Comment
Comment: Badger and the Resistible Rise of Outrage
BADGER sometimes wonders whether people care enough to read researched pieces in favour of getting their kicks at online outrage magnets.
Social media’s use and abuse have poisoned debate. They’ve given impetus to small-minded bigots’ voices on all sides of politics.
Instead of bringing people together, it’s driving them into smaller units. Those cliques are chosen by algorithms which record your personal data and your interactions on platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube.
The algorithms drive you more and more towards traffic they ‘think’ might appeal to you. By showing you advertisements that promote products and services you’ve expressed interest in, algorithms generate income.
Try shopping online for car insurance… see what adverts pop up on Facebook next.
For one notorious example: Britain First – a neo-Nazi front – share posts on the lines of ‘I support our brave veterans, share and show your support’. Share it and eventually, even if you don’t, someone you share it with might buy the merchandise – the badge, the t-shirt – and buy into the underlying creed.
Algorithms comb your data – with your permission. The software identifies where you’ve been online; what you’ve looked at, and whether anything stands out as gelling with the bank of advertisers waiting to pounce on you with ‘offers tailored for you’.
You end up trapped in an echo chamber. You hear views which a computer programme thinks you ought to like. The intensity of the targeting narrows down your world view by degrees.
For example, a few years ago for the purposes of research on the rise of far-right parties – particularly the BNP and their associated exclusive brethren – Badger created a false online ID and browsed the net, Twitter, and Facebook to gather information for a possible article on the methods used to ‘get’ to people online. He did the same with left-wing groups using a different identity.
It was an experience Badger found illuminating and depressing.
For a start, the algorithms’ power back then was nowhere near as powerful as now. Still, Badger was inexorably guided to pages, groups, and forums promoting extreme positions on both the right and the left. For factionalism and racism, the extremes were almost indistinguishable.
The right hated everyone, but especially Muslims and anyone to the left of Genghis Khan; the left hated everyone, but especially Jews and anyone to the right of Leon Trotsky.
The extreme right hated other factions of the extreme right. The radical left hated different sections of the extreme left. Their squabbling showed Badger that, wherever logic is replaced by blind faith, you can find someone prepared to argue over how many of their comrades can dance on the head of a pin.
And not a big pinhead, either.
Let’s look at what happens.
Suppose you share a link to something you disapprove of and tag the person who’s offended you. In that case, you might imagine you are demonstrating your disapproval and showing your opposition to whichever view you find repellent.
You are wrong. You are spreading that person’s message and the algorithms driving social media will register your interest as promoting that post.
As a working example, Badger will illustrate the issue from a Pembrokeshire standpoint. For the purposes of this exercise, Badger’s personal views are immaterial.
Pembroke Dock Central County Councillor Paul Dowson is the centre of some online attention.
Some who find his politics repulsive. Others enthusiastically endorse him.
Those who deride the Councillor do him a massive favour by repeatedly mentioning and tagging him in their posts. Those who think the Councillor is somehow brave for saying what he does do him a favour by often mentioning and tagging him in their Facebook posts. On the other side of the fence, those who support the Councillor do his opponents a massive favour by tagging them in their Facebook posts.
It’s a relationship founded on mutual and reciprocal hatred.
Although the Councillor benefits from the exposure, the ultimate beneficiary is Facebook, which monetises your page views.
If his opponents ignore him, that will leave only his supporters singing his praises to each other. Algorithms place a lower value on those interactions than apparently random bursts of attention from those who neither follow nor support him.
What Councillor Dowson’s views on ANYTHING are utterly immaterial to the process. On the one hand, he could say he wants to deport everyone whose skin colour comes after taupe on the Dulux colour chart. In his next post, he could say he wants a mosque built in every town to welcome Muslim migrants to the UK.
What he SAYS doesn’t matter to your computer or the platforms you use to view them. It doesn’t matter whether you read his thoughts with open-mouthed shock or adoration. The algorithms are both smart and stupid. All they measure is the response from others.
It’s called a web for a reason. It’s a series of connections between different nodes. If you connect at point A, you also connect to points B, C, D and beyond. Algorithms like ‘rich media’ – photographs, video, podcasts; so, join the points (nodes) to create online influence. And once you are recognised as an influencer, you’re on the way to making money.
Interview a Holocaust Denier, and they’ll share it. Their followers will share it. Suddenly, you’re one of the UK’s top ten Flag-shaggers.
Much-loved racist neo-Nazi thug and fraudster ‘Tommy Robinson’ did it with his PayPal patriotism. Others have followed the same primrose path, albeit on a much smaller scale.
Readers: if you want to really make that sort of thing go away, you face two choices: both preclude debate.
Firstly, you can ignore it and hope it all goes away. Badger calls this the Blair-Cameron approach. It won’t work; or Secondly, the 57 varieties of outraged get smart, focus locally, address what others are concerned about, and stop whining.
It’s what political parties used to do before the world disintegrated into single-issue groups arguing over pronouns, history, and the meaning of abstract concepts like ‘sovereignty’.
Politics for grown-ups using modern technology… it could be worth a punt. Don’t form a committee to discuss it. Just do it.
It’s hardly the most outrageous suggestion you’re likely to read this week.
Comment
Closure of Port Talbot blast furnace exposes limits of state power
By Jonathan Edwards
FUTURE historians will benchmark this week’s sad closure of the last remaining blast furnace at Tata Steel Port Talbot as a turning point in the UKs industrial history.
With the British Steel plant at Scunthorpe also due to turn off its own blast furnace, the UK as the birthplace of the industrial revolution will be left without the ability to produce its own steel.
This is a seismic moment therefore in our economic history: from here on in the UK will be reliant upon virgin steel imports.
Strategically this leaves the British state in an exposed position on all sorts of fronts.
Tragedy
This week’s development is of course primarily a tragedy for the 2,800 workers who will directly lose their jobs and those businesses further down the supply chain.
The jobs at Port Talbot were well paid in comparison to other available employment and therefore the local economy, even if workers were to find alternative jobs, will take a hit in terms of direct consumer expenditure.
The south Wales Valleys are already regrettably amongst the poorest regions of Europe.
The decision by Tata of course indicates the folly of privatising your primary industries in the first place. Once those industries are sold then governments lose control.
Decision makers
Port Talbot was originally bought by Corus before being ultimately bought by Tata in 2007, meaning that the fate of Welsh steel making was in the hands of decision makers in faraway Mumbai.
Understandably, directors and board members make decisions in what they perceive to be the best interests of their company.
Port Talbot is one asset of many that Tata holds across the world and in the group’s future business plan there is no longer a requirement for primary steel making capability in Port Talbot.
Did Brexit play a role in Tata’s thinking? The UK is no longer a part of the world’s largest economic union. If Tata wants to produce primary steel for the European market, why do it in Wales which is outside?
According to Tata, the blast furnaces were losing the company £1m a day. The restructuring involves £1.25bn investment by the company to build an electric arc furnace, which essentially recycles steel, with construction set to begin next summer. The UK Government will contribute £500m.
Savaged
In opposition the Labour Party absolutely savaged the blueprint, yet the final plans seem to have changed little now that they are in government at a UK level.
We were told in advance of the election that only a change of government could save the jobs. Prior to the election, Jo Stevens MP, the then Shadow Secretary of State for Wales, said in the Commons: “This government has forked out £500m taxpayers’ cash for the loss of 3,000 jobs and this is their deal, and they own it.”
Earlier this month, the new Business and Trade Secretary of State, Jonathan Reynolds, said the Labour version of the same deal gives “hope for the future of steel making in south Wales”.
From what I can see it’s the same number of jobs lost for the same amount of money invested by the UK Government. Furthermore, the unions’ alternative proposals have not been adopted.
I am not entirely convinced the tactic of the UK Government to gloss the agreement is credible.
Perhaps they genuinely thought that their proposals would change the position of the company; if so they have been given a very rude awakening on the limit of the powers of the nation state when up against a giant company like Tata.
Plaid Cymru’s ultimate call for the Welsh Government to compulsorily purchase the site also has its weaknesses.
The Welsh Government’s entire economic development budget for both revenue and capital is only £527m. At a £1m a day loss, compulsorily purchasing Port Talbot would wipe out 70% of the total budget without even considering the cost required to buy the plant.
Alternative for Deutschland
I was listening to a very interesting podcast by Irish economist David McWilliams recently where he discussed the rise of the far right AfD (Alternative for Deutschland) in Germany.
One of the main reasons for its recent electoral successes has been the decision of Volkswagen, a company that has provided well-remunerated employment for the best part of a century, to start closing production capacity in Germany.
The podcast argued that the demise of the old certainties has created a climate of fear that is being exploited.
We are no strangers to industrial decline in Wales; however the closure of the last steel making blast furnace in Wales underscores that we are facing a very uncertain economic future.
Faced with global forces they cannot control, the traditional political mainstream does not have a convincing narrative of where we are heading. Talk of a green industrial revolution sounds great in a pamphlet, but what exactly does it mean for working people in terms of employment and remuneration?
Looking at the overall strategic political position, I fear that Project Miserable by the UK Government could well backfire and play into the hands of the far right. Welsh nationalism also must move beyond its default grievance narrative. In the absence of hope for our people, malign forces will surely pounce.
Jonathan Edwards was the MP for Carmarthen East & Dinefwr from 2010 to 2024.
Comment
Castle Square bike night promises a thrilling evening
AS the weather promises to stay bright and sunny, Haverfordwest is set to host yet another exciting Castle Square Bike Night this Wednesday, August 14. The event, starting at 6:30pm, is expected to draw bike enthusiasts from across the region, all eager to showcase their gleaming machines.
A highlight of the evening will be a BBQ on the Square, hosted by Block & Barrel. All proceeds from the BBQ will go directly to Blood Bikes Wales, a charitable organization providing vital courier services to the NHS. Attendees who have pre-ordered their event t-shirts will be able to collect them on-site.
Adding to the evening’s excitement, Liam Steer from Pembs Moto Addicts will be on hand to offer suspension setup services. Riders interested in this service are advised to park next to Shaw’s for convenience.
Photography enthusiasts are also in for a treat, as Celtic Memories and Lilly’s Photography will be capturing the event, ensuring that the memorable moments of the night are documented.
Marshalls will be present throughout the event to assist with parking and ensure the safety of all participants. They will be easily identifiable in their high-visibility vests.
Organizers are calling on the community to come together and fill the Square with the roar of motorbikes, promising an unforgettable evening for all. The event is open to everyone, including families, and promises a great night out for bike lovers and the local community alike.
So, polish those bikes, gather the family, and head down to Castle Square for a night of camaraderie, good food, and motorcycle magic. See you there at 6:30pm!
Comment
Dismal debate shows leaders’ shortcomings
THIS reporter watched the first debate of the General Election campaign, writes Jon Coles.
He did it to spare you the bother.
He wishes he hadn’t spared you because now he’s bothered.
There are several ways to approach reporting on such an event: a stringent analysis of the facts, a comparison of the policy pledges both leaders made, and even bemused indifference.
Instead, here’s a balanced and informed personal response.
If that’s the choice the country faces, we are all doomed.
On the one hand, tiny, tetchy, and oh-so-shouty Rishi, who couldn’t bring himself to acknowledge his party has been in power for fourteen years.
On the other hand, Keir Starmer couldn’t help but remind people that he came from humble oranges and believed in something, even if he couldn’t identify it under questioning.
In the middle, Kate Etchingham from ITV News needed to be subbed out in favour of Nigel Owen as soon as she let Rishi Sunak repeat the same lie repeatedly without allowing Keir Starmer to address it.
Mr Sunak’s message was simple: “WOOOOOO! Labour! Spooky! Beware!”
Mr Starmer’s was also simple: “My dad was a toolmaker.”
If that is the best the two largest political parties in the UK can come up with, you have to wonder how bad their own parties’ alternatives are.
(This reporter also watched the Senedd this week; he knows).
You don’t have to wonder hard, of course. Liz Truss, Boris Johnson, Jeremy Corbyn, and the Steve Miller Band have all had a go and all been disastrous.
In the interest of introducing some facts into fact-free exchanges, The Herald looked at the big claims both made.
Mr Sunak argued for a £2000 tax rise under Labour. Here’s how he came up with that number: his policy advisors created a list of “Labour policies”, made assumptions about them, and then asked Treasury civil servants to cost them.
In short, the Prime Minister’s figures are garbage, and he knows they are.
Mr Sunak also said a Labour government would tax people’s pensions. Since he, as Chancellor, pulled hundreds of thousands of pensioners into paying taxes by freezing tax thresholds only to pledge an unaffordable pension “quadruple lock” after fourteen years in office, his words ring hollow.
Onto Sir Keir Starmer.
Did he mention his father was a toolmaker?
More seriously, it’s hard to think of a single thing Keir Starmer said that amounted to a policy that would improve people’s lives. He was sad for the lady with cancer. He sympathised with the student. He would be firm but fair.
In other news, the sky is blue, the grass is green, and the rain is wet.
Messrs Sunak and Starmer profess to be big football fans. The debate was like watching a dismal mid-table fixture between two teams, unaware that the important thing to do with the ball is kick it towards the other side’s net in the hope of scoring a goal.
Mr Sunak wanted to concentrate on the future. That’s not a surprise. His biggest achievement is staying in office long enough to undo the worst economic effects of his predecessors’ administrations.
You would never associate Mr Sunak with chutzpah. However, for sheer nerve, accusing Mr Starmer of not coming up with a better idea in fourteen years than his brilliant one for National Service was like a child who’d murdered their parents asking a court for mercy because they’re an orphan.
It would be churlish to point out his own Armed Forces Minister ruled out National Service only two days after Mr Sunak called the election because the armed forces didn’t want it.
Mr Sunak’s claim that, on the contrary, many in the armed services supported the scheme means either his minister was wrong and those briefing him from the armed services were wrong, or – and it’s a possibility – one of his friends on Call of Duty said it was a vote winner.
Back to Keir Starmer.
Did you know his dad was a toolmaker?
The studio audience liked Sir Keir’s pledge to crack down on those using non-domiciled tax status to avoid paying taxes. He could’ve rubbed it in by saying that since Mr Sunak’s campaign team had identified £2.5bn in tax avoidance that could be recovered quickly after fourteen years of looking for it, he might be persuaded to let the sons-in-law of Indian billionaires off the hook.
However, apart from non-dom status, the only thing approaching a firm policy commitment from the Labour leader was his observation that his dad was a toolmaker.
That’s a dreadful verbal tic, and he will have to do more than swap it out for “my mum was a nurse”.
Spiky exchanges on immigration were as heated as they were unenlightening.
When discussing migration, Mr Sunak claimed small boat arrivals are down by “a third” in the last 12 months.
Small boat arrivals did fall by around a third in 2023, comparing year-on-year. However, provisional figures show that in 2024, small boat arrivals have risen 38% compared to the same period last year.
Mr Sunak had a nice line prepared for Keir Starmer’s predictable attack on going to the country before a single plane took off for Rwanda. On the one hand, Mr Starmer had spent two years calling for an election, only to complain when one was called.
The Labour comms team must work on that.
However, the Labour leader was surely correct when he said only international cooperation would stop the organised gangs involved in people trafficking. Glorious isolation will achieve nothing and probably – as those who backed Brexit to curb immigration have found out – make things far worse.
As for who “won”?
The Labour leader shaded it by being less obnoxious.
We must also remember that those commenting online or offering an opinion on broadcast media had made up their minds before Keir Starmer or Rishi Sunak opened their mouths.
It’s always best to watch for yourself and make up your mind.
In this case, don’t bother.
Summing up the debate is easy: seventy minutes wasted.
-
Business6 days ago
Original Factory Shop to close Haverfordwest branch in December
-
News7 days ago
Large fire at Bramble Hall Farm – Arson suspected
-
News3 days ago
Milford Haven RNLI Fundraisers celebrate successful fun run
-
News3 days ago
‘Chariots of Fire’ Olympic pianist heads west for recital in local church
-
News3 days ago
Lifeboat launched to assist injured climber at St Govans
-
Top News1 day ago
Pembrokeshire cottage industry receives UK’s most prestigious business accolade
-
News3 days ago
Ferry diverts to aid yacht after medical emergency alert in Irish Sea
-
Top News2 days ago
“The sense of power and the great surge of energy that this earth provides is all I want my paintings to share”