The small Catechism of the Internet / Placarding of 97 Propositions – An Attack on the Captured World
by Jens T. Hinrichs
Considering the fact that providers of social networks and social software say ‚like‘, ‚recommend‘, ‚share‘, ‚upload‘ and ‚sync‘, they have wanted the whole user life to be stored for their/your benefit, enterprise value and goodwill.
It does not refer to prosperity; indeed, it would not be one if it did not produce many kinds of works, either internally or externally, to extinguish or kill human existence.
Therefore, the mind and personality of user particles remain as long as the heart rebels against itself and - that is the truth - persists, until to the Tor into Darknet Heaven.
The Internet can not and will not impose penalties or barriers except those approved on its self-regulatory decision-making, infrastructural statutes and solutions.
The Internet can avoid harm only by declaring it as outlawed, asserted or petitioned by user particles. Of course, the Internet can reject the persistent and frivolous allegations. If this were to be laugh at between those parties affected, the damage would be partial or even complete. Even allegations were stored after a deletion request and remained not far from the search engines.
The Internet does not give any user particle the responsibility for the decisions that other user particles make without humiliating and subjugating them or igniting a proxy war.
The self-regulatory participation on the Internet are binding only for the living, absolutely nothing may be imposed on the deactivated or deleted identities or legal heirs of a database entity.
Therefore, the Internet is fair to each user particles if it excludes –
in his ultima ratio – always the case of death, powerlessness or
in highest distress – always unconsciousness and free (balanced) reporting.
Those user particles that save up or deforce data for commercialization or branding for all the social networks and social software act unconsciously and badly.
The business condition that data can be converted from user particles to innovation is a superstition, or propagation (weed), that has apparently been sown while the user particles slept and persisted as a propagate (weed) whilst the Internet self-developed a self-awareness or get an artificial intelligence automatically.
In the past, the (user-generated) content was created not for, but by the non-commercial user-particles, as it were as a criterion for the authenticity of the content and as touchstone that links to its sources.
The disabled identities (deleted profiles) and scalable or devisible database entities are solved by everything, and for the social networks and social software they are already dead, because they are freed from virtual rights and this last will is not objectionable.
If the attitude of a user-particle and the fidelity (in relation to social networks and social software) are imperfect, then it brings barely and large uncertainty, and and this uncertainty grows exponentially with the security gaps and (computer) bugs – worms, viruses, trojans, algorithms – that are associated with continuous improvement of user offerings (OpenSource, Apps, mobile interfaces and connectivity, devices, A.I., signaling, periphery).
This insecurity and terror suffice alone - and to say nothing of other things - to recognize or detect the pain of commerce and branding; because they come very close to the horror of desperation and the abuse (malpractice according to Malware and misapplication according to Apps and so on) of the Internet.
Hello world, commerce, branding and data heaven seem to be different in the same way such as desperation, impending risks and alleged media literacy, personal satisfaction and security.
Apparently, the user particles as a product have the added value of respect (love) of privacy protection just as necessary as a reduction of Internet commerce, cyber crime and spying.
Evidently, neither reason nor empirical research has proven that user particles must be within the Internet and behave fairly, in which they can earn merit (or profits, credits, incentives) or in which love or loyalty (to social networks and social software) can increase.
Apparently, this is also not proven that user particles - at least all - are certain of their security and privacy, although they are completely safe from security vulnerabilities and media literacy.
Therefore, the user particle does not simply mean with the complete bleeding the bleeding of all databases, but only the one whose entity it has created itself or those entities imposed by data retention or dragnet investigation. It does not matter that user particles can gain knowledge of this entity or can influence its entities in the databases themselves.
Therefore, those data preachers will be wrong who say that through the entries of the user particles the social network will be free and rid of any responsibility..
Rather, they leave the user-particle not a single responsibility for commerce and branding, that they should have lost in accordance with the rule of law, human rights convention or national resolution in real life.
If any decree of all responsibility could be granted to anyone, then certainly only the most perfect user-particle, if a renunciation were not to a disadvantage, thus in very few cases.
Because of this, a large part of the user particles is inevitably deceived by the given promise of renouncing responsibility or transmitting his bloodletting.
The same power over commerce or branding is possessed by every user particle, especially in social networks, with which the same responsibility is attributed to them.
Social networks and social software do not act properly, attributing responsibility for their bloodletting to user particles on the basis of /due to his / her available encryption or conditions of terms and use, but to turn by way of intercession.
Data research and teaching announce those who say that the user particles rise from commerce and branding once the data gold is stored in databases.
Certainly, once the data gold is appended to databases, data theorem and greed can grow into an unlimited Internet, but the user-particles remain alone in their intercession for privacy protection and private sphere.
Who knows whether all user particles want to be resigned by means of commerce and branding with an improvement in human life.
No one is aware of the real-time risk or the protection of his privacy, much less whether he has achieved complete satisfaction with his data or media literacy.
Rarely does one take protective measures with the utmost care, so seldom does he devote himself to other faiths in a right way and he has confidence in social networks and social software, thus extremely rare.
Anyone who believes that he can be sure of his anonymity by means of protective measures will be connected forever to the Internet without Frontiers or will find his teacher in a secret service or hacker.
Not enough can one beware of those who want to derive the data of the user-particles that invaluable added value or renewable synergies by which the user-life will be taken by the Internet without Frontiers (limits) for the commercial or the branding.
Indeed, those invaluable added value and renewable synergies relate only to human's own limits of morality, individual satisfaction, and non-latent needs.
Not reputable are those who preach or teach that for those who buy user particles or use an Internet without Frontiers to clone entities, sell identities, or those who advocate data retention and dragnet investigation, privacy, protection, ethics or laws and legislative power, prosecution and law enforcement are not necessary for themselves.
Any user particle that really wants to be deleted is entitled to complete termination of its profile data, chronic records or logfiles, even without any remnants or waiting time. From the beginning, the user-particle is to guarantee a readable and compatible data backup and to make it available free of charge, with the help of which it can continue its endeavor on the Internet without Frontiers anywhere else at any time.
Every user particle that is commodity, whether it is deactivated or deleted, has contributed to all the invaluable added value and renewable synergies that are given from social networks or social software.
However, the share of invaluable added value and renewable synergies that communicate or provide the Internet without Frontiers must by no means be neglected, because they justify a claim of the user particle against social networks and social software or a claim under applicable laws.
Even the most learned would find it very difficult to be able to estimate the extent of risks and side effects in front of the Internet without Frontiers at the same time and to demand the privacy protection from user particles.
The mediation of media literacy conditions everyday life in the internet without Frontiers and to use it productively. The satisfaction, however, is indifferent or addictive, but at least it encourages and controls loyalty to social networks and social software for adolescent generations and teaches (conditions) them not to hate them.
Only with care and caution should the Internet be advertised without limits, so that the person does not falsely think that it is preferable to other good works and deeds.
One should teach the Internet without Frontiers: The mainstream is not that opinions or "LIKES" should be compared with arguments and credibility.
One should teach the Internet without Frontiers: to share innovation, rather than withhold advances in drawers. The environment always has the priority in traffic, ahead of those innovations and advances that exploit their resources for commerce and branding, and are themselves dedicated to social well-being and displacing people from their habitats.
Because only through the Internet without Frontiers is given to humanity and the understanding between nations is better, but by rules it and humanity is not better, but human dignity only partially freed from insecurity, at least it suggests the illusion of peace.
One should teach Industry 4.0, social networks and social software: Anyone who sees a security gap, ignores it and instead relinquishes responsibility to the user particle, does not campaign for loyalty and credibility, but take the wrath of the public interest.
One should teach Industry 4.0: Those who do not want to live and work on the internet without Frontiers (limits) or need the Internet of Things should still be able to design and contest their everyday life without technology and under no circumstances be forced to an Internet connection or additional function; at least the free decision-making (choice) must not be detrimental to them. If the disadvantage is perceived as discrimination, Industrie 4.0 has to offer an alternative or default attitude through conventional products, at least it does not have to eliminate such interfaces from the market, although it offers adapters.
The Internet without Frontiers (IwF) or the Internet of Things (IoT) is a voluntary and personal matter, not required or preinstalled.
An Internet without Frontiers would be more useful than money made available, so it has more need for a reformation in collecting and disclosing data than investment or infrastructure.
One should teach user particles: Personal and social data should primarily be made available on the internet without Frontiers as soon as they are intended for the public. However, this would be very uncertain if one had to rely on the loyalty and credibility of social networks and social software.
One should teach the skeptics: If user particles knew the survey methods of social networks and social software or monitoring methods, they would rather sink into the Darknet, as they physically disappear into the cloud; than that they would substantiate that self-aggrandizement and justification to lead to an intangible co-existence with them.
The legal Internet Without Frontiers would be in a position to define its rights and obligations in the future, not just ready for broadband - if necessary, to implement the Darknet to compensate a large proportion of those victims (but not theirs) who are living under free heaven.
Arranging or allowing for the sake of improving the users' offerings should not completely deadlocked the commerce and branding of the Internet, are not proponents and supporters of security and privacy.
User particles’s right are intentionally damaged if, in one and the same data protection of privacy or condition (term) of use, obligations are demanded, canceled or offset, or billed or reduced after expiration of time, which were already attributed as rights and guaranteed; at least this applies to paid services and charged credits.
The author's opinion is this: If the small Catechism of the Internet is ignored - the least disapproved with a cyberattack, a counterpetition, or a shitstorm; the highest should be considered with a billion "LIKES" or impressions; at least no user particle can match the author and claim for themselves the first words of the small Catechism of the Internet or the Reformation of the Internet without Frontiers.
The Internet without Frontiers, from which social networks, Industry 4.0 and social software create, scoop or draw on renewable synergies or invaluable added value, is neither sufficiently rewarded by mankind nor its risks and side effects nearly quantifiable, although for necessary uncertainties also no adequate precautions have to be taken otherwise the potential to be recovered would not be renewable.
Evidently, data treasure, renewable synergies and invaluable added value do not consist of material goods, because they can easily be shared with full hands, otherwise they can only be stored. The value obviously lies in the decomposition of the user particle into its anatomy; at least the extraction of the data treasure is comparable to the splitting of an atom, which consists to 80 per cent of water.
The Internet without Frontiers does not follow exclusively the merits of law and order, but also not the Internet’s Pioneers, Investigation Agencies and Internet Gurus, because they constantly - without remorse - linger after satisfaction on the Internet and want to cause a lobbying and fulsome praise for the uncaptured world or unseen human being.
The author says that the unlimited Internet resources could be our army of poor and tentacles (arms), but the commercial use does not fit his conception or correspond to his democratic autonomy of an Internet without Frontiers and he does not pledge very much real-time on a commercial Internet. The global crises of these days call for a different view and use.
Well-founded, the author says that the encryption methods and (open) resources that are given to user particles are part of that wealth of data and insecurity.
Of course, satisfaction and media literacy alone do not contribute to the prevention of threats and defense, in particular to their attributed incidents.
The true data treasure is the individual self-realization of user particles and their intercession to the Internet without Frontiers, not their loyalty to social networks, Industry 4.0 or social software or their belief in it.
This data treasure is rightly generally hated, because he squeezes out the last of user particles.
The last, however, is rightly extremely popular if it gives or suggests the user particles an improvement.
So the data treasure is the Internet without Frontiers, with which one once separated the knowledge from its owners, now to share it with each other.
So the data treasure is the Internet without Frontiers, with which one now has to relinquish the consciousness and to transfer or to transform thinking to only a few data octopuses, Internet cartels and intelligence services.
The innovations that are (intrusively) praised as extraordinary enhancements can actually speak in favor of the inestimable data treasure.
Yet, compared with the personal satisfaction and abstinence of the untapped world, they are, in fact, quite insignificant; at least you could retrieve an overvaluation for the shortage.
The data octopuses , Internet cartels, and Intelligence Agencies are required to admit the user particles with all respect and to counter conflicts with the highest level of human rights and the right to (physical and non-physical) integrity.
But more than that, they are encouraged and exhorted to inflict eyes and ears
that others instead of themselves preach their own fantasies, but at least they are warned that others, rather than themselves, tamper with their data.
If an innovation does not promise improvement, it should be discarded or improved.
However, anyone is blessed who opposes the lawlessness and impudence towards the regulation and monitoring or shutdown of the Internet without Frontiers.
Blessed are those who rightly set their words and action against those who devise fraud with data treasure or in the Darknet in a variety of ways.
So we want to sharpen our senses against those who think of abuse under the false pretext on the Internet without Frontiers.
It is stupid to think that the internet without Frontiers is powerful enough to acquit a person, even if, as is possible, he has done violence to the rule of law.
The Internet without Frontiers can not erase even the slightest guilt of a human being or humanity as far as the legacies are concerned.
If it is said that even the most learned could, if he were now invisible, suffer no greater risks and side effects, that would be a challenge to teach him a better lesson.
We claim, on the other hand, that the most learned, like any other scholar, gains greater satisfaction, who also questions himself and thus does a much better service or benefit to the Internet without Frontiers.
It would be a challenge to say that the improvement built on the previous interface, provided with branding or commerce, would be opposed to the Internet without Frontiers.
Those who tolerate the need to put out for sale or to prostitute such data treasures to the user particles will have to account for them and make disclosures of conflicts of interest.
The challenge also does not make it easy for scholars to protect the reputation and image of the Internet without Frontiers from malicious criticism, server failures, cyberattacks, lobbyism or plaque of locusts, and its issues relevant to present times or its conflict towards the past.
Why does the Internet without Frontiers not exclude branding and commerce for the sake of loyalty and satisfaction in the greatest need - as for another valid reason - because it creates innumerable added value and renewable synergies because of the liquid money to create an Internet of Things or the construction of a broadband - as a very flimsy reason; loyalty, satisfaction, value and synergies that the user-particles laboriously explore, have to donate or have yet to exploit; or to make those accessible to non-user particles.
Why do the data resources remain as data stores, and why are there no smart (integrated and intelligent) circuits that would be designed to refund data assets or demand a return when it is already satisfying to ensure safety or constitute a claim.
What is the impertinence of an Internet without Frontiers that allows an enemy to spy on data assets; but out of their own misery, they do not redeem themselves from this abuse.
Why are the startups or domains that are actually abolished by themselves, app-kicked or clinically dead by non-use in their own right, still outweighed in data gold by investments as if they were highly profitable.
Why does not a social network, which has more credit (rating) than sovereign states, prefer to build even the Internet without Frontiers from its own money than that of the poor taxpayers?
What does the state or what does it give to those shares who are entitled to total enjoyment and full participation in broadband expansion through perfect tax loyalty.
What could be better for the Internet without Frontiers than if the social networks, Internet cartels and data octopuses, as they do little - pay taxes, grant each tax particle this enjoyment and participation (or relief) in the data pool in real time.
Why does the human being seek the transmission (transformation) into the Internet without Frontiers more than the freedom, why does he cancel earlier privacy, which was still safe.
Surpressing these naked facts only with „Like" or discretion rather than to eliminate by rational reasoning means to expose humankind to the laughter of data octopuses, Internet cartels and Social Networks or other enemy networks, and to mock the rest of unseen humanity, which means it has to make itself heard again.
Therefore, if we followed common sense, these naked facts easily dissolve into liking, yes, these bare facts do not exist at all.
Therefore, away with all those profiteers or marketeers who preach the user-particle: "security, security", and yet it's not private sphere; at least make your own peace with the Internet without Frontiers and its data assets otherwise keep your hands off it.
It may be better for all the profiteers or marketeers who preach the user-particle: "data, data", and is not data protection; at least even filter the best out of the data gold and the knowledge.
People should be encouraged to follow good examples and strive after these very data assets, and trust them to go through many setbacks in the data realm rather than lull themselves into a false sense of security and to bathe in media literacy.
The user particles must be aware: The data gold and access to the data realm was won as laboriously as well as the precious metals and raw materials that are wrested from the ground - but with far fewer intermediaries - that are needed for the infrastructure and access equipment; and also destructive for the environment which is the habitat for the people who suffer most and benefit the least; never mind have access to the Internet.
In the internet without Frontiers everyone should be measured by his consideration and not by his participation.
Nobody gains sovereignty on the Internet without Frontiers, which only states can earn and claim. The Darknet or the Mobile Internet or the Internet of Things does not really exist; not even as an enclave. To say that a data asset that has no frontiers (limits) can not gain sovereignty, nor even a consciousness or artificial intelligence we want to allow the Internet without Frontiers or the data assets. Therefore, Social Networks, cyber criminals, data octopuses or Internet cartels and Intelligence Agencies should not simply be allowed to make claims based on their shape or attitude; only user particles themselves can be pronounced soulful or holy according to their shape or attitude.