Policy Bond And Its Safety Policy Schedule Policy: Fill & Download for Free

Its inherent FEAR of losing POWER which lies LATENT in rank and file of ruling dispensation and its parent the RSS which leads them to utter such nonsense and they think they would be able to BULLDOZE every opinion or view by SHOUTING out loud and categorize every event into NATIONALISTIC and ANTI-NATIONALISTIC.The criteria on which such LABELS are pasted are very simple : any view, event which is against the prevailing political dispensation, any event or view which CRITICIZE the policies of ruling dispensation; any event or view which questions the OFFICIAL propaganda which may include Women, employment, GDP, Armed forces is anti-national.In the last few Years the following events or incidence have become benchmark of Nationalism:a. COWb. Demeaning Minorities in general and Muslims in Particular.c. Self appointed custodian of Hindus rites and rituals.d. Downgrading the SC( schedule casts and other backward castes) in name of Reservations, Cow, and now days in Gujarat even on sporting a Mustache, Riding a Bike, participating or observing GARBA.e. The students who follow what society wishes and accept all MISOGYNIST idea of human behavior.f. The attack and character assassination of Students and teachers and Faculty of every center of left university be it JNU , be it Hyderabad or Jadavpur among others.g. Unquestionably following and accepting the propaganda on success of Beti Bachao, Swach Bharat , Demonetization and GST among others.h. Raising the armed forces on PEDESTAL and Beyond Question or a query on its conduct.i. terrorism of Vegetarians who are hell bent to enter our kitchen and monitor what we eat.j. MORAL policing and raising a BOGEY of Love Jihad and executing operation romeo and dictating dressing codes and meeting codes to young persons.k. controlling Life of young people under every disguise from Moral, to Safety, to Culture to religion to ethos to ……..If you read the above list most of the above affect YOUNG PEOPLE OR YOUTH directly or indirectly, YOUTH is a time to experiment , to loosen the societal -Familial bonds and find or creating ones own SPACE where they can and must execute their learning , in other words YOUTH is time to REBEL to break existing bonds and create a world of their own.The PATRIARCHAL attitude and mental make up of SANGH PARIVAR does not encourage experiment and rebelling against defined norms and these defined norms are the worst misogynist norms which have come down from since ages and this mind set lets them to institutionalize programs to CONTROL THE YOUTH and also internalize the fear of INDEPENDENT YOUTH .Whatever happened in BHU is nothing but naked dance of MORAL CORRUPTION , where Girl student by demanding better security for themselves had hit at PATRIARCHY where it HURT the most and that is “ How dare the girl can question the norms and demand an solution or equal right instead of demurring and accepting with out any question whatever crumbs are being thrown towards them”( this was made clear in no uncertain terms by the VC in his interview on TV and past utterances)When the PARIVAR is faced with severe criticism in handling the situation and idea of BETI PADAO , BETI BACHAO going down the drain i in such brazen manner and in full view of MEDIA , what happened in BHU can only be described as blatant misuse of state machinery and going against all the statutory norms fixed to deal with such situation….and it was a literal HIT WICKET…There was no argument left other than to bring NATIONALISM into the game and declaring BHU as another center of ANTI NATIONALISM similar to JNU.

Twitter is becoming a platform of expressing hate and in the last few months users are leaving by hoards. Another issue plaguing twitter is fake trends by bots (automated users) and by dormant accounts taken over by political entities. One of the major revelation was that companies in Saudi Arabia were exploiting this[1].The latest policy change from Twitter came on December 8 where they updated its “Hateful Conduct Policy” where they announced a crackdown on media that depicts lynching, images depicting others as animal, condemning others on the basis of religion, sexual orientation, gender identity etc[2] .How can this policy be a bad thing? Is this left wing or right wing?Mid last year, there was another update where dehumanizing someone was barred. Examples can be found here .I quote from twitter [3] .“We don’t want more [religious groups] in this country. Enough is enough with those [cuss word].”How this policy a bad thing? Is this trend left wing or right wing?Earlier last year, twitter began to take steps to curb fake trending[4]i) Simultaneously posting identical or substantially similar content to multiple accounts. This was intended to reduce sudden surge of same/similar content by multiple persons/bots for brand promotion and covers “scheduled tweets” via API as well.ii) Simultaneously perform actions such as Likes, Retweets, or follows from multiple accounts. This was done to stop fake accounts to get a topic trending.iii) Any kind of automation to do likes, re-tweets etc. This was done to stop bots to get a topic trending.Why this is bad? Is automation only used by right wing?Twitter also made phone number verification mandatory for any “new accounts” from Jan 2018[5] . This was done to prevent fake accounts. They began to enforce this starting April 2018. While many users would hate to give their phone number to twitter, there are no other easy way to ensure that the user creating an account, is a genuine person in the possession of a genuine phone number.If it is bad, it is bad for all. why accusation of “anti-right wing” bias?Twitter also implemented a system where if an account display activity such as high-volume tweeting using the same hashtag or tweeting at the same handle without receiving a reply, Twitter will subject those accounts to tests that will allow only a human to pass.Why this is a problem with right wing, not left wing that trending using unresponsive account becomes an issue?It is estimated by analysts that twitter has 49.5 million fake accounts. Twitter, out of all is worried to crack down and close these many accounts because this will expose the low usage and in turn turn away advertisers and investors. So twitter would be the last entity to remove fake accounts from its user base. But they have been pushed by the pressure of genuine users leaving to take this step.Twitter also now ensure that trends are not determined by the sheer number of tweets, but also the velocity of tweets (speed that they gets re-tweeted). With tweeting with bots made difficult, only viral tweet re-tweeted by real humans can be trending ideally.Is this bad that twitter ensures only human uses its system?All these enforcement are done by twitter algorithm, which is a self learning program which works without human intervention. They also use products and know-hows of companies specializing on this[6] . However an algorithm to replace human understanding of sense and sensibilities cannot be perfect. There are still tweets which get wrongfully banned (false positive) and tweets that gets omitted out of enforcement (false negatives). That’s were human moderators comes into picture. On requesting review, moderators decide if a tweet is false positive or false negative. Tweets from India are moderated by a global team of moderators who are not Indian to ensure impartiality[7] .Note that in July 2018, similar accusation of anti right wing bias was charged against Twitter by none other than Trump[8] .Good job twitter to finally act and update their policies. It’s a late start. I still think its too little too late and mostly posturing. Removing lakhs of followers from Indian politician’s handles are too less I think[9] . The actual problem with twitter platform runs much deep.It was preposterous to call CEO of twitter in a short notice and then accusing him of disrespect. Such peoples calendars are booked for weeks ahead if not months. But I think twitter CEO should ultimately come and explain things as-is and that should be done in a televised cross-party parliamentary panel, not just with ruling party MP’s from Parliamentary Committee on Information Technology led by BJP’s Anurag Thakur (incidentally, his twitter followers were cut by twitter recently). The video and text of exchange should be made public so that Indian people can know what questions were asked and what answers were received. Indian people does not deserve neither a twitter witch-hunt by BJP nor blackmailing of twitter, but an impartial probe on any possibility of bias.****Edit: As someone with experience in digital platforms and integration with Twitter, I can write it is technically possible to train any artificially learning algorithm to be anti-something.But for a moment, lets consider what is right wing ideology? According to The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, in liberal democracies, the political right opposes socialism and social democracy. Right-wing parties include conservatives, Christian democrats, classical liberals, nationalists and on the far-right; racists and fascists[10] . So right wing ideology essentially has a center-right form, and a far-right form. Center-right wing is often associated with rejection of egalitarian policies, aggressive nationalism, religious conservatism, opposition to immigration, support for Privatization of everything, less Government, strong industry-government bond etc. Far rights go another step - they favor an absolutist government, which uses the power of the state to support the dominant ethnic group or religion and often to vilify other ethnic groups or religions. More often than not, the far-right narrative is based on hate, fake narrative, superiority complex, and utilize pent-up anger and frustration. Also, the far-right, unlike the center-right will enforce the same policies of center-right using threat or force. Center-left and center-right can be an enriching part of a democracy, but history have shown us that far-left and far-right are both bad news for democracy.It is no doubt that Twitter, as per its new policies ought to have implemented algorithm that even in it's inadequate form blocks out the most obvious forms of hate mongering - like direct or implicit death threats, calls to lynch, dehumanizing and threat of vigilance against account holder, family or community etc. In other words - it is being trained to be anti-threat and anti-hate, two of prime tools normally used by the far-rights. From a humane perspective as well, the policies adopted by Twitter are excellent, if done right. The efforts regarding fake news and spam countering are also excellent on paper.A visible bias of Twitter against center-rights will be suicidal for Twitter and it is foolish to assume that twitter wants that at the expense of its half user base (lets say 50% of its users are right of the spectrum and 50% to the left). The world also understands that, and will be sympathizing with Twitter if Indian Government tries to arm twist them for the benefit of right over left. Therefore, cherry picked cases of false positives placed in front of Twitter CEO might embarrass and force Twitter to lean right in India and go-easy with moderation, India's status as a free society and a democracy will further decline. It is imperative that any hearing be transparent and free from conflict of interest.Edit 7/3: The worst fear has become the reality. There was a closed-door hearing of Twitter VP before a committee of the Parliament. Twitter's Global Vice President Colin Crowell didn't talk to the media outside, neither did the Parliamentary Committee chairman, Anurag Thakur. Utterly opaque proceedings. Another hearing was scheduled for 6th March and this time, the committee called Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram to testify, as well. Not much out there from the 6th March hearing.Footnotes[1] How much to fake a Twitter trend? About £150[2] Twitter bans ‘misgendering, deadnaming’ as ‘hateful conduct’ in updated rules[3] Creating new policies together[4] What This Means for Marketers[5] New Twitter users will have to verify a phone number or email address[6] Twitter acquires online safety company to bolster anti-abuse efforts[7] http://We have a specialized, global team that enforces the Twitter Rules with impartiality. Twitter India employees do not make enforcement decisions. This is by design to ensure fairness and objectivity.[8] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-accuses-twitter-of-illegal-bias-against-republicans-in-search-results/2018/07/26/cbe36bd2-90ba-11e8-bcd5-9d911c784c38_story.html?utm_term=.9483eb639177[9] Twitter India summoned by Parliament panel over citizens' social media rights[10] Right-wing politics - Wikipedia

That's a really interesting one. The biggest issue for a modern central banker would be the extreme difficulty of manipulating the money supply in antiquity: in a world where weight of metal is the primary standard of value, things like interest rates and bond sales are at best very weak levers to move the fate of nations.There are really three distinct periods in the Roman economy and the role of 'economic policy' would be very different for each.In the the Republican period (particularly before 146 BC when Rome became the dominant power in the Mediterranean). Rome was still primarily one city-state in a world of city-states. This kind of economic and political fragmentation tended to keep everyone in the Roman world much poorer: many cities had rules and regulations intended to protect local producers or to keep the city from becoming dependent on hostile neighbors. Small-scale inter-city wars, and the resulting rivalries and hostilities, often led to very strange patterns of trade and exchange (a famous, though not Roman, example is the three-way rivalry between Athens, Corinth and Thebes, who should have been natural trading partners but who were usually bitter rivals who went out of their way to cut each other out of business when possible).City state finances tended to be very simple: the wealth of the city was the gold and silver stored within its walls and the produce of the fields which its armies could control. The most common form of wartime fundraising, for example, was to melt down the precious furnishings and statues in the temples in order to buy food or arms. The common ancient practice of “dedications,” — where a victorious general or politician would vow an expensive new temple or statue — was in an economic sense the ancient equivalent of a rainy day fund.In that world. a modern central banker would probably be more interested in trade policy than in finance proper: in lowering barriers to trade, regularizing things like weights and measures, and encouraging the formation of larger trading regions with lower friction. A truly machiavellian banker might have tried engineer a religious reform or maybe a periodic oracular pronouncement encouraging a general 'meltdown' of temples (the Babylonians had a habit of razing and rebuilding temples on a fairly regular basis) in order to release more money into circulation.One thing that the Romans were pretty good at, and which a modern economist would have loved, was record-keeping. I'm sure that the Roman census would have become an important tool for getting data (which in all other ways would be in very, very short supply in that world).In late days of the Republic and during the heyday of the principate, the economy had some very modern features: the Pax Romana meant a huge increase in the ease and safety of long distance trade and along with it a corresponding rise in economic specialization. The end of the republic replaced a very erratic and often hugely corrupt series of provincial governors with a somewhat higher class of administrator. Imperial legates were hardly angels (almost literally the reverse in the case of Pontius Pilate!) but they were significantly better for the provincials than the ambitious and usually grasping politicians they replaced.Pottery from Arretium, tin from Britain, glass from Libya, grain from Egypt and silk from the far east circulated far more freely and widely during this period than before or afterwards: it was a 'globalizing' period like today or like the late 19th century. Economies of scale and local competitive advantages blossomed in classic Econ 101 fashion -- this was a large part of the reason the first two centuries AD were such good times, historically speaking.Hard currency remained the only real control over the money supply. As the empire gradually replaced the patchwork of alliances and client kingdoms with a more or less uniform administration, it became easier for the government to simulate something like a real central banks function by tweaking the metal content of the coinage:Unfortunately the ancient version of this practice tended to be badly abused. It was a common way for cash-strapped emperors to pay bills without raising taxes: but, like many modern equivalents, it drove inflation and also tended to encourage non-cash economics (more about that later). If you google "roman coin debasement" you'll find a lot of monetarists who think of this as the origin of "printing money", and while that's an exaggeration, Roman minting does have some resemblance to the problems of a paper currency.In that environment a little modern economics really could be useful. Ancient critics of debasement viewed it as a moral problem: dishonesty on the part of the prince, trying to pay his bills on the cheap. If a modern economist could get a hearing, he or she would definitely want to talk up the virtues of having a flexible money supply and using it to either encourage more movement or to discourage hoarding.This would, however, have been a very tough sell: it's not a universally popular opinion today, despite many centuries of paper money -- in a world where traders routinely 'clipped coins', shaving off bits of precious metal to short-change their customers -- it would take a lot of selling to make that idea popular. The traditional figure of justice is blind because honest weights and measures were the cornerstone of fairness::Unfortunately -- as lots of the people with the Roman currency graphs will tell you --- the combination of political instability and spiraling currency debasement really got out of hand in the Crisis of the Third Century, when for the better part of a century the empire tore itself apart with military coups and palace intrigue. All of that fighting was expensive, and much of it was paid for by debasing the currency. This had a ruinous impact on the vibrant commercial economy of the principate. Cash became less reliable (and it was easier to confiscate or steal). Taxes went up, which encouraged more and more self-sufficiency; the highly interdependent, 'globalised' world of the first and second centuries slid into a much less wealthy, quasi-feudal world.By the dominate, the period when Diocletian (285) managed to stamp out the worst of the chaos, the economy was a shambles and — more important to the soldier-emperors who followed — it was very hard put to maintain the military that the empire depended on. Diocletian and many of his successors tried to set things straight in classic command-economy fashion; here a modern economist might have been able to tell an emperor that comprehensive price controls, forcing people into professions they don't want to be in for less wages than they want, and attempts to force producers to sell at uniform prices in defiance of local conditions don't work very well or for very long.that's slave prices on the upper right. A low skilled slave is around 25 denarii; just below a race horse is 100Diocletian (and several of his dirigiste successors, particularly Julian) found it out the hard way. This policy accelerated the Roman world's slide into a localized, rural, and commodity-based economy — laying the foundations of feudalism and also greatly hampering the ability of the Roman state to defend itself.Of course the whole thing relates to the problem of being stuck with a pure metal standard for money. Diocletian's edict is thought to have started as part of a larger scheme to get Roman citizens to accept a new fiat currency: a new bronze version of the old denarius that frankly contained no silver and was theoretically valued at 2/10,000ths of a pound of gold. The price fixing scheme was in part an effort to enforce a value for the new denarius -- one which ultimately failed to stick . Constantine effectively returned to 'the gold standard' by the end of his reign but Diocletian's heavy handed legacy remained strong, particularly in its efforts to keep tenant farmers bound to the land. One would hope that a modern economist could convince somebody in power that serfdom was not a good foundation for a prosperous society.There's a lot of detailed things that would probably drive a modern economist crazy. Rome didn't have real limited-liability corporations, a regulated or insured banking business, intellectual property laws, or worker welfare beyond the grain dole in cities big enough to be afraid of riots. There were 'banks' of a sort, but they shaded off into loan-sharking and they were also not guaranteed. However the lack of government financial tools and the stubborn insistence of ordinary consumers on weight-of-metal as the real standard of value would make any modern economist end up looking like this fellow:[Diocletian, Maximian, Constantius, and Galerius] declare:As we recall the wars which we have successfully fought, we must be grateful to the fortune of our state, second only to the immortal gods, for a tranquil world that reclines in the embrace of the most profound calm, and for the blessings of a peace that was won with great effort. That this fortune of our state be stabilized and suitably adorned is demanded by the law-abiding public and by the dignity and majesty of Rome. Therefore we, who by the gracious favor of the gods previously stemmed the tide of the ravages of barbarian nations by destroying them, must surround the peace which we established for eternity with the necessary defenses of justice.If the excesses perpetrated by persons of unlimited and frenzied avarice could be checked by some self-restraint—this avarice which rushes for gain and profit with no thought for mankind; or if the general welfare could endure without harm this riotous license by which, in its unfortunate state, it is being very seriously injured every day, the situation could perhaps be faced with dissembling and silence, with the hope that human forbearance might alleviate the cruel and pitiable situation. But the only desire of these uncontrolled madmen is to have no thought for the common need. Among the unscrupulous, the immoderate, and the avaricious it is considered almost a creed to desist from plundering the wealth of all only when necessity compels them. Through their extreme need, moreover, some persons have become acutely aware of their most unfortunate situation, and can no longer close their eyes to it. Therefore we, who are the protectors of the human race, are agreed, as we view the situation, that decisive legislation is necessary, so that the long-hoped-for solutions which mankind itself could not provide may, by the remedies provided by our foresight, be vouchsafed for the general betterment of all.We hasten, therefore, to apply the remedies long demanded by the situation, satisfied that no one can complain that our intervention with regulations is untimely or unnecessary, trivial or unimportant. These measures are directed against the unscrupulous, who have perceived in our silence of so many years a lesson in restraint but have been unwilling to imitate it. For who is so insensitive and so devoid of human feeling that he can be unaware or has not perceived that uncontrolled prices are widespread in the sales taking place in the markets and in the daily life of the cities? Nor is the uncurbed passion for profiteering lessened either by abundant supplies or by fruitful years.It is our pleasure, therefore, that the prices listed in the subjoined schedule be held in observance in the whole of our Empire.It is our pleasure that anyone who resists the measures of this statute shall be subject to a capital penalty for daring to do so. And let no one consider the statute harsh, since there is at hand a ready protection from danger in the observance of moderation. We therefore exhort the loyalty of all, so that a regulation instituted for the public good may be observed with willing obedience and due scruple, especially as it is seen that by a statute of this kind provision has been made, not for single municipalities and peoples and provinces but for the whole world.