Social: Banned videos from YT no. 3 Audiovisual "TV advertising"

Message that seems many do not understand

 // 

 // 

antique & original link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fTldTDjWIA

 // 

 // 

Posted on 5 ago 2017

Between memes and political agendas

If social networks are the daily exercise that people use today, can you trust them? Memes have become an integral part of our digital landscape, but how much they are shaping the way we communicate and express ideas in the online sphere among political agendas? The emergence of Memes as "resuelva, atiende" can really be traced back to only an Twitter-X user like taquira (@_____xemi)? Or maybe Alejandra del Moral and her "unir es resolver" never happened? Seems that to embody a message of unity and collective action, promoting the idea that coming together leads to solutions and progress also works to provoke confrontations about the ideal man to establish a successful relationship and his highlighted importance of having goals, working hard, taking care of one's health and, most importantly for her, having the ability to resolve conflicts; And then just finish delivering a supposed answer to this with additional wordiness with an "atiende". Are people from Mexico that easy? Alejandra del Moral utilized this slogan as a central theme in her campaign, which could also simply be an insult since by pretending that only brave people would dare to vote for the PRI. Yet the clash between the meme and del Moral encapsulates a broader conflict between different forms of a same expression, and yet on one hand, Memes "resuelva, atiende" represents a lighthearted and humorous approach to problem-solving, reflecting a sense of pragmatism and practicality but on the other hand, Alejandra del Moral's "unir es resolver" tries to embody a more serious and politically charged message, focusing on the power of unity and collective action.It is perhaps only a clash between these two figures that reflect the tension among manipulation, humor, seriousness, individualism, collectivism, digital culture, ignorance and political discourse. In terms of impact, the rivalry between Memes "resuelva, atiende" and Alejandra del Moral's "unir es resolver" has sparked how idiotic and voided dialogues on internet can be through a complete week.

Making art no. 6: "No one deserves as much as us." :)

It must be evident the artist does not need an agenda nor knowledges, so it is necessary to accept that the doctor's profession is and only is to repair automobiles. And if the worker has gotten all his diplomas by just learning formulas to approving exams and forget all about that later after finished school, then any product is clearly attainable for anyone by just wishing it and with a hit of heels three times. What is the use of politicians to us if they are not fascists nor murderers? A good health is not achieved with shit like fraternity nor by learning abilities to live! Isn't obvious? It is urgent to stop breathing together with all the will of our heart and allow all our bitches define accurately our laws and medical system as soon as possible and offer free stuff weekly no matter bad qualities nor even if it's not for pleasure or our duties; OPEN THE EYES! At the end we can witnessing right now how some are selling morbidity on youtube about who is lying to whom among supposed artists, bad choices on clothes to wear or not on tv or compromising shots during family schedules, and the fact of how anyone gets a salary behaving like a ridiculous smiling statue front a camera.

   

   

So here a friendly reminder: The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.

   

   

   

NO ONE gonna define what will happen next if it isn't us.

   

Social: Banned videos from YT no. 2

Has man born to go naked around the world? Depends on the place? Is it correct the idea of allowing nudist beaches? Is it just about the body or about a perspective? Should one look himself naked front others? What is money? What is morality? What is the correct definition for art? What is morality for? Is it necessary or not to talk about body shame? Is it a nude, pornography? Is it a beautiful and naked girl just showing a forehead of her without suggestive poses porn? What is a limit? Why would you demand about a photograph of a naked baby who, to this point from 2022, seems not offending to anyone? Is that pornography? Does people feel ashamed of themselves when watching a photo captured by their own parents being babies taking a shower? Would you allow your friends to see those images? Is it the same to observe a person with a body molded by exercise to an extremely obese person? Should one explain the difference between Scary and Spooky? Can you imagine yourself dancing naked front your parents, uncles, aunts or other family members? And from this we must say it is a party. Would you organize such thing? How should one be educated? Is the simple chest of a man or a woman the same? Should aboriginal tribes be ashamed that their women do not use bras or blouses? Showing yourself naked around metropolitan streets works to manifestate any thing? WHAT IS THE POINT?

Making Art no. 4: "Between make anything and the artistic value".

Must art have some kind of strategy? History seems to show a distance between the ways of understanding the artistic study in different countries; It causes us to accept that any final product sometimes has consequences due to minute details, or almost unreliable philological bases, however, one does not intend any textual criticism or classical ecdotic since art can only be based on its meaning and the management of its economic preparation with diachronic processes like Greco-Latin, romantic and pagan precedents. Art, then, does not aim for social brilliance or indirect symbolic rewards since it mixes the cultured with the popular as a desire for self-representation beyond any style, whose most common procedure will be the provision of work done, the evaluation, or possible external help for the leading author of the artistic system, but not for the simple creative.

 // 

So how should it be presented? How to differentiate a poetic language from prosaic language? Does it belong to some biocultural analytical puzzle? Should your subjective and / or objective perception be specified? On average, no art offers any advantage over productive means, in addition, if art did not offer benefits and only demanded time, energy and resources, its cognitive patterns would not feed the hunger for information that leads to the meaningful matrices from which we can make valuable inferences. Therefore we like bright, null and distinct colors, sharp contours, complex shapes, designs and materials on surfaces; And the more flexible minds are to handle multiple patterns on multiple levels, and the more open their mastery of the information that surrounds them, the better they can predict and act in the face of the nonsense of a complex world not built for the art itself that concentrates the profusion of symbolic perception of visual, auditory and social behavior patterns.

 // 

And since emotional intensity helps to consolidate memory, the more attention is drawn to one or another X art, and the more it elicits responses, the more it can reconfigure our minds for its advantages over its purpose, identification, adaptation, and its continuity by allowing inferred meaning both at global anthropological levels, as well as at local historical, political, economic, technological, cultural, intellectual, and artistic levels. Works created by and for the flow of economic attention framed between a space, the media and forms that constitute it, pay for it and provide feedback just as its consumer does, who makes an appropriation of their choices making then uniques from which the product gains power over the repressed recreational subversion in the specialization of a defined exercise in the mercantile characteristics generated by its consumption with evolutionary exchange patterns understood as historical preferences and economic capacities. Taking us by the hand to the context of production defined by the economic, emotional, political, religious, social and cultural circumstances in which an artist is immersed when producing a work, which will demand time, energy and resources, and where their cognitive patterns will not be able to feed the hunger for the information that leads to the meaningful matrices of the final product from which it is possible to make valuable inferences; However, the work can reaffirm itself as a communicative manifesto depending on what is implicit in it.

 // 

Thus we get to the point where the artist must create art and not a market, and where the marketer will create a market but never an art. A situation almost similar to creating a currency available for a market that requires a transnational historical trend and be significantly flexible, and that may or may not be compared with some investment in real estate or with a simple collection of sports cards so, to offer anything is enough? Should art impress and make the viewer uncomfortable? Is 'Sonata for pepáphone and voice, opus 140' a good example? Are we talkig only about hunger? Have we reached the limit of making any kind of item a product? If I intend to relate a writing with a murderous look, should I care? The only sound that the air pump produces directly to the vagina is noise added to the immediate need to create a melody for such accompaniment, which in the end becomes the same thing: Noise. Which at the same time makes one wonder if everything about composing can be summed up to believing and getting involved in an idea or, if perhaps all the studies that one should or could have carried out were once without context before the idea of ​​perhaps the artist or producer in question only produces uninteresting, unnecessary works or products or around related definitions. Are the different kind of performances known? Is the presentation of an "Opus" more valuable to human sculptures like "Rushing man" or people like Estevan Mortensen? What kind of difference is on presenting yourself with agility and creativity as Dan Menendez "The piano juggler"? Do people understand or know the different examples that exist?

   

   

   

Video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJQvHSZW3eg

Social: Banned videos from YT no. 1

   

   

If you knew that your doctor's identification number does not exist and his diploma is false, would you still allow him to perform an open heart surgery with you? Would you entrust your travels to a pilot who has made only a couple of flights and chosen to misunderstand the controls of an airplane? Would you trust your life to a lawyer who has sold your freedom? Would you inhabit a house built and designed by a criminal who has never studied architecture? Can you trust someone who talks about someone but has never talked to him? Can you trust a famous person who suddenly says that eating rotten fruits is not bad for the health and who says that studying biology is unnecessary? Can you be friends with someone who has only been rude, irresponsible, gossipy and hypocrite to anyone but accuses to the irony of life? Is it possible to trust someone who on a whim enters into a greenhouse only to step on and destroy all its flowers? Can you be friends with someone who speaks rudely and despotically to a waiter in any restaurant? Would you wear an invisible suit that a tailor sells you with the emptied and absurd "context" that only smart people can see? Can you trust a journalist who instead of doing her job spends her time telling people how to act or what to think? What kind of parents raise their children unethically? Would you leave firearms within reach of your children without any warning or explanation? Why would someone at a young age be fascinated with firearms?

   

How would you describe the mix between the stupidity and the immaturity with a gun?

   

   

Social: Before any Pandora Paper, the stupids channels out there with support

Regardless of whether one has found a note on Spanish, what is the point of talk about "God" in the year 2021? Is it so difficult to understand that talking about it on a radio program or internet channel is a completely useless act to start a conversation? Worse, there is a bunch of people that viralize it as something relevant yet after 2 years. But to this person totally indifferent to scientists gets enough attention and "fame" to promote anything else, but the point is to post anything? what if it is just trash? What provokes talking about any topic without enough information over one? What is the point of any religious fallacy if at the beginning we can talk about politic findings?

   

Is it hard to believe such big shit is still out there as the Pandora Papers?

 // 

So, this note must be understood as a reminder of important points and the idea of why it is important understand we are in a kind of big hole only few are able to control media thanks topics as "God" plus moking ppl that should look for information about stuff like:

   

Francis S. Collins does not believe in the existence of god, analogically called the human genome "language of god". The principle of causality (cause and effect) does not argue for any "god" as a cause. Aristotle belonged to a time and place, and his interpretation of "supreme divine mind" classifies it as the world of animals and plants. Alfred Russel Wallacela's successful comment about natural selection as insufficient to account for the human intellect and consciousness, but pay attention that all "spiritualistic" argument is still refuted with scientific investigations and readings. Darwin's autobiography has 94 pages long and does not literally mention anything the host claims. What has he said about William D. Phillips more than absolutely nothing? George Lemaître does not reaffirm the "existence of a creator" since as the Bing-Bang theory is understood as proof that universe had a beginning and tht at no time is it pejorative or reaffirms the existence of a "creator". Speaking of "God" is defined as an intelligent force, and no dark matter or energy necessarily needs to be understood as intelligent.

 // 

 // 

Here the note: https://www.cope.es/religion/historias/noticias/asi-desarma-directo-con-argumentos-cientificos-creyente-ateo-20190402_385969

 // 

Here the video on youtube: https://youtu.be/y6x3AH-ZJ8s

 // 

 // 

The literal text of what is spoken:

 // 

Make the translation with internet. THANK YOU

 // 

 // 

00:00 danann: roberto cómo estás roberto. roberto: bien si, 00:04 vos dime sos uno de aquellos ignorantes que 00:06 en pleno siglo 21 creen en dios ¿no? danann: tan ignorante 00:10 como francis collins, si. 00:12 roberto: bueno no sé quién es pero no me importa. danann: el 00:14 padre del genoma humano simplemente. si bueno, 00:18 me chupa un huevo. a ver probarme que 00:20 dios existe. a ver. danann: ¿como? 00:22 roberto: probable que dios existe. danann: vos quieres que yo 00:25 responda a la incógnita más grande de la 00:28 historia del universo así como así en un 00:30 modesto espacio de internet 00:32 roberto. roberto: yo lo que yo lo que quiero es 00:34 que me des argumentos científicos de por 00:37 qué dios existe. danann: ok, el principio de 00:41 causalidad podría ser un argumento 00:43 científico por ejemplo, ¿sabes lo que es 00:45 el principio de causalidad? roberto: no pero 00:48 explicarme vos que hablais como si supieras. 00:51 danann: no es algo muy difícil el principio de 00:55 causalidad es el principio que 00:56 postula que todo evento debe tener una 00:58 causa. roberto: ¿ah si? danann: sí, de hecho es inviolable la 01:03 única partícula que podría violar el 01:05 principio de causalidad es el taquión, y 01:06 es una partícula 01:08 hipotética así que yo diría, que 01:10 no sé si entendés a dónde voy, pero que 01:12 el principio de causalidad y el hecho de 01:14 que es posible causalidad sea inviolable 01:15 es un buen argumento a favor del teísmo 01:18 o del deísmo. 01:20 roberto: y si es inviolable ¿quien creó a dios? ¿un 01:23 genio? 01:24 danann: no campeón las leyes de la física hasta 01:27 donde sabemos son universales al menos 01:30 segundo que sabe es la eminencia como 01:31 william davis. 01:33 obviamente el creador del universo la 01:35 fuerza creadora del universo tendría que 01:36 estar o que ser un agente externo 01:39 al universo por ende no necesariamente 01:40 tiene que regirse por las leyes 01:43 universales entonces no sé si me explico. roberto: entonces claro ya, 01:46 que las leyes físicas existen cuando te 01:48 conviene. danann: no las leyes físicas son 01:51 universales, vos me estás pidiendo una 01:53 opinión sobre un agente externo al 01:55 universo. a ver si vos maestro armas un 01:58 muñequito de plastilina y palitos, ¿te vas 02:00 a regir por las leyes de la plastilina 02:02 de los palitos o vas a seguir siendo un 02:03 ser humano? roberto: no, no, no, no. yo no creo en la magia a 02:06 diferencia de vos sobre lo de hace 3 mil años. 02:09 danann: yo no hable de magia eso es una falacia 02:11 del espantapájaros estoy hablando del 02:13 principio de causalidad y una razón por 02:15 la cual yo puedo sostener mi deísmo. ¿en 02:19 la evolución crees vos? la evolución no 02:22 es una creencia la ciencia tampoco no 02:24 son creencias amigos son hechos, son 02:25 teorías científicas que son observables. 02:27 no son cosas en las que creemos conocer 02:30 mucha gente que no crea en la evolución 02:32 que la niegue porque si es así no te 02:34 estás moviendo un ambiente no muy 02:34 científico como tanto como tanto decís. 02:38 además el padre de la evolución fue un monoteísta, sabes. roberto: darwin no fue monoteísta, burro. 02:44 danann: darwin no es el padre de la evolución maestro, 02:46 aristóteles es el padre de la evolución 02:48 además el trabajo de darwin es 02:49 absolutamente derivativo de trabajo de 02:51 wallace. eeh, uuhmm, y 02:53 por cierto wallace fue espiritista, y darwin 02:55 buen afirmaba que para que la evolución 02:56 fuera posible hacía falta detrás de ella 02:59 una mano inteligente. roberto: darwin nunca dijo eso. 03:01 danann: está en la página 92 o 93 de la 03:04 autobiografía de darwin amigo. 03:07 que vos no lo hayas leído no significa 03:10 que no lo haya dicho. 03:13 roberto: pero eso es porque los que decían que 03:15 eran ateos los perseguía la inquisición. 03:17 ningún científico podría no creer en dios 03:21 pedazo de ignorante. 03:24 danann: ¿a darwin lo perseguía la inquisición? ningún científico puede creer en dios decis. 03:25 roberto: no. danann: ¿a alexander fleming, louis pasteur, young, 03:27 william phillips y francis collins los 03:29 perseguía la inquisición también? 03:32 ¿es por eso que los perseguía la inquisición? 03:35 estoy nombrando a científicos del siglo 20 y 03:37 a 2 que están vivos; el premio nobel de 03:40 física william phillips y el padre del 03:42 genoma francis collins. ¿vos decís que a 03:44 francis collins ya william phillips los 03:46 persigue la inquisición hoy? roberto: vos la iglesia, vos 03:52 no puede darse cuenta de que la iglesia sigue teniendo poder. 03:57 danann: dale, dale maestro, muéstrame tu contraparte. tú con tu 03:59 argumento amante de las ciencias. 04:02 roberto: ¿mi contraparte? no, escúchame vos pedazo de animal 04:05 yo no tengo que probar que dios existe. los negativos para tu información 04:09 no se prueban. danann: en primera sí puedes probar un negativo 04:11 ya que se puede 04:12 demostrar que los dinosaurios no existen 04:14 simplemente recurriendo a ciencia muy 04:16 sencilla, pero no te voy a pedir que pruebes 04:17 un negativo. por supuesto que no te 04:18 voy a pedir que pruebes 04:19 que dios no existe. roberto: ¿entonces? danann: lo que 04:22 quiero es que me expliques es como surgió 04:24 a partir de que se creó y se originó el 04:27 universo. eso es lo que quiero que me expliques 04:30 tu visión de cómo se originó el universo. 04:33 mi visión es que hay una inteligencia 04:34 superior detrás, la tuya ¿cuál es? ¿como 04:37 cómo ocurrió? 04:40 ¿roberto? 04:42 roberto: estaba tomando agua. muy sencillo, se creó con el big 04:44 bang 04:46 danann: pésima elección de respuesta roberto. 04:48 el padre de la teoría del big bang fue un 04:50 sacerdote católico y físico llamado 04:51 george lemaitre. la razón de esta teoría 04:54 fue justamente probar que el universo 04:57 tuvo un comienzo como sus creencias 04:59 manifestaban y de hecho la comunidad 05:02 científica de aquel momento tildó a 05:03 georges lemaitre de ser un creacionista y tildó 05:05 peyorativamente a la teoría del big 05:06 bang' decir era una teoría creacionista. de 05:08 hecho no sé si sabías que 05:09 el término big bang' es peyorativo es 05:11 insultante. o sea el big-bang no sólo no 05:15 contradice la existencia de un creador 05:16 sino que dicha teoría fue elaborada para 05:19 reafirmar la existencia de un creador. 05:22 roberto: ¿y porque ese creador universal tiene que 05:25 ser dios es la definición por excelencia 05:27 de dios? danann: es la definición por excelencia de dios. 05:29 creador universal o hacedor del universo. 05:30 roberto: no no el universo pudo haberse creado a 05:33 sí mismo. danann: si, eso no es ateísmo, es 05:35 panteísmo. estás afirmando que sigue 05:37 habiendo una fuerza creadora. quiero que 05:39 me expliques desde tu ateísmo como 05:42 dirigir el universo sin ninguna fuerza 05:43 inteligente detrás. roberto: no sé. danann: entonces no sos 05:47 ateo, sos agnóstico. 05:49 roberto: no es que yo, te voy a explicar. danann: anda iluminame. roberto: bueno sí. 05:55 espero a que la ciencia lo descubra. danann: ¿vos esperas? 05:59 ¿como? roberto: yo espero a que la ciencia lo 06:01 descubra, que la ciencia lo pruebe. danann: entonces no 06:03 pensás mientras, no teorizas. no lo 06:05 filósofas. no lo pensás por tí mismo. tu 06:07 mérito es sentarte a esperar que alguien 06:08 más lo descubra y te lo cuente y eso te 06:10 hace un juez de la 06:11 intelectualidad ajena 06:13 y andás señalando a los demás como 06:14 ignorantes 06:18 ¿roberto? 06:20 sigo esperando tu contra argumento. 06:23 ¿cómo ya partir de qué se originó el universo 06:25 sin necesidad de un agente externo o 06:27 inteligencia creadora? 06:29 roberto: no no es que seguro puede haber una 06:32 fuerza inteligente detrás. danann: lo que estás 06:35 diciendo que consideras que hay una 06:37 fuerza o inteligencia creadora detrás 06:40 del universo. bienvenido al teísmo 06:44 roberto, ahora sos tan ignorante como yo. 06:47 roberto: aanda a romperte el culo pelotudo 06:50 danann: hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

 // 

 // 

Make the translation with internet. THANK YOU

Social: A bunch of nasty stories, about nasty people, told on a nasty way.

Of course it is outrageous that people are not well prepared and with so little concern for their country, but most of them agree with our leaders only for money, the degree of impunity for their excesses.  Citizens with apathy, conformists, indoctrinated, aligned, and left; Perhaps all accomplices under the degree of the subconscious. Yet all the advertisements we see have been etched into our memory and our decisions are apparently only based on consumer choices, but one is from the generation in which it was proclaimed daily that "There is nothing that is really necessary if you feel like that."  Let heads rolling, how beneficial is it to preserve negative patterns?  Is finding a balance without hypocrisy of abandoning oneself in any belief exclusively to win something possible? Betting on an almost Blaise Pascal style or perhaps a completely different one is utopian? (1)

One will try to explain himself, on my case it was difficult to grow up knowing that the thing that I could grab onto was dead from its roots, however, on my opinion there are no need to extreme resentments; And that is why I decided to search for social networks as an instrument of manifestation and social evolution, which I accept opened a channel of communication that on my perspective continues to be indifferent to their real needs:  Different generations identify themselves as oppressed, perhaps for the same reason their modes of protest occasionally go beyond the limits that degrade new oppressed and exalt non-existent values, on the style of preparatory popularity, giving rise to aggression on any way and on any medium or place that can be made present. It seems easy to forget that the word of everywhere these days is Tolerance;  To understand it is to achieve moral superiority by being tolerant. And it must be understood that tolerance does not mean suffering or enduring, and to fully tolerate it is necessary to want to.  The desire to know new ideas and the need to emphasize them for study and debate, possibly thus managing to resolve our differences; Simple suggestion to stay flexible.
 

But to call this "on my practice", social reconciliation as a first step to achieve true national development is close to nil.  Respect and the exercise of constructive criticism and ideological solidarity on every sense that strengthens the rule of law and national harmony, are forgotten when it comes to benefits.  "What's good for me on the end?"  Distrust predominates when becoming aware and does not consider who is legitimate, at some point pretending to act differently.  There are too many things that do not retain any grace, life itself has no meaning in its generality.  You might wonder why waste yourself?  However, the most honest thing anyone can do, I suppose, is to be totally who you are and write, speak and act like one.  Freedom of expression and belief, with all its immunity under the Magna Carta.  Water and then wind.

P.S.
If theres an objection is facing references, this text is only research and personal analysis of all of them.  No interest unrelated to the opinion, act of reply or preservation of various notes.

 

P.S.2.

Repost from  Sunday, May 12, 2013

https://mojejstronie.blogspot.com/2013/05/1-uno.html?m=1

 

R:
 (1).  Understand the bet as regards the text as an example, for what is morally accepted or what is beneficial learned or modified through ethical advancement.  Bet on their own beliefs, concepts, values ​​and / or ideas that guide acts to growth, be it personal or collective, by not applying such a bet exclusively to a deity. 

(1.2) It is accepted that Pascal does not intend to scientifically prove the existence of God and, in order not to fall into any fallacy of the false dilemma, let us qualify it as "Any deity or Zeitgeist from among the variety of options known from the theological field" for various applications or explanations about the quote  or the present text.

Social: Is onlyfans secure?

Can it be assured that the internet has been built on the basis of anonymous speech? Although after years of learning about who tries to investigate who can be said that privacy is something difficult to achieve speaking from how data may only have market use value for capitalist systems or large companies such as Amazon, Google, Facebook or Microsoft that collect navigation data for targeted advertisements, as well as all data that might be leaked between hackers or people of bad or inexplicable intentions, since plaintiffs in defamation cases use subpoenas to try to unmask identities of internet users who have been interrogated, arrested, tortured and sentenced to long prison terms for the "crime" of speaking critically about governments and institutions. So is it bad to want to remain anonymous? Hasn't it been a cornerstone for the same democratic expression, for example the northamerican one with the publications of the 'Federalist Papers' under the pseudonym Publius, or for the dialogues that daily users carry out or even have carried out during the Arab Spring through the network and through social networks?

 \ \ 

On the case of the internet, it must be realized that no blog can be completely anonymous since with enough time, resources and political will, a group or government can discover the identity of the writer since there is always a risk when you say what you think to people that they cannot tolerate dissent on issues such as the corruption of a public servant, or bad procedures or protocols of fascist institutions but, is it necessary to provide biometric data even to register on platforms to buy pornography as http:// onlyfans.com does?

 \ \ 

So, it is not only about a possible government spying on its people, it is also that with the implementation of exaggerated registries or standards in mobile telephony, possible cases of identity theft, arbitrary or abusive interference with dignity, honor, reputation, personality development, or possible intrusions to privacy and security from the data collected against any of the distortions in the market, protocol or agreement are implied with a flow of public spending reaching extremes such as extortion or favors selling. Is it possible to take control of your information online? In the day to day it seems that the only way to remain anonymous is not to use the network, which is not an option; So from the moment one turns on a computer, one must take into perspective the use of a router as instance, to mitigate the use of hackers who may be constantly bombarding IP addresses to see if it is possible to enter their system when locating an ISP provider. At the same time, those who may be somewhat careless when browsing the web, in the same way as new exploits are found or when a device fails, posibilities that the user can walk with the VPN itself leaking (https://pcmag.com/how-to/is-your-vpn-leaking) or by keeping too much personal information such as passwords; Of which, in case of priority anonymity use, any browser intended for privacy must be kept with the Javascript disabled as Tor Browser may well be. 

\ \

 Another factor apparently is that the only anonymous mobiles are prepaid telephones (aka a burner) that although a call log is kept from them and the user might be triangulated via GPS, it is possible to register it without associating it with the user's name and discard it, which can be said is functional when not wanting to receive calls from numbers that have one blocked with an iPhone or Smartphone, when there is also a 2014 investigation by Neophapsis Labs (http://www.zdnet.com/article/recycled- burner-number-sends-sex-workers-clients-to-security-researcher) that found companies recycle numbers quickly, meaning spam calls are still possible. It is added there is no evidence or positive correlation between a registry and the reduction of criminality in extortion since recharge systems and relatively cheap chip changes are used daily, as well as the same authority can be corrupted, a subject of which there is cloth where to sew.

 \ \ 

Did courts recognized that the right to speak anonymously is part of the freedoms of speech, belief, of the press, of petition, and of assembly already? Although the use of the international network is rather a privilege and not a right, as on cases where a person is not authorized to use any computer, the right to personality, dialogue, the guarantee of autonomy and the information if they are, exist; So to say that by refusing to give your information the protocol will be to immediately cancel the lines of the clients without the right to reactivation, payment or compensation, it is talking about all that near to despotism, totalitarian control, and dictatorship by the simple fact of wanting to express, promote, pursue, communicate, or defend anonymously, or conserved as private, exempt and immune and/or in a unnoticed way by sometimes unstable governments and societies on changing. 

\ \

 Do people in general know what has happened or not about it in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, China, United Arab Emirates, Nigeria, Pakistan, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia?

 \ \ \ \ 

You want to know about: 

GLOBAL 

The amnesia incognito live system. https://tails.boum.org

USA 

Legal protections for anonymous speech

 https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/legal-protections-anonymous-speech \ \ \

Social: What is the point?

Who does reports and news depend on? Who does international relations depend on? If presidents meet it is based on their power and the signed agreements.

Is it that one should believe that there is such bullying to a President? Who agrees to exclude himself to others should be exposed as an enemy? Trump says it, journalists say it, López Obrador says it.

The sun can be covered with a single finger? The right hand does not know what the left hand does. The last straw is praising the total lack of respect for the obvious interest in discussing the indisputable among police violence, lacks, ignorance, covid, or news media.