Rating Social Media for Government Surveillance

Rating Social Media for Potential Government Surveillance.

When using a rating system for surveillance on social media, I think that the bigger it is, the more it will get scrutinized. After looking over some stats on the most popular social media and communication platforms, the biggest players are up in the billions of active monthly users. So I'll group the highest-use services from around 800 million to 3+ billion active monthly users, the top ten if you will. The rest of the top 50 ranging from around 100 million to 700 million monthly active users. Everything below that is likely less monitored or even ignored IMO.

Link to WiKi List

Now, I'm not discounting that some AI programs are out there crawling every inch of the internet to flag things that are below the 100 million-user threshold. However, that would take a lot of time and bandwidth on their systems, so I suspect that they use certain criteria as a cutoff point to avoid using up their resources for small fry nobodies. I believe that high active membership is near the top of the criteria in their monitoring programs.

This is a rough sketch of an idea that I'm tossing out there to see what others will add. I would add that conservative values along with a host of other domestic terrorist red flag words are being used in their AI programming, but that seems like some overly deep analysis to do on some platform with less than 100 million members. I'm just wondering if this idea has any merit, that the smaller the membership, the less interest from "them".

I am fairly certain that conservative politics will be red-flagged for further scrutiny while progressive liberal socialist types will get filtered out. My point is that some will be flagged as enemies and others as friends, so there will probably be some that somehow remain neutral or get filtered out some other way. The way they vote or if they vote at all will certainly play into who gets put under the spotlight.

a reply to: TheMichiganSwampBuck

The NSA (and the other "Five Eyes" agencies, as well) most likely use "key word/key phrase"-based AI scans to highlight internet (and other electronic) communications, as opposed to highest traffic/popularity to select surveillance targets.


In fact, if a version of what a former colleague explained to me as the "Sweet Fluffy Kittens" theory applies to internet surveillance as it seems to apply to military logistics naming routines, those sites with Less traffic are more likely to be the most closely monitored.


"Sweet Fluffy Kittens" refers to the contrary methodology often used by the military to devise names for their contract programs, wherein the more ominous the program name sounds, the more innocuous the actual program; hence "Sweet Fluffy Kittens" could have a high probability of being a true "Doomsday Device".


Remember, pre-9/11, did not the terrorists refer to the World Trade Center, their target, as "the birthday cake"?


The Government's scanners look not just for certain words, but for "word-groups"; especially when those groups are repeated in unusual contexts.

a reply to: Mantiss2021

Then, based on your post, big or small, all the social media gets probed for flag words and phrases. Hiding in a crowd in not an option and there is no hiding in smaller groups as all electronic communications are monitored by AI. There is no place online to turn to for social media that is not scrutinized by some government, group, or organization.

Is that what you are suggesting?

I'm sure they'd like us to believe that, but I have to assume that there is a limit to what they can handle. Like DDOS attacks, systems can get overwhelmed with too much data. Of course, I'm probably just trying to find a silver lining in the clouds, clutching at straws, trying to justify the use of any size or type of social media as "safe" from government monitoring.

a reply to: Mantiss2021

Reminds me of the way politicians name bills.

"Patriot Act" - totally unamerican.
"Inflation Reduction Act" - designed to spend many billions of dollars we don't have, forcing the government to beg for more from the Fed.


Pretty much every "act" congress passed during the Obama era had a fluffy kitten name with sinister intentions

We'rejust now learning about the potentialcapabilitiesofAI.I suspect,like allpast technology, the government hasalready perfected AI way beyond what we're beginning to realize it can accomplish.

Everything going on now-financial oversight, digital control,government/media/bgbusinesspartnerships, etc. is just casually tying up loose ends. TPTB already have their ducks in a row, but as long as tunnel vision enmgulfs the masses with one issue at a time nobody sees the big picture.

I think I can hear the fat lady clearing her throat.....

originally posted by: TheMichiganSwampBuck
a reply to: Mantiss2021

Then, based on your post, big or small, all the social media gets probed for flag words and phrases. Hiding in a crowd in not an option and there is no hiding in smaller groups as all electronic communications are monitored by AI. There is no place online to turn to for social media that is not scrutinized by some government, group, or organization.

Is that what you are suggesting?

I'm sure they'd like us to believe that, but I have to assume that there is a limit to what they can handle. Like DDOS attacks, systems can get overwhelmed with too much data. Of course, I'm probably just trying to find a silver lining in the clouds, clutching at straws, trying to justify the use of any size or type of social media as "safe" from government monitoring.

Yes.


And you know what they say when you "assume"!



If "they" want you, they can always find a way to "get" you. You can try to be "unwantable", but you may find it boring.

Or, go ahead and accept that they will come for you...and plan for it.



Revolutions may come and go, but Evolution is unstoppable.


You can do more from the inside than you could ever hope to accomplish from the outside.

Will domestic agencies use FISA warrants?

Foreign agencies don't need anything do they?

The recent exposures still haven't gotten any big court cases have they?

originally posted by: Mantiss2021

originally posted by: TheMichiganSwampBuck
a reply to: Mantiss2021

Then, based on your post, big or small, all the social media gets probed for flag words and phrases. Hiding in a crowd in not an option and there is no hiding in smaller groups as all electronic communications are monitored by AI. There is no place online to turn to for social media that is not scrutinized by some government, group, or organization.

Is that what you are suggesting?

I'm sure they'd like us to believe that, but I have to assume that there is a limit to what they can handle. Like DDOS attacks, systems can get overwhelmed with too much data. Of course, I'm probably just trying to find a silver lining in the clouds, clutching at straws, trying to justify the use of any size or type of social media as "safe" from government monitoring.

Yes.


And you know what they say when you "assume"!



If "they" want you, they can always find a way to "get" you. You can try to be "unwantable", but you may find it boring.

Or, go ahead and accept that they will come for you...and plan for it.



Revolutions may come and go, but Evolution is unstoppable.


You can do more from the inside than you could ever hope to accomplish from the outside.

No safe haven for the free flow of ideas then, at least with the internet and digital communication. Or do you have some system for rating the privacy and anonymity of a given platform?

a reply to: TheMichiganSwampBuck

Since all electronic communications share the same infrastructure (hardwire landlines, fiber optic and wire internet networks, radio EM bandwidths, satellite communications), there is no "safe haven" shielded from "official" snooping.


Therefore, consider well what you wish to say......Then say it!


If you are to be damned for your beliefs, then at least have the self-respect to stand behind those beliefs.

originally posted by: Mantiss2021
a reply to: TheMichiganSwampBuck

Since all electronic communications share the same infrastructure (hardwire landlines, fiber optic and wire internet networks, radio EM bandwidths, satellite communications), there is no "safe haven" shielded from "official" snooping.


Therefore, consider well what you wish to say......Then say it!


If you are to be damned for your beliefs, then at least have the self-respect to stand behind those beliefs.

You seem to be implying that I don't have self-respect or want to "stand behind" my words on social media. I hope that "you" and "your" aren't personally directed at me, but include all the readers of this thread. Otherwise, I suggest that you choose your words more wisely on social media and not because Big Brother is watching with his all-seeing eye.

I appreciate Mantiss's stance, be a man and have the nads to voice your true opinions regardless of the "officials", but this is a brash approach. I'm looking at social media from a "gray man" perspective. What Mantiss proposes puts you straight in the crosshairs, I think this is preposterous and gets me riled up. I noticed he never posted on my last comments, "silence is golden".

originally posted by: TheMichiganSwampBuck
Rating Social Media for Potential Government Surveillance.

When using a rating system for surveillance on social media, I think that the bigger it is, the more it will get scrutinized. After looking over some stats on the most popular social media and communication platforms, the biggest players are up in the billions of active monthly users. So I'll group the highest-use services from around 800 million to 3+ billion active monthly users, the top ten if you will. The rest of the top 50 ranging from around 100 million to 700 million monthly active users. Everything below that is likely less monitored or even ignored IMO.

Link to WiKi List

Now, I'm not discounting that some AI programs are out there crawling every inch of the internet to flag things that are below the 100 million-user threshold. However, that would take a lot of time and bandwidth on their systems, so I suspect that they use certain criteria as a cutoff point to avoid using up their resources for small fry nobodies. I believe that high active membership is near the top of the criteria in their monitoring programs.

This is a rough sketch of an idea that I'm tossing out there to see what others will add. I would add that conservative values along with a host of other domestic terrorist red flag words are being used in their AI programming, but that seems like some overly deep analysis to do on some platform with less than 100 million members. I'm just wondering if this idea has any merit, that the smaller the membership, the less interest from "them".

Every type of social media is under government surveillance. That's nothing new but it's difficult to have absolute control of what is happening or even relative control. Thankfully the internet is a place with plenty of anarchy and disorder.

a reply to: TheMichiganSwampBuck

Part of the issue that is difficult to assess is how comp'd the system admins and moderators of a given platform may be. If they've become agents for any interested party, then there is zero protection from surveillance on that platform.

Cheers

originally posted by: TheMichiganSwampBuck
I appreciate Mantiss's stance, be a man and have the nads to voice your true opinions regardless of the "officials", but this is a brash approach. I'm looking at social media from a "gray man" perspective. What Mantiss proposes puts you straight in the crosshairs, I think this is preposterous and gets me riled up. I noticed he never posted on my last comments, "silence is golden".

"Real Life" often keeps us from our other pursuits.


My lack of previous response was due, largely, to more pressing matters.


Neither my initial, nor my follow-up response were meant as "personal"; I was responding to the topic of OP, not to any poster, individually. "You" in the collective, as opposed to "you" the individual sense.

That you interpreted my posting as (possibly?) directedat you, specifically is entirely upon you.

The fact that I have to make this clarification speaks to the on-going failure and risk of "social media" far greater than any "official surveillance" by Government; the near certainty of miscommunication, disinformation, and the real animosity that can (and will) result from same.


(On a related note: AI only poses as a potential threat to human safety if/when humans fail to exercise the same wariness of AI-produced information than they use, routinely, to scrutinize their human information exchanges)


To the topic of the OP, if you(we) are to be too afraid, or even just concerned, that the "Authorities" might take notice/offense with what is posted, such that we(you) risk sanction or "punishment" of some sort, there are but two options:


Self-censoring, in which case the objectives, real or imagined, of the "Powers That Be" are realized without any effort, or cost, on their part.


Or "Speak the Truth, and May the Devil be Damned!"

a reply to: Mantiss2021

Thanks for coming back to reply, after six days I figured you moved on.

You posted . . .

To the topic of the OP, if you(we) are to be too afraid, or even just concerned, that the "Authorities" might take notice/offense with what is posted, such that we(you) risk sanction or "punishment" of some sort, there are but two options: Self-censoring, in which case the objectives, real or imagined, of the "Powers That Be" are realized without any effort, or cost, on their part. Or "Speak the Truth, and May the Devil be Damned!"

I agree with your response here and you have made yourself quite clear, but I disagree that these are the only two options. I also believe that in today's digital world, you don't need to be on social media and say something to be set up by those in control. Deep fakes are one example, but a whole fake internet history can be manufactured around your digital identity.

But forget all that for the moment and think about a method, any method that could foil their scrutiny. I could think of a few ways but I won't go into a lot of what I have in mind, not on ATS at any rate.

If we were to get back entirely on topic, I believe you are giving a poor privacy rating for all social media, I'm I correct? That you believe that the snooping is so pervasive that all social media gets a low score for privacy from the alphabet gang? That there is no way around this and to just man up where free speech is concerned?

I like the discussion, but all I was really looking for was a rating system for social media platforms. I bet there are some out there already with a scoring system of poor, fair, good, and excellent regarding privacy and free speech. I believe I will search for that and see if I can find what I seek.

ETA: Here are some good links to articles on this subject . . .

The best social networks for private people

Free Speech on Social Media: The Complete Guide

originally posted by: TheMichiganSwampBuck
a reply to: Mantiss2021

But forget all that for the moment and think about a method, any method that could foil their scrutiny. I could think of a few ways but I won't go into a lot of what I have in mind, not on ATS at any rate.

If we were to get back entirely on topic, I believe you are giving a poor privacy rating for all social media, I'm I correct? That you believe that the snooping is so pervasive that all social media gets a low score for privacy from the alphabet gang? That there is no way around this and to just man up where free speech is concerned?

Given the technology available to the interested authorities both publicly known and unknown, and the multiple resources available to them,

No, I do not believe, realistically, that there is any form of electronically-based communication that would be usefully secure from "snooping".


To illustrate this point, consider; the National Security Agency (NSA) is virtually a direct outgrowth of Bell Telephone & Telegraph, home of Bell Laboratory, and which became AT&T. The internet itself is the result of work and development sponsored by DARPA.


"They" developed virtually all the fundamental technology one would use to try to "hide" from "them".


To stay "under the radar", the only mostly reliable methods to use would be those that do not rely on electronics of any kind.


Maybe invest in "Single-use" encryption pads?

a reply to: TheMichiganSwampBuck

But how does one know if those rating sites are on the level ? Hard to tell from the other end of a network connection.

Cheers

a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

I know what you mean. When I found the linked articles above, many others went on and on about how private social media like Facebook and X (Twitter) were when you used their privacy settings. Also, I found numerous articles about "alternative" social media with the most free speech like Gab and the now-extinct Parler. Some mentioned privacy, but it was off-the-wall customizable social media platforms that are not openly public. There is one based on neighborhoods within a given radius that is super strict concerning membership that looked interesting. Still, who might be watching you on these platforms?

Also, I'm surprised no one has mentioned VPNs yet. Mantiss2021 did mention encryption pads, my thanks for that tip.