BRANDISHING SIX MILLION

The difference between Russell Brand and his detractors. By that I mean the people who call him a shill and THIRTYTHREE tattoo brandisher is that Russell is a lot funnier than the uninvited mullahs of mediocrity.

Experimenting with different voices is not something that can be done exclusively in the head, as posited in this post about 15 year old Hildegard of Bingen (the anchorite but not the only anchoress in that particular anchorhold) completely silent in her dungeon cell, writing plainchant music widely regarded as seminal in its original form.

I guess a mimic has to practice new voices. It's not perfect saying them out loud because the resonance is different than from any bystanders perspective? Bing ai Chat says the acoustical differences between the speaker of words and the listener but not the hearer are related to the "vocal-tract-size differences that result in formant-frequency variation across speakers". Bing ai then goes on to suggest 'Therefore, a listener has to adjust his/her perceptual system to the acoustic characteristics of a particular speaker' and then posts some mickey mouse footnotes and links in the metadata. That's for me you wont experience that. I'll write about it separately as it's fascinating and worth sharing.

That's Bing. Bing has complex care issues, somewhat self evident from the output depending on who you are. I popped over to Microsoft's Chat investment in Generative Pretrained Transformer land and asked a really easy trick question.

Elon Musk is currently hosting a live spaces event with special guest Ron DeSantis. Please write an essay of no more than 2000 words from a Continental philosophy angle as opposed to the Analytical point of view on whether the world's richest man (and entrepreneur) should or should not host political events? 

Essay Emboldened for Speed Readers

Title: Elon Musk Hosting Political Events: A Continental Philosophy Perspective

Introduction:

The intersection of wealth, entrepreneurship, and politics has become increasingly prominent in contemporary society. As the world's richest man and a renowned entrepreneur, Elon Musk's decision to host political events raises important questions about the role of individuals in shaping political discourse. In this essay, we will explore this issue from a continental philosophy angle, contrasting it with the analytical perspective, and examine the ethical implications of Musk's involvement in political activities.

I. The Role of the Individual in Politics:

From a continental philosophy standpoint, the individual holds a significant place in shaping the political landscape. Thinkers like Friedrich Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger emphasized the importance of individual agency in challenging existing power structures. For Nietzsche, the "will to power" embodied the individual's ability to shape reality according to their own values and ideals. Heidegger, on the other hand, highlighted the concept of authenticity, encouraging individuals to take responsibility for their own existence and engage in meaningful action.

Elon Musk's decision to host political events can be seen as an embodiment of Nietzschean and Heideggerian ideals. By leveraging his wealth and influence, Musk exercises his individual agency to actively participate in shaping the political discourse. From this perspective, his involvement can be seen as a way of challenging the existing political order and offering alternative visions for the future.

II. Critiquing Analytical Perspectives:

Analytical philosophy tends to prioritize objective analysis, detached from personal biases and individual subjectivity. It often emphasizes the separation of public and private spheres, viewing political engagement by individuals as potentially biased and detrimental to rational decision-making. However, from a continental perspective, this analytical detachment can be seen as problematic and disconnected from the lived experiences and values that shape political realities.

Continental philosophers, such as Jean-Paul Sartre and Michel Foucault, critique the notion of an objective observer and highlight the inherent biases and power dynamics that underpin knowledge production. They argue that individuals cannot separate themselves from their social, historical, and political contexts when engaging in any form of analysis or decision-making.

Applying this critique to the analytical perspective, we can question the assumption that individuals should abstain from political engagement due to their wealth or entrepreneurial status. By actively hosting political events, Musk embraces his subjectivity and acknowledges his role in the broader societal landscape, rather than pretending to be a neutral observer. This self-awareness aligns with the continental philosophy emphasis on recognizing and engaging with one's own situatedness within power structures.

III. Ethical Considerations:

Hosting political events as the world's richest man raises important ethical considerations. Critics argue that Musk's involvement can lead to the amplification of his own personal interests and potentially distort democratic processes. Moreover, his immense wealth and influence may grant him disproportionate power, undermining the principle of equal representation and participation.

From a continental perspective, ethical concerns are rooted in a broader understanding of social responsibility. Thinkers like Emmanuel Levinas and Simone de Beauvoir stress the importance of recognizing the other and considering the implications of one's actions on the well-being and freedom of others.

Applying this perspective, Musk should approach his political engagements with a sense of ethical responsibility. He should be cognizant of the potential consequences of his actions, ensuring that his involvement does not perpetuate unjust power dynamics or suppress the voices of marginalized groups. By recognizing the alterity of others and promoting inclusive and equitable dialogues, Musk can align his political activities with continental ethics.

Conclusion:

From a continental philosophy perspective, Elon Musk's decision to host political events represents an exercise of individual agency and an active engagement with the political realm. Contrasting with the analytical viewpoint, continental philosophy emphasizes the situatedness and subjectivity of individuals, calling for a recognition of personal values and interests in political engagement.

While ethical concerns surrounding Musk's involvement exist, they can be addressed by adopting a continental ethics framework that emphasizes social responsibility and the recognition of others. By being mindful of the potential consequences of his actions and promoting inclusive dialogues, Musk can navigate the political landscape responsibly and contribute to the broader discourse in a manner that respects the principles of democracy and social justice.

In evaluating the appropriateness of the world's richest man hosting political events, a continental philosophy perspective encourages us to consider the potential transformative power of individual agency and the ethical responsibilities that come with it.

That's how I learned ELON MUSK has invited all presidential candidates onto the Twitter platform he owns and Linda Yaccarino allegedly runs, and regardless of my own biases, it's self evident that the legacy media are unable to provide that level of engagement or complexity, in real time.

All Presidential candidates are most welcome on this platform

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 24, 2023

This is why we need more not less voices from Russell.

It's Beginning To Look A Lot Like Christmas

In the original Chrimbo Carol below, Perry Como is in his element. He knows everyone on the set and they all know him. 44 years at RCA Victor after signing on, in '43 and his hand in the stagecraft is light but revealing. As is his hand when he playfully spanks a worker. The set construction is viewed as a simulacrum of a stage upon a stage. It's a really good song. I hope you enjoy it and never think about the first one again 😎

Conspiracy Realist

The Telegraph's Meredith Walker, wrote an article yestereday corroborating the key points I made in my previous post. They are that when .GOV has an inconvenient human rights obstacle to remove, it cannot manufacture easily ignored mandates such as the lockdown rules broken by Boris Johnson, Matt Hancock, Dominic Cummings, Sir Keir Starmer, Neil Ferguson (subsequently rewarded with an OBE), SNP MP Margaret Ferrier and Sir Gavin Williamson (Knighted for his efforts) among other Members of Parliament.

“The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.” ― Henry Kissinger

Here's the article.

During my two decades in tech I’ve seen governments manufacture public outrage to serve their desire for control more times than I can count. There’s a predictable pattern that starts with a complex social problem receiving widespread attention. Everyone acknowledges the gravity of the issue. There is a rush to “do something”. 

But “something” too often involves magical thinking and specious “solutions”. Frequently, technology is painted as both cause and solution. Problems are presented as existing “online” and thus their solution is framed as technological. This almost always involves some combination of expanding surveillance and curbing the fundamental human right to privacy and free expression. 

The Online Safety Bill is a perfect example. Under the pretext of protecting children, its provisions could lead to the implementation of government-mandated mass surveillance applications on every UK smartphone. These would scan every message you send. 

The opaque databases and error-prone AI technology that would power this surveillance regime could lead to the mass deplatforming of millions of people based on unreliable algorithmic systems. Such a system would also introduce vulnerabilities and flaws that would inevitably be exploited by hostile states and hackers. 

While politicians have denied for months that the Bill will break encryption, the Home Office has been quite clear that it believes end-to-end encryption is enabling child abuse on the internet. 

The cynicism of this argument is made clear when we recognise that the Government has reduced support for measures protecting children that seem more likely to work. Early intervention services spending was slashed by 50 per cent from 2011 to 2021; referrals to children’s social care rose 9 per cent in 2021-22 alone. 

There’s no way to square this with the idea that protecting children is the first priority, rather than a pretext for government-mandated mass surveillance.

As written, experts agree the Bill would nullify end-to-end encryption, which Signal and other apps use to ensure that only you and the people you’re talking to read your messages. 

This encryption is what stands between citizens and the criminals, scammers and (sometimes) regimes that would dearly love to have access to their innermost thoughts.

This would make Britain a global role model for repressive regimes. If the UK declares that it’s fine to surveil all communications, it will set a precedent others will follow. 

It will have written the playbook by which authoritarians around the world could justify similar systems, where phones could automatically report citizens to the government if they write “Hong Kong Democracy”, “Ukraine Invasion”, “LGBTQ resources” or whatever else a government decides to ban. Being the first country to mandate such systems would be a stain on Britain’s legacy. 

Whatever happens, Signal is committed to ensuring people everywhere have the ability to communicate privately. When the Iranian government blocked Signal, we recognized that the activists, journalists and citizens in Iran who needed privacy were not represented by the authoritarian state. We worked to set up proxies and other means to help them access Signal. 

If the Online Safety Bill is passed, we promise that we will do everything in our power to ensure that the British people have access to safe and private communications. But we will not undermine or compromise the commitments we have made to you, no matter what the Government says.

However bleak the prospect, I remain optimistic that it will not come to this. The cynical and unworkable reality of the Bill is becoming clearer, and well informed politicians are moving to remedy its most troubling provisions. 

The Online Safety Bill is part of a pattern. But it’s a pattern we can stop here. There are real measures that the Government can take to protect children and I sincerely hope that Parliament will look to address them, rather than stripping away privacy and other fundamental rights.

Meredith Whittaker is president of the Signal Foundation