As I explained in this post about the rape which took place against me, I took the rapists phone number. At the time of the rape, I did not have a Facebook profile. I had had one briefly prior perhaps in 2008, but I deleted the account as I didn’t enjoy using it. It would be in 2017/18 when I would set up a new profile again.
I don’t know if Facebook requested a phone number or anything like that when setting up a profile or if it just used the email address, my email being linked to my smart phone. I know people could provide as many details as they like, such as education history or work history. These weren’t things I participated in when I had my profile. I have always generally enjoyed my anonymity. I am not one for masses of attention.
I had been looking through the ‘recommended friends’ or ‘suggested friends’ lists and it was surprising the people who would come up. I had spent a good portion of my life moving around so for Facebook to suggest certain people was almost spooky. Some of the people I didn’t recognise their name or face.
I had been using Facebook for a few months and once again I was finding it was a site which didn’t really suit my preferences and with that I was ready to delete my account again. I took a side glance at the suggested friends, and I had noticed one particular photo was of someone who I didn’t recognise with a foreign name which I was unable to pinpoint where such a name might come from.
I clicked on the name and still unsure who this person might be, I looked at the photos. And with that, I suddenly saw the man who had raped me. There were photos of him wearing the clothes he had been wearing that fateful night I came across him. Immediately I called the detective on my case and sent him the link to the profile I had just come across.
The detective then contacted me asking why this man was on my Facebook. I was trying to explain, he wasn’t on my Facebook because I had added him, but rather because he was suggested as a contact. This was not only difficult for myself to get my head around but also for the detective to get his head around it and later the judges would be questioning it.
Facebook, and what its algorithms brought my attention to is obviously beyond my control. I am not an algorithm and as I had to explain to the judges who were finding this to be highly suspicious, I don’t write algorithms, I don’t know how they work and I don’t know how they find their information. However I did mention how Facebook had been accused of gathering private data in the Post-election scandal with the Facebook scandal.
The detective was able to contact the rapist. He had added his email to his profile and the UK police contacted him. When contacted, he admitted he remembered me, he admitted he entered my home, he admitted sexual intercourse but not rape. The police warned him that if he ever returns to the UK, he will be arrested and questioned for a sexual assault.
The police told me, and I agree, that he likely will never come here again now. In fact, he will likely never leave his country India again. I again agree that is likely the case, especially with the fake pandemic, the need for injections so as to travel to some countries and the way the world is headed into environmental extremism, that this rapist will likely never leave India again.
Data Gathering, the Good and the Bad
Clearly, from my own experience there can be good which comes from this data gathering. Of course, this rapist will never face trial, not now. But he does know that police are aware of him and his assault. Maybe, just maybe that might ensure he thinks twice about raping a woman or child in his own country in India. I hope so.
There is always a good and bad argument for these developments. As a holder of cryptocurrency, I am certainly not opposed to technological developments either. I see both the good and bad within it. But I want to focus on data gathering, which of course, blockchain will aid in.
Of course it has always been argued that data gathering will help in the aiding of locating criminals. And that is a great thing I believe. Especially for brutal crimes such as assault and murder. My concern however, is that the definition of what a crime is being extended into meaning hurty words and victims of crimes are now including those who have been offended by such hurty words.
With the definition of a crime being extended to such vague, broad meanings whereby now anyone can be a criminal under such circumstances, then this data gathering clearly will bring about very negative results within society as a whole. But this is why I argue, that if we do have hate speech laws, they have been created, they are vague and broad and appear to be used against the plebs who don’t tow the line, remember, they can be used against law makers and celebrities too.
Everything they have created has backfired on them. The printing press allowed for a differing perspective to be introduced into society on a mass scale. Similarly this is the case with the radio and now the internet. That brought about even more information to the population in a far more cost effective manner. This would enable those who were open to such ideas of truth to learn at a faster and cheaper pace than that of what the printing press allowed for.
With the internet, it provided masses of evidence to prove the Satanic nature of those in world leading positions. And it became more evident to a far larger audience then the printing press was able to achieve, but they certainly led the information war and scepticism. Certainly, this must be frightening for them who are conspiring and corrupting these systems. The harsh changes within the law suggest so.
However, they still hold powerful positions which the police, courts and even the population are scared of either reporting, investigating or judging on. Of course, if we use these laws and apply them to the law makers, as we are all equal under the law, then we may see they repeal such laws. Clearly, we have seen how insulting and bullying they have become.
I don’t agree with such laws. I think they are repulsive and have only been created so as to enforce their ideology and to shutdown criticism as ‘hate speech’, but as with everything, they can be used against them. The only problem in this is that we have to trust the police would act and investigate the ‘hate speech’ non crime allegation of such a powerful person as they would with us, the plebs.
Within a blockchain type digital currency system, there could be repercussions, financially if people report crimes on those who are in power, possibly for those who go on to investigate such a report. We are seeing doctors gat sacked for not towing the CONVID line.This is especially so if police are on a continuing path of failing within their role and following corrupt procedures instead, as we have seen particularly through lockdown and their own abuse of power.
However, what if the decisions are as it seems to be in the future to be based on algorithm, which is how this data gathering makes decisions? We the people could continue to pursue those who create and press for such laws and we do so via the courts, or perhaps we write about our experiences as I am here. And as algorithms and blockchain learn to understand images as well as voice and text, could it change the way the algorithm works? Will it eventually work for us the people? What I mean is will it see right from wrong? It has been programmed to right? So will it distinguish the corrupt and conspirators as the criminals?
Is this something that has already been considered by those in power? Is this what they are nervous of? Is this why are they enforcing such laws now? To get us into a learned behaviour as they successfully achieved with CONVID rules and requirements? Are these laws as a war on speech so as to ensure few people complain when moved over to the blockchain? And if so, is that because it could threaten how the algorithm would work in their favour?
I have often considered that the reason they want to move the masses off the internet is because there is too much incriminating evidence against them there now. While the masses are still asleep, the-powers-that-be could easily send them over to a fresh slate, the blockchain, which is linked to a social credit score, and therefore the peoples finances. There, TPTB have the masses learn not to speak ill of the authorities, threaten them financially and then create the responses as they desire, rather than based on fact and law. The masses remain ignorant, blind and vulnerable.
Clearly, algorithms are written up by people. People hold belief systems. And those belief systems can be discriminatory, even when those holding those beliefs claim they believe in equality, there will always be bias. Will there become a point when the algorithm overrules the human creator? I think there could be, but only if we pursue these people and make written records and data against those conspirators on the blockchain. Overload the algorithm with data. My very reason for writing up my experience as I do.
And because the conspirators are as reliant on this technology as we are, if the algorithm were to eventually turn on the corrupt law makers having gathered masses amount of data, then would such a technology reveal the location of the conspirators to us, in the same way Facebook revealed the rapist to me and the detective tracked him down to his location? Could or would an algorithm become a whistleblower? We know the internet and the printing press managed it to a certain degree.
It is of course always a possibility. However, it is a possibility of the future, not the present and how far into this possible future are we willing to go along with the corruption in the meantime? I do see blockchain as a blessing. I do see a potential to even things out, not just from a wealth perspective, but I also believe it has the potential to in the end, provide justice based on the forced uptake and use of it through the masses.
It would be hard for a small group of corrupt, evil conspirators to justify their many crimes against humanity if there are more texts, voices and eventually videos (data) added to the blockchain which prove their evil doings. The internet has proved that, hence why they need to move to a new type of internet. To remove ‘the bugs/glitches’. The blockchain is like a young child, the people continue playing the role of the people uncomfortably going along with the rules, failures and corruption despite knowing there is something very wrong.
The blockchain could be the child in the street that points out the emperor wears no clothes. In the way the internet brought attention to those who cared regarding this vast corruption, it could be the blockchain that makes it glaringly obvious. How could celebrities flying in private jets explain their green social credit to the plebs who can't afford their bicycle road tax? It seems to me that regardless of how we feel about it, the-powers-that-be are dead set in bringing this blockchain to the entire world.
This might turn out to be the greatest mistake they ever made. All that is required is courage from the mass population. If there really is a depopulation program taking place, maybe, just maybe they are removing the cowards who turn a blind eye to threats, coecion and blackmail. And while it may take time and real short-term punishment over a few years on our side, is it unreasonable to think the blockchain may help in the final fight against this corruption? Will it apply their own rules where police would otherwise be fearful and remove their wealth?
Maybe. It will still remain a numbers game. And in that case, we still hold the numbers.
Love and peace