Big tech and novel technology have progressed extremely far. Neurotechnology, brain reading, and manipulation are expected to grow and develop more to drastically impact our lives. This comes with some exciting possibilities of improving our learning, perceptions, and ability to connect with each other. It also comes with some dangerous problems, like human rights violations by authorities and perpetrators. More needs to be done to make the public aware and advocate for proper policy and protections. A concerning modern use of teleneurotechnology is its combined use with public stalking and harassment. This includes public surveillance and harassment like stalking, “group-stalking,” company and private investigations, neighborhood watch, Patriot Act, and more. Currently there is no direct trace for teleneurotechnology misuse. However, through symptoms, brain activity, and behavior, the details of when the misuse occurred and potentially who was the user can be looked into. While current laws might be helpful in some cases, more is needed. Creating regulations that add better tracing and protection requirements is important to ensure a safe and fair future. 

Teleneurotech combined with public and cyber harassment tactics have shown to have real damaging impact. For example: this technology is used on the religious homeless as a sort of “entertainment” for the harassing, who are usually motivated by money, to convince them “God” is communicating and leading them. When in reality it’s a collection of people gaining something from messing with their lives. This “messing with” can vary in severity: it can be minimal and effect nothing but just some wasted time, or it can be as severe as psychological torture. Even with the minimal though, this type of harassment usually is aimed at getting the individual to be violent with themselves or others, and the quote “Death by a thousand cuts” holds very true. Julian Assange, a whistleblower journalist, has made claims of continuous harassment and psychological torture by government agencies. The F.B.I. has tried to radicalize and encourage violence from targeted individuals. Which has been historically bigoted. With this technology what other tactics might be used and how will this affect those issues and others? What can be done is learn and organize and take political action, while spreading positive news about how these phenomena can help counteract its misuse. 

Cautions are important, but what can be done to help and empower people? Neurotechnology that was used to harass these victims, can be used to heal. The same public stalking tactics that are used to put individuals and others around in danger, can be used to protect them and mitigate those that are putting others in danger. We should look at our new inventions and popularized social interactions with a critical and open lens. Gaining control over our rights during this technological growth is vital. The ability to share information and skills is vital to enhance and bring everyone’s potential and creativity to maximum. The treatment and enhanced learning might even close the gaps between economic and social groups. A more beautiful world would be if this maximizes our intellectual, social, and artistic side rather than our pettiness, vulnerabilities, and hierarchies.

There is so much more that can be discussed, and further analysis and cross-analysis between neurotechnology and group-stalking phenomena might show a significant connection and danger. 


What have you heard of and what are your opinions on these "newish" phenomenon? 

For example: Group stalking research shows that indigenous women and women of color are disproportionately affected by group-stalking. The F.B.I. and native communities have spoken out on their fear of missing indigenous women. Are these phenomena connected?

Please consider donating so I can continue doing this independent work:
https://www.gofundme.com/f/writing-a-book-titled-consent-and-freedom

Comments


No comments on this post yet.
Be the first to respond.
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
When we built a calculator to help meat-eaters offset the animal welfare impact of their diet through donations (like carbon offsets), we didn't expect it to become one of our most effective tools for engaging new donors. In this post we explain how it works, why it seems particularly promising for increasing support for farmed animal charities, and what you can do to support this work if you think it’s worthwhile. In the comments I’ll also share our answers to some frequently asked questions and concerns some people have when thinking about the idea of an ‘animal welfare offset’. Background FarmKind is a donation platform whose mission is to support the animal movement by raising funds from the general public for some of the most effective charities working to fix factory farming. When we built our platform, we directionally estimated how much a donation to each of our recommended charities helps animals, to show users.  This also made it possible for us to calculate how much someone would need to donate to do as much good for farmed animals as their diet harms them – like carbon offsetting, but for animal welfare. So we built it. What we didn’t expect was how much something we built as a side project would capture peoples’ imaginations!  What it is and what it isn’t What it is:  * An engaging tool for bringing to life the idea that there are still ways to help farmed animals even if you’re unable/unwilling to go vegetarian/vegan. * A way to help people get a rough sense of how much they might want to give to do an amount of good that’s commensurate with the harm to farmed animals caused by their diet What it isn’t:  * A perfectly accurate crystal ball to determine how much a given individual would need to donate to exactly offset their diet. See the caveats here to understand why you shouldn’t take this (or any other charity impact estimate) literally. All models are wrong but some are useful. * A flashy piece of software (yet!). It was built as
Garrison
 ·  · 7m read
 · 
This is the full text of a post from "The Obsolete Newsletter," a Substack that I write about the intersection of capitalism, geopolitics, and artificial intelligence. I’m a freelance journalist and the author of a forthcoming book called Obsolete: Power, Profit, and the Race to build Machine Superintelligence. Consider subscribing to stay up to date with my work. Wow. The Wall Street Journal just reported that, "a consortium of investors led by Elon Musk is offering $97.4 billion to buy the nonprofit that controls OpenAI." Technically, they can't actually do that, so I'm going to assume that Musk is trying to buy all of the nonprofit's assets, which include governing control over OpenAI's for-profit, as well as all the profits above the company's profit caps. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman already tweeted, "no thank you but we will buy twitter for $9.74 billion if you want." (Musk, for his part, replied with just the word: "Swindler.") Even if Altman were willing, it's not clear if this bid could even go through. It can probably best be understood as an attempt to throw a wrench in OpenAI's ongoing plan to restructure fully into a for-profit company. To complete the transition, OpenAI needs to compensate its nonprofit for the fair market value of what it is giving up. In October, The Information reported that OpenAI was planning to give the nonprofit at least 25 percent of the new company, at the time, worth $37.5 billion. But in late January, the Financial Times reported that the nonprofit might only receive around $30 billion, "but a final price is yet to be determined." That's still a lot of money, but many experts I've spoken with think it drastically undervalues what the nonprofit is giving up. Musk has sued to block OpenAI's conversion, arguing that he would be irreparably harmed if it went through. But while Musk's suit seems unlikely to succeed, his latest gambit might significantly drive up the price OpenAI has to pay. (My guess is that Altman will still ma