About DMS&UY

.

Properly, references to ‘exceptions’ merely denote the limits of the scope being applied; each exception tends to be a regular element in a pattern that’s yet to be apprehended or appreciated.

.

To think about data, one must think beyond data.

•       •       •

I thinks it's proper to think of this 10-entry series—to be posted soon if not all there—as my 'marketing' campaign. Of course, it has none of the hallmarks of a regular one.

I'm me.

The direction that DMS&UY is now set to take and, hopefully, is able to maintain, is far different than the one that had been loosely planned for it, its 'true' aim still an unformulated thought thrown together but not yet had when I'd re-launched the site in 2020, at the height of lockdowns. But it's also the same goal I'd naturally assumed was to be though I still hadn't seen the path I was to pave, but now I did and do and I'm sure about the it as well as how to go about it, and that part's way different.

I could lie and tell you all that I thought I had lost my way after only a few months in but that I then found and followed footprints in the sand... Yes, those 'footprints'. That way, perhaps the focus on facts and data I offer won't scare away the Evangelicals, since, after all, closing off a moneyed market should only be done for real good reasons, which, by the way, includes any that involves catering to lying, manipulative, shameless, Holocaust-exploiting Zionists, becau—oh, hold on there... [mumbling] Evangelical... Israel... uh, Washington... [/mumbling] You know what? I did see footprints and I did follow them; they led to a man who'd fallen by the side of the road. He looked like someone badly in need of help; desperately thirsty. He said his name was Yaweh Weinstein from the Bobinsky-Yahu tribe of Jerusalem. I pretended I didn't see or hear him, and kept on my merry way, humming happily... 

That's certainly not how I would act, ever, but that is how I feel.

And it's the side effect of many who feel this way—despite how nobly they'd act if faced with such a situation—that makes the Zionists Judaism's worst enemy. Because, for all those who can rationalize the difference and aim their ire at the actions of a subset, not the identity of a whole group, there are plenty who can't, or who can't be bothered to try, regaling in the 'hate' that allows them to feel freer these days as they look forward to a near and freer future still.

Blacks can be white-supremacists, do recall, which means that haters will see a bloodthirsty Zionist in every Jew, the actions of the first offering the vehicle that leads to easier justifications and a greater tolerance for targeted forms of intolerance.

•       •       •

I've tried to lay it all out for you in the few preceding paragraphs; my overall approach and the central role that storytelling plays in it; the depth of understanding I seek, and the level of consideration and compassion combined with introspection I apply, taking both a short and long-term view, never letting myself be bullied by a topic or allowing it to dictate the "truth", for I'm being honest when I say that 'honesty' is an inseparable part of my package.

•       •       •

These past three years haven't been a waste of time if looked at as an experimentation and learning phase that's allowed me to familiarize myself with aspects of new media and address some of my ignorance—I hadn't really delved into the various options before then, Joe Rogan probably being the only podcaster I could confidently name at that point, but only because that $100 million thing made a huge noise.

As such, it's allowed me to refine an approach that answers those needs I've identified as being core ones within the context of info dissemination by online outlets, with activism informing as best as possible where importance should lie and which restrictions should pose no limitations, having adopted this perspective with the freedom of good, proper journalism in mind.

Which means having to rely on many costly tools—which journalists won't do—or for someone like me to come along, driven by passion to create what's needed to maximize data, info, and knowledge, and all that ties one to the other, and to serve it up in a manner that, tailored to their outlet, connects journalists with today's data possibilities. Those that exist far beyond those used to create your last bar graph.

•       •       •

For example, the simple page tags that are commonly used, namely, "Category" and "Tags", are grossly inadequate if one wishes to implement a classification system in order to exploit Web 3.0 advantages, more so if in a manner that's of true interest to an info outlet, a fact that became increasingly apparent over time albeit believing myself clever enough to surmount the challenges with just two attribute classes.

Perhaps, but it meant referring to a long and complex table that had me favouring ad hoc tags, hence, I'd call that a failure. Plus, it meant endless and confusing "if" or "else_if" lines of code. Dealing with that aspect in a real-use case led to a whole different approach that now ties six DataObjects and two 'states' to each post, as well as to info from external sources.

The tagging strategy that's now employed is in line with the taxonomic and ontological frameworks that are being built from the fruits of careful consideration made along several lines, limitations or ambiguities that were made evident with entries made in the previous version of DMS&UY being a big part of that.

Focus on news ingestion and on content production having dominated much of my time in the past three years, it's safe to assume that the hierarchical and relational structures that have been devised toward a particular media end could hardly have been applied three years ago, this being true no matter how much thought would have gone into creating them. The reason for that: knowledge, acquired through experience.

As such, don't be fooled by the site's skin; I saw no reason to change its looks... eye of the beholder, and all that. But under the hood, this is an entirely different site.  

•       •       •

I'm not sure if those concerned have tried to sympathise with my position in any way and attempted to understand the detrimental effects such a behaviour can have on someone, especially since it hits some of my "childhood stuff"?

However paranoid I come across, without proof to the contrary, I'm forced to conclude that a collective, somewhat coordinated effort to snub me was in play.

However, I'm not sure how deliberate an effort this is/was, nor do I think that nefarious motivation lies behind it. But it does highlight a side where motivation and slogans live in two separate spheres. Given the current  'environment', one would think that maximizing "allies" would be key, this relying on outreach and branching out, not on navel and fandom, while one would assume that media folks would be keeping an eye out for certain types of talents that didn't go through the media mill to fill a mold, and can therefore bring an entirely new layer/perspective to an organization, making whether one has 65,000 fans a bad and limiting metric by which to separate who brings value, and it kinda turns one into a shallow A-hole when it's what defines a "person" worth hearing from a "complete nobody; who cares what they're saying?!" 

A company is better off hiring good, dedicated Social Media pros that can sell the talent they spot rather expect everyone to have and exhibit the attitudes and obsessions that come with streaming/SM fame, this translating into a dominant personality type ending up in info media, such people prone to embrace pointless tribalism and navelistic outlooks.

I played the SM game when it went big, over a decade ago; gained good numbers quickly, but I'm happier and more productive since giving up SM in 2011 or so. I've accounts, but I don't sell myself on SM; the whole thing demands behaviour that isn't me, especially if fans are one's goal.

Setting all of that aside, there's also the fact that people rarely seem to know what to make of me. That's clear. In the months prior to the site going down, rumours that I'm a CIA composite and psyops effort or that AI is mostly responsible for the site did bounce back my way.

Perhaps I don't fit people's expectations re social status because I've actually tried to live life per those principles I claim to be important, having refused to cross certain lines no matter how many other people did so and benefitted? In my teens and early twenties, I was quite different, but I was served an important lesson in humility that solidified who I was versus what I felt pressed to be to satisfy the socially-desired impressions of success held by society. That and other events... more on this, maybe, in another segment.  

I want to focus on: For three years—3 years!—I've not received a single word of encouragement other than two coded ones from a media personality and two brief chat messages from FB friends. Three years, and no one dared to give me direct acknowledgement, even if in private, for pieces that clearly had an impact. I know. 

Or am I nuts?

I absorbed the negative impacts that came with my interpretation of events and their details, as well as for those provided by journalists and pundits, regardless of which side they're on, and, as such, I've been forced to face the 'fight' for truth alone, and did so while defending those whose situation called for it, regardless of which side they're on. 

If no one read my posts and I were delusional—a thought that continually crosses my mind—then, I really am all powerful given its deterministic impact on the behaviour of certain people, these scattered across the globe, it's that I'm just not powerful enough to be where I'd like to be, is that it? Or is there no such thing as reality, and all's a construct of my mind? I'm simply not creative enough to construct a world that has me where I'd want to be?

So... I'm still betting on "shared reality", and having understood that I couldn't come out of the blue and expect to be treated as if having earned a place, I accepted that I had to put in the time and establish myself in some way, these efforts facing several challenges, the economics of living and modern life being the greatest if one includes all its side effects, especially its impact on motivation. I've not earned a single dime through DMS&UY in the three years, and, other than the rare whining comment I may have made on the subject, I made it a point to not do so in any manner that could be interpreted as being "opportunistic"; I'll offer related background detail in another segment.

And, despite media folks representing a core of the regular visitors, this period hasn't brought me anywhere closer to my goal even if my "marketing" efforts hit those I'd aimed for, it seems, having found no footing within any organization, no collaborative relationship having been developed, etc.

I haven't been able to let go of DMS&UY in the way that may be best, in spite of having said that I needed to do so or that I was doing so a few times—usually after a period of a few months and the fatigue that comes with being in a complete void sets in—and, in great part, I draw much motivation from the interest I can discern, like a buzz whose vibrations I pick up, expressed in myriad ways across many outlets in a manner that, after some time, rules out coincidence. That, and the sense that I always seem to be making leeway, which suddenly leads to naught, though, and always for reasons that are never clear, leaving me more dejected each time, feeling as if this or speaking to a wall, what's the difference?

The wall requires no money or time investment, for starters.

It could very well be that I've no talent in this area; nothing to offer that's of interest to any media outlet. That's harsh, but I'd accept it and prefer hearing that and being told that it's because I'm so goddamn awful that media folks read DMS&UY; it's for the laugh, and not because I'm funny!

Then, please, tell me; I honestly can't afford to spend my time on a road that's leading me nowhere, or merely to offer freely-accessed confirmation or to serve as a source of ideas to those paying their bills just fine. I'm flattered that I'd be that to anyone, it's simply that reality demands I do something else, setting aside passion, again, for something deemed of value, there being a demand for which I can supply. 

Otherwise, DMS&UY will suck all my energy as long as I feel there's even a slim chance that someone will see something in me they believe in, and believe it's worth investing in. Had some hard luck; being offered a 'chance' is all I ask.  

Two things anyone that knows me can confirm: I'm extremely hard working, and my loyalty can't be shaken, except by the person receiving it; treat me fairly, honestly, and I'll go out of my way to make sure I deliver.

•       •       •

In spite of all else, what I hope to have had established as the result of those three years is:

Grifting or duping people for money isn't my aim.

I'm driven by passion; how many would have endured three years in total silence from the industry they're trying to break into, having been convinced of interest in what I say being there, but that no one is willing to point it out, help me out, while also having convinced me that sending applications and submissions is a complete waste of time, and I remember having to do all that by mail, and how costly and demanding that all was... 

And, once I realized what was up and regained my footing, can anyone complain that I've veered them into wild conspiracy theory territory? Or did I steer people the right way, just far earlier than the majority, perhaps, those times I'd offered what appeared to be way off in left field, so to speak?

I'd discussed the effect of Russia being kicked from SWIFT, and the effect on the USD as a result of sanctions imposed on Russia, as well as the freezing and seizing of reserves breaking the trust that sealed nations' desire to seek an alternative, and I had done so, not to describe what had happened, but long before these became a widely-shared reality.

All those times I went against the mainstream narrative or tribal take, swimming against the current with views that have always offered a single guarantee: make life harder; if my honesty and the importance I genuinely place on this value is what shines through, they can make life harder still, and I'll smile.

As a side note: From the site being taken down to all the issues faced in between then and you reading this, well, this time, it's the last. It broke something inside me, I think, and I often found myself seriously questioning why I was willing to put any time and effort into reviving the site when the only thing it seems to have achieved is to isolate me more while making me deeply aware of it. This void I'm kept in, it sapped out all my energy. To no good end?

•       •       •

Being in front of a camera isn't something that, in itself, deserves any reward or special treatment, I feel, even though I acknowledge not being able to fulfill that role; it's not being broadcasted that's the issue, it's everything that comes with that and the type of pressures and rigidity that are associated with that role.  

Plus, as I've mentioned a few times, for me, people are people. Whether the guy on TV or the guy down the street, if I feel I've a good reason to communicate with them, I'll approach it the same way and eventually have to face/remind myself that any degree of fame involved means I shouldn't.   

And anyhow, maybe I should reconsider that my views are only 'special' because I'm special?

I... um... maybe.

•       •       •

The arrogant and meaningless gauge used to judge a person that's commonly used within this sphere, by which, having a relatively low number of fans pins one as a "nobody" while having no channel and fans places one in the "complete nobody", tells me that modes of exploitation and their structures of old have carried over, the focus being placed on what most achieve through superficial talents and a-hole behaviour and all that's needed to flip the dependency switch that's meant to work to the benefit of established brands—true of legacy, but speaking of new media—but, instead, sees a brand being shaped and changed by the voices it seeks.

Unlike the one-way media of yesterday, an online personality doesn't simply "transfer" their fanbase over to a new outlet, they bring with them the 'entity' that's responsible for shaping their online views the most, and outlets focus on the number of fans to determine if someone is worth any consideration, which betrays one's priorities being placed on views/clicks, this aspect being a strong indicator that the views pushed are a product, not a conviction. 

With that: New media, my arse? Above all else, it suggests an inability to identify real value and needs, whether talent, story, or ancillary—if not 'merch'—without external confirmation first coming their way, this aspect contradicting the spirit that new media is meant to represent when the term is used in the manner intended, alluding to an ideal and not just to "digital".

A Voice without a Mouth is Needlessly Noisy

The popular search engines like Google or Bing serve their purpose, and they do manage to offer a whopping number of results in a short time, but for anyone seeking a specific type of info who wants to cut to the chase and not have to wade through all the repeated articles and all that's probably a part of some disinformation campaign that's backed by efforts to flood out competing voices, not to mention all the ways that marketers and SEO specialists manage to game 'the system' until Google and the other Big-Tech heavy-weights revamp the inner workings, and the rules...

Unless you're looking for consumer services or info about a particular business or governmental service, and if you're looking for info because "journalism" and/or "investigation" ties into that search, one quickly seizes that "relevance" sits low in terms of what those search engines offer. Doing a topic-specific, targeted search on those actually offers worst odds than the lottery at times. Though one can't be aware of this, believing that, as a general rule, what was served to them is what matters, and what truly matters is always above the fold on page one of any search result. And if there's 20 or more links to different sites that feature the same headline on page one of the search results, then, you're staring at the definition of "absolute truth". 

Even worst and less acknowledged, the structure that defines these search engines embodies a particular approach and philosophy, while any learning-driven algorithms get their protocols and parameters through methods that aren't free of, but that encapsulate, an ideology.

Indeed, I'm saying that algorithms are, in essence, ideological, this aspect captured in a system's material specificity. We abstract and obfuscate the role and significance of algorithms, usually to redirect or denounce agency, and, so, as usual, obscurity emphasizes the ugly, turning beauty, yet again, into means of oppression controlled by a few in order to seize the political economy that algorithms and systems make possible.

All the more so today.

•       •       •

Deep down, I've an entrepreneurial mindset and spirit, and prefer taking a gamble working on a new project for a startup over being a part of solidifying the power of a behemoth I've been highly critical of.

•       •       •

The Semantic Web, also known as Web 3.0, that's the layer where one does that kind of targeted research and usually finds what one needs in a timely and efficient manner. Well, that's the topmost one, anyways, 'cause the lowest one, the dark web, that's where one may also find the info they need much faster... but there, especially, like the popular search engines: all's a big gamble.

As I state directly or allude to across the related segments, the vast majority of media folks have a flawed and/or highly-restrictive view and understanding of "data", clearly having given little to no consideration to a theoretical understanding of data and data systems—which extends to the humanities for it traverses the depths of physics—nor of the ethical and philosophical implications that can be derived through the proper scope.

Media folks shouldn't feel bad, though, as the same claim can be made about most across the majority of fields, this being so despite the ubiquity data enjoys, whilst the 'bad reputation' it's garnered prevails, sets needless restrictions, thanks to online profiles leading to programmatic adverts, fraud, and identity theft, never mind the effects of firms like Cambridge Analytica or that of news outlets spreading Russiagate propaganda as they eagerly spread false info so their prefered political party can apply greater control on info flow.

However, from my perspective: Data is the root of consciousness, for it is the values we instinctively decode and effortlessly encode, these allowing us to categorize objects and events in a manner that lends a functional sense to a shared real-world. Humans didn't create data; it created us. Coded information and transmission; that's all that life really is when reduced to its simplest forms. 

And Data can't be destroyed. Not even by a black-hole. Or so says the dominant theory on the matter.

I'm not operating in quite the same sphere as the simple dataset and table most assume to be "data", and that's why, given the inseparable bond that ties data to media and the course that info is to take based on the structures that are being implemented, I bring a valuable skillset, covering an important facet that's far too often overlooked or neglected, thought of as being of little importance when, in fact, and increasingly so, from an outlet's perspective, it should be thought of as one half of the whole that's indispensable to good, accurate, consistently-framed reporting, good, dedicated journalists being the other half.

Seeing any efforts placed on data capture and storage as ones whose benefits are only visible once they take form as a collection of historic records is so 1980s. 

Further, having a greater access doesn't lessen a platform's complexity nor simplify any understanding of its inner workings and implications; exerting real control over elements of communication directly impacting 'delivery' and 'messaging' rests on a keen awareness of this complexity and of the instrumentalism this is being passed off as, which demands an appropriate degree of understanding of the systems and structures involved.

Understanding "paper"' and "physical distribution" could only do so much for media outlets operating at the beginning of the 20th century, but things have gotten so complex that different areas demand a dedicated expertise, and all functions the best when each focus on doing what they're good at and love.

Here are some of my guiding principles:

• Storytelling is the best way to get any info across and produce knowledge.
• Narrative is, therefore, key.
• News outlets should never confuse plot for narrative; too many do.
  • Plot is a predetermined storyline imposed on a narrative; there's usually (the expectation of) a beginning and end, no matter how vague these may appear.
  • Narrative, as is, organic and unmanipulated, is the story that emerges, naturally, for all individuals are actors in their own play, events being the glue that binds them. Or not.
• Impressions now matter more than verifiable facts, and they sure as hell shouldn't.
• Rebuilding trust is necessary; tribalities don't help. 

I embrace these tenets:

• • AI integration is only done if to the benefit of media people, never with the aim to replace them.
  • Monetary gains are to be a side-effect of this project, never the focus.

I introduce a marked difference between "plot" and "narrative" as they apply to media when used within the context discussed here. If one is bending the details of a news story to make it fit their perspective, they're dealing in "plot", plain and simple.

What I propose is an approach that, among many benefits and possibilities, makes it easier to define an outlet's narrative line and to identify and classify 'plot elements',  doing so in a manner that excludes subjectivity—discounting what seeps into the system through the very act of 'being'—while simultaneously allowing an outlet to flip that to their reporting benefits.

However, this aspect being a challenge I've had to deal with countless times: If activities have formed into habits, then trying to 'sell' changes that rely on new modes of conceptualization is far from easy, even if one is dealing with open-minded people; they just try to jam all into those definitions and paradigms they've come to take for granted, using that as a takeoff point from which to grasp new concepts rather than discarding those entirely, placing their energy on trying to see something for what it truly is, and not for how it differs with what one already knows.

Albeit more complex, just saying "security" and "comfort" should suffice to explain why that's the norm across all groups.

Don't ask me why; generally, my mind simply doesn't work that way, though there are some areas where it, too, can be negatively categorical.

Having the ability to quickly adapt my perspective based on what's presented rather than imposing my perspective on what's presented is a gift I'm thankful for, but one that demands continuous work, though it's working through the demands of these efforts that ameliorated and solidified that ability to adapt quickly to whatever system is at hand, per its patterns, transposition eventually becoming muscle memory; a reflex.   

Concepts. Captured and rendered concrete. Not an easy task.

There are aspects which I'm not willing to divulge publicly if I'm to have a competitive edge, although all's an open book, within a reasonable degree, to anyone willing to invest their interest, time, or money in these efforts, either as supporter or to gain exclusive access, but, in case you skipped over the rest and landed here: Do know that, as far as journalistic needs are concerned, the ideal support needs to focus on two key aspects:

• Narrative; and
• Relationships between entities (a.k.a. DataObjects, i.e. person, organization, event, etc.) 

Hence why taxonomy and ontology are central parts that all else rest on, and get due focus in another segment, along with those two points.

The Bias in AllSides' Bias Chart

You may be familiar with AllSides' Media Bias Chart? It purports to accurately position media outlets' bias on the left-right political spectrum. Like the others, theirs is better; entirely reflective of reality... they say.

Is that an argument for solipsism? I reply.

I can't help but see that chart as an obvious political tool that expresses, endorses, and solidifies corporate-induced and serving biases that have made it easier to turn the ratchet that pulls all Western institutions to the right, this and its effect being more marked in the US.

I won't get into the details in this post, but there's a great deal that's wrong with that chart, the lack of clearly defined formalism applied to the political spectrum and its divisions, as well as seeing some of the outlets grouped with others...

The screengrab below is from AllSides' FAQ section. The last entry betrays the reality I had suspected really lay behind the first, which is repeated in bigger, bolder letters on the site's main page and elsewhere (just the first, not the last).

I bring this up because, as discussed in other segments, generating such a chart, any time, is a side-effect of my approach, in combination with the type of database that piggybacks on the whole. 

And, unlike them and the others, claiming objectivity whilst tucking away claims of subjectivity isn't necessary, as the news outlets aren't categorized and relativized per vague groupings, but in relation to one another.

More. Later.

That said, whichever comes first, a job, investor, partner, or other. Left or rightwinger—the latter sure to instantly see an opportunity here while liberal-leftist types argue that "opportunity" has trans-racist roots—providing that 'truth' is the focus, and I'm not called on to sell a stance I know is a lie.

My needs are surprisingly little, I'm more interested in focusing on and continuing this project and making sure that my very basic needs and expenses are met, perhaps while simultaneously serving a research role, than on doing anything so long as the focus is on the size of the salary.

For one, I'm amply confident that these efforts will generate their own revenue stream(s) soon enough.

Thanks for being here.