguments determining an outcome. The structures deciding the cyber world do not exist in the sense that you cannot pin down a singular concept, it is a moving living argument determined by elements creating, building and manoeuvring through an encyclopaedia that starts at A and ends with the word infinity, because those within the structure are continually developing arguments that will in time transform our understanding of an outcome and if we are unlucky, manipulate how we see the world.

Responsible governance of data is a singular factor that is fascinating the world at this time. In Germany it was the Gutenberg press that changed how the world gained an understanding and inspiration of all things relating to god. The monopoly among the priests on how to interpret the bible was challenged and other forms of arguments and interpretations challenged the structures that managed and manufactured the faithfuls understanding of the world, and this in turn created other arguments that culminated in wars, new ideas, publication of scientific arguments and new religions.

Should the creator of the Gutenberg press be held accountable for the dissemination of arguments by others. That is where we are today, questioning whether the creator of the internet and the knowledge gained, is responsible for the madness in some of the circles that are publishing material. What are the ethical arguments determining outcomes that are untrue and how do we interpret whether their is a causal argument that can be challenged within structures that are of national interest. The engineer who created and designed an object is not necessarily responsible for its bastardisation, but when a platform argues that it does not take responsibility for material published under its umbrella, then you have to question whether a person handing a weapon to another knowing that it has the potential to cause death is culpable.

The argument whether a platform is responsible for arguments determining an outcome is dependent on whether you believe it should be managed or not. But if a publisher created a piece of paper that demanded an argument that led to harm or challenged the structures of government, then you have to question the ethicacy of some of these arguments. There is an argument that all material has resonance, for instance the publication of Marx and Engels changed the world and created other avenues of thinking that could be construed as underpinning the way that the world has changed to counter their arguments. But there are other arguments that challenge your understanding of how we see the world, and the bastardisation of these arguments has led to arguments that have not only burnt books, but have also endangered lives through unproven or downright theoretically dangerous unverified precedents.

So is the inventor of the Gutenberg Press, the Claxon or any other printing press guilty of creating the material disseminated because of the arguments that have been printed on them. No, but those who have been held responsible are the authors and publishers, which then challenges the reader of the material as to whether this material has been produced under the guidance of the publisher. That is where we are today, questioning whether the designer of a platform is a publisher, and whether they as a publisher are responsible for the material that has been created on their platform, and as such are representative of the ideas and arguments that have been disseminated to the world on their platform.

But is it the publisher who is responsible for the arguments that are emanating across their platform, or is there another argument that challenges how the argument has come onto their domain. There are arguments that the publisher is powerless to act, because the network or platform that they have created is so large, however there are other arguments that challenge the publisher and how an argument comes to be hosted, when there is no editorial control. That is where the problem lies, the argument about whether the publisher has editorial control and as such is responsible for the mad mutterings of the author who has been published. There are all sorts of arguments that are constructed and disseminated right across these platforms, but it is the way that these arguments are categorised within a algorithm, and it is this algorithm, which creates the dissemination of these arguments. But the reality is that the so called interest group that has been categorised, challenges the perception of how an article will be interpreted within this categorisation.

But this argument is as old as the hills and newspaper publishers, book publishers and media outlets have been grappling with this argument for as long as there have been books, Newspapers, media outlets or any other sourced material vendors. It is the argument of censorship and whether the dissemination of material does or can challenge the governance of a nation and also whether the publisher should be a moral arbitrator, and an arbitrator for the resonance of political or any other argument. So it could be argued that a published argument itself challenges the perception of how we view the freedom to publish arguments, which are entertained within a global argument, and as such are representative of the arguments and outcomes of its authors internationally.

But it is the argument of the manipulation of these platforms by politicians and national movements that is testing the ability of the platform host to challenge and undo some of the arguments that cause harm, increase racial difference and are downright dangerous. The control and determination of politicians to create a medium that reflects their own party’s point of view or argument challenges the editorial integrity of the platform, and in certain circumstances means that the platform is coerced through its streams of revenue to accept the arguments of a political class determined to capture and challenge the editorial integrity of the platform.

The question is what do you do, how do you build an argument into a algorithm that can undo contentions that divides arguments into violent racial, religious or political categories, when the laws that govern a nation are circumvented by the governing edicts that threaten and challenge the independence of a platform to continue independently, within a market that has been politically charged and is coercive.

A good point of argument is to question whether the radio station that directed the slaughter of Tutsi’s in Rwanda could be held responsible. You could argue that a failure to act and control the editorial integrity because of commercial priorities, challenges whether there is any culpability that can be directed to the editorial, management and ownership of the platform. So if that platform has become integrated into the arguments that challenges the wellbeing of the population, by those who have been directed by that platform to murder, then you could question the integrity of those representative of the platform and sanction them through arguments within an international judicial setting, because of a failure to control the editorial content disseminated by that platform.

You could argue that the platform was not designed to be manipulated for these purposes, but in reality precedents have been set and arguments within International law have considered these precedents, ruled on them and placed judgement on those that have disseminated material that has caused harm. But you are left with the argument concerning the software or algorithm that has enhanced the political arguments that have caused harm, then you must question the ethicacy of a platform remaining in that market.        

Vinay Sitapati, writing in Foreign Affairs, dated 24^th November 2021, argues that Face book is facing this dilemma in India. He argues that it is not so much problems with the algorithm but society itself. In this article he questions the make up, demographics, literary attainment, knowledge attainment, ethnic and dominant political culture that challenges Face Book (or Meta) to do business in India. He looks at the manipulation of the platform not only by a political class but also a religious class determined to incite, deliver arguments but also to manipulate the medium to impose its arguments, by threatening and ultimately challenging Face Books (Meta) editorial arguments and ability to arbitrate and deliver a platform that is an impartial entity, in a highly charged society.

The real arbiters in any case are the Indian Courts, but the inability of the legal profession to move swiftly and underpin constitutional argument, defend the independence of Face Book or in this case any other media outlet determined to keep their independence, is antiquated in the sense that political argument and the media outlets that are affected by the manipulation of these platforms by a political class, means the legal profession is to slow to be seen as being able to convene an opinion, that could clarify Face Books or any other media editorial independence, its drive for impartiality and integrity in this market.

All the platforms have faced this dilemma in China, do these media platforms continue to do business in a system that is politically dominant or do they leave the market. Unfortunately, the answer is that they have been forced to coerce to the political elites edicts, until they can no longer manage their platforms because of censorship imposed by the dominant political culture and have been forced to leave the market, because they are unable to retain their independence and act as a guarantor to impartial and independent content. In much the same way as the political classes in India have underpinned their determination to impose their dominant ideology and manipulate the political landscape to their own ends.

Rana Ayyub, in an interview with Stephen Sackur, argues that the incitement by the ruling party to manipulate the media, incite violence, divide communities through their ethnic make-up and publicize, target and challenge the veracity of a journalists work by using these independent platforms, is a point of capture. It captures the illegality of the ruling elites determination to amplify their dominance of the political landscape through intimidation, inciting ethnic and religious dominance of one culture or political argument over another. Rana Ayyub believes that these platforms provide the evidence to prosecute those inciting violence, to impose their will on the independent media and arguments that challenge their political dominance. Essentially, she argues for the veracity of these platforms and not arbitrate, edit or act against the dominating forces, as the dominating political elites determination to impose its own arguments, will in time be challenged judicially.

Charles Manson and his group of followers believed in the ascendancy of their ideology, he argued that they were containing idolatry and believed that through murdering Sharon Tate and others, they could publicize their own demonic vision of the world. The iconography of his actions and arguments, are not much removed from the minority arguments of those who have used a platform to publicise an argument, which has been intellectually challenged in the belief that an opposing argument would lead to an open discussion and create a forum for debate. Rather than contain an argument in a political or intellectual forum, the same people who have created the public discussion have used the platform to intimidate, threaten and pursue a course of action that unnerves and instils fear, not just in politicians and authors, but also anyone challenging the veracity of their arguments. They have used the forum to pursue, and discourage open debate that opposes their contentious arguments with threats of violence, not only against the author or politicians who have countered their argument, but also family members.

The question has to be what are the consequences within an open democratic society where threats and intimidation challenge open discussion on the forums where debate can take place freely. The concept that a minority interest group is unable to be part of an open and intellectual discussion, because of their inability to bring clarity to their own arguments, and inability to debate the contentions determining these arguments,  challenges the essence of a forums ability to build a debatable outcome. The veracity of the minority interest groups claims is mostly underpinned by their inability to prove their argument intellectually, and it is the failure of a society determined by political expedience that this inability to circumvent a publicity machine, which enhances an ideological imperative determined by fear of open discussion, dismantles the premiss of a discussion or argument, because of the fear associated with extreme reaction by the minority argument. It does not matter what someone believes, you are dealing with a human being, someone with an argument, an avenue of thought that is freely argued within a free thinking ideologically open nation, that believes in debate. But the poison determining the aggressive aptitude of a minority argument that is unable to contain their own extreme reaction to a debate or discussion that is open, challenges the veracity of a platform to hold an open discussion without threats or intimidation.

Terminology determining these arguments have been categorised as hate speech and tactics to cower have been termed by the argument of going to someone’s property and reveal their home address (doxxing). Because the debate is politically charged and the failure to argue within the boundaries determined by intellectual reason discards arguments that are publicly charged, and the failure of those that are accountable to encourage an open debate, challenges the sanctity of their own political judgement. 

This expedience determined by a political class who have been castrated from political argument that is screwed under the mantra that this topic is undebatable, when a debate rages across internet platforms, challenges whether democratic argument is being undone by its inability to explore concepts and arguments that are destroying the lives of those who challenge and openly debate these arguments.

The concept that these arguments cannot be debated challenges the resonance of how an argument is approached, and the fear among those who have refused to cow tow and openly debate their concerns and arguments, will ultimately provide a direction and understanding, is being challenged by an argument that those most threatening, loudest and unreasonable, will win without the subject being debated. Katheleen Stock, argued against a concept and expressed her concerns, she gave reason behind her beliefs and opened up the possibility that a counter argument would be forth coming, which it did not. Instead, there was hatred and demi-god like absolute, determined by a minority argument that challenged her position as a lecturer and intellectual, she failed to give resonance to an argument that is politically feared, because of pressure groups that have no democratic foundations and an inability to make their argument in an open forum without bullying or threatening.

Are we talking about censoring the unpalatable, are we arguing that inconsistencies in arguments have to be judged and are these platforms responsible for the determinants that challenge the essence of debate. This idea that who shouts most will be heard and their arguments will ultimately be installed without a democratic mandate. Are we talking about slowing down these platforms and censoring arguments, because censorship is the ultimate tool that destroys the voices of the most oppressed and delineates their arguments into a byte sized waste bin. Are we talking about ideas that are mandated by a higher authority dominating these platforms or is there an opportunity to place arguments in an open forum and create debates that are not determined by an argument that this is not debatable and cannot be openly discussed, without an aggressive response and hate campaigns orchestrated by a pressure group without democratic foundations.

The veracity of these platforms is because they inform, create and clarify when there isn’t any argument and bring to the fore contentions that realise a truthful explanation of events that are in the public forum. A charged argument that was being brought into parliament by the Justice Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab, was recognised by the Secret Barister as contentious because it challenged judicial independent thought and understanding of sentencing. Though the Secret Barrister had sympathy for the widow and family of PC Harper, the political argument had become charged by an emotional argument, that did not recognise the structures determining how a sentencing was carried out. But it is the failure of the politician to debate an argument fully, which has led to an explanation that was missing in the first place and provided clarity on how an argument underpinned by an emotional reaction challenges the elements that determine an honest appraisal of a judicial outcome.  

Is there such a thing as an honest approach, that is where we are today, wondering whether the lies and arguments that have led to questions surrounding events are being clarified by an open discussion. It is one voice against many others, but the outcome can be devastating. The debate in America centres on the murmurings of QAnon, a group that believes the world has been subjected to a conspiracy, a conspiracy that determines an outlook that is controlled by wealth and power centred among a select few who control the media. The argument can be recognised by the storming of Congress and the anger of those rioting who believed the American election had been manipulated. It did not help that the incumbent President challenged the election result, challenged the veracity of the electoral process and whether any of the results could underpin an electoral system that the rioters believed was corrupt. The argument was central to the noticeboards that informed the rioters that the media were manipulating the electoral process. Twitter and Meta expelled the President, but at the same time it was their platforms who were hosting the conspiracy arguments. Elements of social media placed arguments of corruption as a singular argument, but that is when the question of whether the platforms were responsible for the content and if it was a key issue to the rioters actions and culpability for the messages that were swamping these noticeboards.

The reaction of the rioters was very similar to Rwanda, it dehumanised those sitting in the Congress as nothing other than stooges, voices representing a system that was inherently in the hands of other forces. But it was the make-up of a system reliant on social media that empowered an argument that led to the riots and the demonisation of those voting the next President in. The conspiracy theorists had been captured by the platforms and the data sets has been used by a judicial system that has been left reeling at the power these platforms have for disseminating arguments that challenges the apparatus of the state.  

As much as it is platforms remit to publish information, it is the data sets that move activists towards a set of parameters that isolate and challenge their understanding of an argument. The assertion of Trump that the election had been stolen was difficult to challenge, as the media fed on the argument put forward by Trump when rallying the absurd. But it was the danger of assertions spreading throughout the population that created the absurdity of a data set that fed on arguments that were so dangerous to the fundamental principles of democracy. But it is the question of how these data sets are created that has led to the elements that are challenged by assertions, which creates other arguments about how information is disseminated. You can argue that platforms are responsible, especially as they create the mathematics that moves an argument towards an outcome that is getting broader and more focussed toward an outcome that could challenge state apparatus.

Interpretation is a key question that historians struggle with and it is through different interpretations that analysis of key events come into the historical canon. The concept that you can analyse anything in such a way can challenge a life or many lives through that interpretation. A book title, actually led to a fatwa being passed on the life of an author, which thirty years later led to his stabbing. An article led to the cutting up of a journalist in a consul in Istanbul, but this is nothing knew, heretics have been burned at the stake, books have been burnt and the dissemination of material has led to death sentences, exile and imprisonment, even in the 21^st Century. Each culture fights its own corner, they place arguments of gender, political expedience and religious virtuosity as elements that are central to a the states moral parameters, but like anything each action has been predetermined and the argument has been distinguished by elements of state apparatus that underpin assertions placed within a cultures political, religious and ethical parameters.