What is more damaging in the long run..... the Coronavirus or Facebook censoring its users?

The current environment will open up opportunities for leaders, corporations and individuals to oush through hidden agenda..In plain sight, yet not seem. CAUTION ADVISED.

Where the virus came from and why it happened when it did, is so far an unanswered question.  At this stage however, those sorts of questions are secondary.  The focus has to be on what is happening now and ensuring the pandemic protocols are being adhered to whilst at the same time, flexible enough to allow for unexpected events.There seems to be a consensus in the medical world that this was not a result of any advanced bioweapon designed at the bio level super laboratory in Wuhan.   Without the facts, it is simply speculation. What has been concerning is witnessing how different sections of the hugely influential social media are dealing with this.  In an age of ever-increasing mistrust, especially from the younger generation and their view of Government, social media companies including Facebook take on board a social responsibility, albeit unaccountable. 

 

The amount of false information spreading across social-media platforms has prompted several companies such as Facebook, to limit the reach of such posts. In a statement, Facebook said it would only allow users to display "accurate information" and notify users if they are suspected of sharing false or misleading information.  Hmmm.  Here’s the problem and it starts with the word “accurate”.  What is accurate?  Who defines accurate and where is the evidence that it is …..accurate?  Facebook it seems.  There was a time when the rights of the media to investigate and the freedom to voice opinion was considered pivotal in a healthy democracy.  Indeed, in the US it is enshrined in the Consitution.b  That said, it is no great leap to suggest that, there has always been some degree of friction between the Press and the Government.  The question arising out of Facebook’s response is, are we now seeing the social media denying its own users  the right to voice their concerns?  It is true we have had media manipulation for donkey's years so it would also be safe to say that there have been an almost incalculable number of untruths told.  However, let's not get distracted here. Censoring what the readers of those newspapers would be allowed to say to other readers is another thing entirely.  If we were to compare the social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook as modern day digitised manifestations of a walk down the high street or a chat in a local bar, then supressing what can be said because Mr Zuckerberg et al think it is an untruth is not a million miles away from the book burning times.  A somewhat extreme example maybe, but one that could nonetheless spread through the dangerous roots of this particular deadly nightshade.  It needs to be nipped in the bud much sooner, but who has a) got the balls, and b) the less to lose?  On the upside, if history has taught us anything....a good usurping is always good for business all round and those ivory towers might not be as safe as some people think. So if private corporations have to learn their place and we need to see an equilibrium restored...then so be it..  IF, and it s a big if, the power transference from Governments to Social Media companies (and less not beat around the bush, we are talking about Facebook), was in large part down to a “plausible deniability” shift from Government to private corporations after the Snowden mass surveillance discoveries.  Facebook, or shall we call it the “US Government Information Ministry” picked up the baton when the NSA had the worlds spotlight on it.  Allegedly of course.  This is not substantiated with any evidence, just acute cynicism and a penchant for common sense. 

 

Admittedly the notion of Government using private firms to assist in a whole manor of government projects is by no means a new phenomenon, in times gone by, the companies we were talking about tended to be Military contractors or IT firms carrying our work for Government, CIA, NSA etc.  That is not new.  Using the same model to incorporate social media companies, which do not supply tanks or weapons but data, is a new phenomenon and without question far more dangerous.  A tip tap of our QWERTY friend can cause a country severe hardship...just ask the Czechs and Estonians.  SO when Facebook says it will monitor accounts to highlight and deter those users spreading messages they feel are not “accurate”, it is a BIG problem, and when the Coronavirus has fizzled out, the precedent will already have been set, and who knows where this worrying type of censorship will end?  Hmmm…that reminds me.  I must remember to look up the definition of ‘megalomaniac’ to familiarise myself.  One must be prepared nes pas? More

Intelligence Reports

14 April 2020

After AI comes Quantum AI...and then what?

When Google's Sycamore effectively moved us to the next step in AI it will become one of those defining moments...but how will Quantum Artificial Intelligence affect the Intelligence World?

21 March 2020

Neurodiversity & ASD within the Secret Intelligence Services

Some have gone as far as to say that the 'diverse' represent the next step in the evolutionary process.  Maybe.  But, ignore the Neurodiverse at your peril!

12 May 2020

A Government Department of Virus Safety

A Government run, uniform and credible safety certificate to be used across the board, would benefit UK business greatly.

Wuhan conspiracy theories aside, diplomatic traction is the reward.

 

A week or two ago we wrote an article "Conspiracies & Ripples" which focused primarily on conspiracy theories and kicked off with the rather obvious statement that a conspiracy theory is simply a theory without the facts i.e. just a theory.  Within that we highlighted that ‘flavour of the month’ theorist’s delight, the origins of the Coronavirus and its links to Wuhan.  This echoed our views published in February which, as many did, ponder the chances of this remote coincidence maybe actually being true.  Since then there have been swathes of articles on the topic citing all sort of sources and from numerous ‘renowned’ scientists.  We have also recently had the opinions offered by those whose opinions really count, that this virus originating from the labs in Wuhan may not actually be so far-fetched after all.

We do tend to agree, or at least we did.  That was then and this is now and in the world of Politics things move quickly and one does have to look at the reality of the situation.  If there is enough fog between you and your destination, then sometimes the route you take can change, leaving you all sorts of options.  If the objective was originally to circumnavigate through uncertain waters to establish who, what, why and when the virus came about – then that is now lost in the fog.  It is arbitrary.  Now we have something that is far more concrete and tangible to use to our advantage – we have uncertainty.  We now have enough debate and conspiracy to render the findings of the scientists open to interpretation.  And that… is a diplomat’s dream come true.   This particular carcass will feed many and although the WHO will go in, on the ground, and no doubt find yet more uncertainty…it really is irrelevant.  You will certainly not find individual government’s chomping at the bit to send their representatives into Wuhan anytime soon, and even if they did, why?  Wuhan is not some sleepy suburb in leafy Northamptonshire… it is in China.  Whatever was there has long gone, if indeed it was ever even there.  So perhaps it would be wise to assume that at least for the next few decades this is a conspiracy that will never find out those salient facts. 

Now, listening to the scientists, there is an overwhelming urge to say, “shush now”.  Step back ladies and gentlemen and look at the bigger picture at play.  Nobody is actually interested whether or not the virus started in Wuhan, intentionally or not.  As long as it is open to debate, it is far more valuable.  The scientists have debated at length and argued, but there is still no unequivocal proof either way that satisfies all parties…and why could that be?  Scientific fact is not open to debate or questioning, that is a given.  However, to say Science is correct, is not true.  That is because Science has Scientists, and Scientists are human beings who in turn are fallible and motivated by many many other factors.  In China for example, one might say that scientific fact is exactly what they want it to be.  Indeed, who is to say it ends in China.

 

So why is uncertainty such a blessing in this case?  It provides an additional bargaining chip and a weapon in the armoury for all Governments to now use against the Chinese.  Maybe on the other side of the fence their own initial conspiracy theory that a foreign Government (the US) planted the virus in their midst, is being written about in their own press.  Or maybe not. The fact is it is a safe bet to assume that no body will ever know.  There will be no compensations or admissions of guilt in this case sadly…however the capillaceous network that is politics, diplomacy and economic negotiations will be the real beneficiaries.

Disclaimer

The secretintelligenceservice.co.uk (Secret Intelligence Services) website is available for your personal use and viewing. Access and use by you of this site constitutes acceptance by you of these Terms and Conditions that take effect from the date of first use. You agree to use this website only for lawful purposes, and in a manner that does not infringe the rights of, or restrict or inhibit the use and enjoyment of this site, by any other third party.​ Please read the Terms and Conditions and GDPR & Privacy Policy carefully before using the Site as they affect your rights and liabilities under the law. If you do not agree to these Terms and Conditions please do not register for or use the Site or coninue to use it as continued use will be an indication of your agreement to our Terms and Conditions.  In these Terms and Conditions and in our Privacy Policy "we ", "us" and "our" means by secretintelligenceservice.co.uk (SISS) and "you" means the individual who is using the Site.  Any questions concerning our use of Company or Government logos and graphics which are publicly accessible, please refer to our policy on 'Fair Use' as defined in UK Copyright Law, specifically  Sections 29 and 30 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 and our acknowledgement of sources.  The Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) otherwise known as MI6 works secretly overseas, developing foreign contacts and sources of intelligence to make the UK a more prosperous and safer place. It works worldwide to counter terrorism, resolve international conflict and help stop the spread of nuclear and other non-conventional weapons.  Secret Intelligence Services (the 'SIte') is concerned with Information Collection and Analysis of UK and Foreign Secret Intelligence Organisations. Our goal is to identify historical facts, news and  innovation about Intelligence in general although our focus is primarily on UK and Western Organisations.  Secret Intelligence Services (the 'site') is not connected to any Government Organisation calling itself a Secret Intelligence Service.  Please take the time to read our terms and conditions.