||Home||Switchboard||Unix Administration||Red Hat||TCP/IP Networks||Neoliberalism||Toxic Managers|
|(slightly skeptical) Educational society promoting "Back to basics" movement against IT overcomplexity and bastardization of classic Unix|
|News||Social Sites as intelligence collection tools||Recommended Links||Many faces of Facebook||Blocking Facebook||Search engines privacy|
|National Security State||How to collect and analyse your own metadata||Total control: keywords in your posts that might trigger surveillance||Cyberstalking||Search engines privacy||Big Brother is Watching You|
|HTTP Servers Log Analyses||Privacy is Dead – Get Over It||Many faces of Facebook||Google sites||Prizm-related humor||Etc|
Facebook is not your friend, it is a surveillance engine.
If the Stasi still existed it would force everyone to create a Facebook page
I've often wondered what sort of person would listen to the lines "Every step you take/I'll be watching you" and thought, "Ahhhh, that's so romantic." Fucking weirdos.
The company’s [Facebook's] flubs in this area [privacy] reveal a fundamental tension in the way sophisticated ad-supported sites work. Consumers’ time and information are effectively the price they pay for free Web services. Facebook allows its users to keep up with far-flung friends and family, for instance, in exchange for that information.
Anybody who think that NSA revelations change the nature of Facebook (Facebook = Spyware) or that NSA somehow "intruded" on their privacy is delusional. Information trusted the third party with very dubious agenda can't be private. So in a way NSA has the legitimate right to snoop after all people who open Facebook page.
Facebook is also a powerful propaganda venue, which definitely can influence elections. And not the way Russiagate stories suggest, buying few ads on Facebook changes nothing; being on control of Facebook allow to control the narrative and this election).
As Raul Ilargi Meije noted ( Google & Facebook Are 1984 ):
Facebook officials have been compared to the Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels by a former investor. Roger McNamee also likened the company's methods to those of Edward Bernays, the 'father of public' relations who promoted smoking for women. Mr McNamee, who made a fortune backing the social network in its infancy, has spoken out about his concern about the techniques the tech giants use to engage users and advertisers. [..] the former investor said everyone was now 'in one degree or another addicted' to the site while he feared the platform was causing people to swap real relationships for phoney ones.
And he likened the techniques of the company to Mr Bernays and Hitler's public relations minister. 'In order to maintain your attention they have taken all the techniques of Edward Bernays and Joseph Goebbels, and all of the other people from the world of persuasion, and all the big ad agencies, and they've mapped it onto an all day product with highly personalised information in order to addict you,' Mr McNamee told The Telegraph. Mr McNamee said Facebook was creating a culture of 'fear and anger'. 'We have lowered the civil discourse, people have become less civil to each other..'
He said the tech giant had 'weaponised' the First Amendment to 'essentially absolve themselves of responsibility'. He added: 'I say this as somebody who was there at the beginning.' Mr McNamee's comments come as a further blow to Facebook as just last month former employee Justin Rosenstein spoke out about his concerns. Mr Rosenstein, the Facebook engineer who built a prototype of the network's 'like' button, called the creation the 'bright dings of pseudo-pleasure'. He said he was forced to limit his own use of the social network because he was worried about the impact it had on him.
... ... ...
As Google, Facebook and the CIA are ever more entwined, these companies become so important to what 'the spooks' consider the interests of the nation that they will become mutually protective. And once CIA headquarters in Langley, VA, aka the aptly named "George Bush Center for Intelligence", openly as well as secretly protects you, you're pretty much set for life. A long life.
In Australia any expectations of privacy isn't legally recognized by the Supreme Court once people voluntarily offered data to the third party. Here is a relevant Slashdot post:
General Counsel of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence Robert S. Litt explained that our expectation of privacy isn't legally recognized by the Supreme Court once we've offered it to a third party.
Thus, sifting through third party data doesn't qualify 'on a constitutional level' as invasive to our personal privacy. This he brought to an interesting point about volunteered personal data, and social media habits. Our willingness to give our information to companies and social networking websites is baffling to the ODNI.
'Why is it that people are willing to expose large quantities of information to private parties but don't want the Government to have the same information?,' he asked."
... ... ...While Snowden's leaks have provoked Jimmy Carter into labeling this government a sham, and void of a functioning democracy, Litt presented how these wide data collection programs are in fact valued by our government, have legal justification, and all the necessary parameters.
Litt, echoing the president and his boss James Clapper, explained thusly:
"We do not use our foreign intelligence collection capabilities to steal the trade secrets of foreign companies in order to give American companies a competitive advantage. We do not indiscriminately sweep up and store the contents of the communications of Americans, or of the citizenry of any country. We do not use our intelligence collection for the purpose of repressing the citizens of any country because of their political, religious or other beliefs. We collect metadata—information about communications—more broadly than we collect the actual content of communications, because it is less intrusive than collecting content and in fact can provide us information that helps us more narrowly focus our collection of content on appropriate targets. But it simply is not true that the United States Government is listening to everything said by every citizen of any country."
It's great that the U.S. government behaves better than corporations on privacy—too bad it trusts/subcontracts corporations to deal with that privacy—but it's an uncomfortable thing to even be in a position of having to compare the two. This is the point Litt misses, and it's not a fine one.
In a very profound way Facebook was never a "social site". It was always anti-social site. Facebook exploits people's own sense of vanity and desire to invade other people's privacy. There is no requirement to plaster your life all over the internet.
|In a very profound way Facebook was never a "social site". It was always anti-social site. Facebook exploits people's own sense of vanity and desire to invade other people's privacy. There is no requirement to plaster your life all over the internet.|
Facebook has been a personal information sucking device since its inception. It is a toxic, faceless suburban wasteland which actually makes people more lonely (Suburbanization of Friendships and Solitude)
April 18, 2012
Facebook may be making us lonely, giving users the information age equivalent of a faceless suburban wasteland, claims the fantastic cover story of The Atlantic. Key excerpts:
We were promised a global village; instead we inhabit the drab cul-de-sacs and endless freeways of a vast suburb of information.
At the forefront of all this unexpectedly lonely interactivity is Facebook.
Facebook makes real relationships harder:
That one little phrase, Your real friends—so quaint, so charmingly mothering—perfectly encapsulates the anxieties that social media have produced: the fears that Facebook is interfering with our real friendships, distancing us from each other, making us lonelier; and that social networking might be spreading the very isolation it seemed designed to conquer.
Our omnipresent new technologies lure us toward increasingly superficial connections at exactly the same moment that they make avoiding the mess of human interaction easy. The beauty of Facebook, the source of its power, is that it enables us to be social while sparing us the embarrassing reality of society—the accidental revelations we make at parties, the awkward pauses, the farting and the spilled drinks and the general gaucherie of face-to-face contact. Instead, we have the lovely smoothness of a seemingly social machine. Everything’s so simple: status updates, pictures, your wall.
Finally, FB fosters a retreat into narcissism:
Self-presentation on Facebook is continuous, intensely mediated, and possessed of a phony nonchalance that eliminates even the potential for spontaneity. (“Look how casually I threw up these three photos from the party at which I took 300 photos!”) Curating the exhibition of the self has become a 24/7 occupation.
Facebook users retreat from “messy” human interaction and spend too much of their time curating fantasy avatars of themselves to actually to out and meet real people:
The relentlessness is what is so new, so potentially transformative. Facebook never takes a break. We never take a break. Human beings have always created elaborate acts of self-presentation. But not all the time, not every morning, before we even pour a cup of coffee.
The always-on effects are profound:
What Facebook has revealed about human nature—and this is not a minor revelation—is that a connection is not the same thing as a bond, and that instant and total connection is no salvation, no ticket to a happier, better world or a more liberated version of humanity. Solitude used to be good for self-reflection and self-reinvention. But now we are left thinking about who we are all the time, without ever really thinking about who we are. Facebook denies us a pleasure whose profundity we had underestimated: the chance to forget about ourselves for a while, the chance to disconnect.
One of the deepest and best researched meditations on FB 2012.
On the other hand Facebook gave another meaning to a catch phrase "America. The land of the Free." And this new meaning is: free as in "free NSA information collection space". That’s information about us, which are FREE to sell by sites like Facebook to government and other highest bidders. As John Naughton noted (With friends like Facebook, who needs sociopaths):
Jan 28, 2012 | The Guardian
The truth is that companies such as Facebook are basically the corporate world's equivalent of sociopaths, that is to say individuals who are completely lacking in conscience and respect for others.
In her book The Sociopath Next Door, Martha Stout of Harvard medical school tries to convey what goes on in the mind of such an individual. "Imagine," she writes,
"not having a conscience, none at all, no feelings of guilt or remorse no matter what you do, no limiting sense of concern of the wellbeing of strangers, friends, or even family members.
Imagine no struggles with shame, not a single one in your whole life, no matter what kind of selfish, lazy, harmful, or immoral action you had taken. And pretend that the concept of responsibility is unknown to you, except as a burden others seem to accept without question, like gullible fools."
Welcome to the Facebook mindset.
Facebook strange story of mediocre site that had risen to prominence against significant odds (and now, in retrospect, we can see invisible hand of US government in Facebook success; see nice Onion parody which was create BEFORE snowden revelations) reveals a fundamental tension in the way sophisticated ad-supported sites work. It is information about you, that you pay for free Web services.
Why (else) do you think that such a mediocre coded site went from “0-to-’Everywhere' ” in such a short time? For example AddThis button tracks users across all sites that use their button to generate profile data that they sell to advertisers (and probably not only advertisers ;-) so they can better target their ads. Generally, when browsing the web, you are continuously being tracked by facebook, even if you are not a Facebook usr. Not only by the websites you are visiting, but also by major companies that embed their ‘content’ into other websites through ads and analytics. As a result, companies like Google, Twitter and Facebook that has this "likes infrastructure" have an almost complete picture of your online activity.
Information that you put in your Facebook page has implications for you that few people understand. Even reveling just your circle of on-line friends provides far more information about you then you might expect (The Social Graph Knows No Secrets):
A scientific study into the implications of the social graph. It’s not the information you “share”, it’s the graph that reveals everything about you. Key quotes:
The increasing amount of personal information that can be gleaned by computer programs that track how people use Facebook has been revealed by an extensive academic study.
Such programs can discern undisclosed private information such as Facebook users’ sexuality, drug-use habits and even whether their parents separated when they were young, according to the study by the University of Cambridge academics.
In one of the biggest studies of its kind, scientists from the university’s psychometrics team and a Microsoft-funded research centre analyzed data from 58,000 Facebook users to predict traits and other information that were not provided in their profiles.
The algorithms were 88 per cent accurate in predicting male sexual orientation, 95 per cent for race and 80 per cent for religion and political leanings. Personality types and emotional stability were also predicted with accuracy ranging from 62-75 per cent.
Facebook declined to comment.
The study highlights growing concerns about social networks and how data trails can be mined for sensitive information, even when people attempt to keep information about themselves private. Less than 5 per cent of users predicted to be gay, for example, were connected with explicitly gay groups.
Michal Kosinksi, one of the report’s authors, told the Financial Times that the university’s techniques could easily be replicated by companies to infer personal attributes a person did not wish to share, such as sexual orientation or political views:
“We used very simple and generic methods. Marketing companies and internet companies could spend much more time and resources, and hence get much higher accuracy than we did.”
The key problem with social sites is that many, probably most Facebook users overshare -- voluntarily post reams of personal data about themselves, including keeping their photo archives online, etc (It’s the Dopamine, Stupid):
Oversharing on social media may be a quasi-sexual experience with intrinsic value and commensurate reward-system stimulation, just like a delicious meal or a sexual contact.
The reward given by a person’s brain when a Facebook posting of theirs is viewed, liked and commented on has proven to be comparable in pleasure to the response from food and sex, according to a recent Harvard University study.
So now you know that someone obsessively using their smartphone for “sharing” is actually quasi-masturbating.
So while East Germany analog of the Department of Homeland Security called Ministry for State Security (Stasi) needed to recruit people to spy about you, now you yourself serves as a informer voluntarily providing large multinationals like Facebook, Yahoo, Google and Microsoft and allied with them governments all the tracking information about your activities ;-).
Scientella palo alto
...Facebook always had a very low opinion of peoples intelligence - and rightly so!
I can tell you Silicon Valley is scared. Facebook's very existence depends upon trusting young persons, their celebrity wannabee parents and other inconsequential people being prepared to give up their private information to Facebook.
Google, now that SOCIAL IS DEAD, at least has their day job also, of paid referral advertising where someone can without divulging their "social" identity, and not linking their accounts, can look for a product on line and see next to it some useful ads.
But Facebook has nothing without people silly enough to exchange privacy for photosharing.
... ... ...
Steve Fankuchen Oakland CA
Cook, Brin, Gates, Zuckerberg, et al most certainly have lawyers and public relations hacks that have taught them the role of "plausible deniability."
Just as in the government, eventually some low or mid-level flunkie will likely be hung out to dry, when it becomes evident that the institution knew exactly what was going on and did nothing to oppose it. To believe any of these companies care about their users as anything other than cash cows is to believe in the tooth fairy.
From the very beginning Facebook was not about users; the key to commercial success is that Facebook has what any spy agency wants: vast amounts of private data stored on the servers outside of any user control that have sophisticated software installed with the specific purpose to analyze all the data stored in the database. So Facebook is not just social site, this is just a fake façade for a provider of data analytics about its customers. And to get their hands on those data and related technologies United States intelligence agencies invest in Silicon Valley start-ups, award classified contracts and recruit technology experts. (SiliconValley and Spy Agency Bound by Strengthening Web, NYT, Jun 20, 2013). As we now know, Prism program provided direct access to all user data to the NSA.
In a way, Facebook, a very primitive site with the frontend written PHP is the greatest intelligence tool ever made by man ;-). Most people don't understand that and put way too much personal information into it. Which of course is mined, sold to advertisers, transferred to three letter agencies, etc.
When Max Kelly, the chief security officer for Facebook, left the social media company in 2010, he did not go to Google, Twitter or a similar Silicon Valley concern. Instead the man who was responsible for protecting the personal information of Facebook’s more than one billion users from outside attacks went to work for another giant institution that manages and analyzes large pools of data: the National Security Agency.
Mr. Kelly’s move to the spy agency, which has not previously been reported, underscores the increasingly deep connections between Silicon Valley and the agency and the degree to which they are now in the same business. Both hunt for ways to collect, analyze and exploit large pools of data about millions of Americans.
The only difference is that the N.S.A. does it for intelligence, and Silicon Valley does it to make money.
Also some people just are incapable to understand consequences of their own actions. If you sign up to Facebook, there's should be no any expectations of privacy, as you’re putting yourself “out there”. And you can close your Facebook account if you start to worry what nonsense you put into it :-). But the cat is out of the bag. Honestly.
Here is a nice take on the subject (The Onion Facebook Is CIA's Dream Come True)
As the “single most powerful tool for population control,” the CIA’s “Facebook program” has dramatically reduced the agency’s costs — at least according to the latest “report” from the satirical mag The Onion.
Perhaps inspired by a recent interview with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who called Facebook “the most appalling spy machine that has ever been invented,” The Onion‘s video fires a number of arrows in Facebook’s direction — with hilarious results.
In the video, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg is dubbed “The Overlord” and is shown receiving a “medal of intelligence commendation” for his work with the CIA’s Facebook program.
The Onion also takes a jab at FarmVille (which is responsible for “pacifying” as much as 85 million people after unemployment rates rose), Twitter (which is called useless as far as data gathering goes), and Foursquare (which is said to have been created by Al Qaeda).
Check out the video below and tell us in the comments what you think.CIA's 'Facebook' Program Dramatically Cut Agency's Costs Onion News Network
In view of existence of Prizm program Onion video looks in quite different light now. And it is not funny.
The key to Facebook success is the simple fact that there is definitely strength in numbers (and here I mean the number of lemmings ;-):
Further, around 9.2 million people joined Facebook in a single month--for just these top 10 nations--bringing these countries membership tally to over 232 million (nearly 3.5% of the world's population by current estimates). The global membership figure swelled to 411 million, which is 6% of the people in the world. Facebook, stuffed with personal data on each member, is becoming the world's phone book. The implications for social change are potentially huge.
And given Facebook's usual shall we say, avant garde, approach to Net privacy...it's also kinda scary.
At the same time people lived and survived and even managed to undermine attempts in total surveillance in the past. Let's take email as an example. For example, as soon that you understand that all your emails are stored you start thinking of fooling the system just because people resent the total surveillance not because they are doing something unlawful.
The key problem here is that it is difficult, almost impossible to distinguish signal from noise by algorithmic means (and in case of email junk mail from a "informative" mail). Especially if useful signal is artificially injected into junk mail frame. Using slang -- an informal nonstandard vocabulary composed typically of coinages, arbitrarily changed words, and extravagant, forced, or facetious figures of speech -- is another difficult to solve algorithmically problem. Another problem is signal/noise ratio. Large amount non-informative mails are cloggering the filters and generating such flow artificially might be a feasible counter push for mass email surveillance.
As a joke, try to experiment by sending yourself from Facebook address to another addresses (you can recruit your relatives for the experiment) emails that fake your passion to cars or cats and see how your advertisements change.
Mar 22, 2021 | www.unz.com
L8917 , says: March 22, 2021 at 2:53 pm GMT • 2.5 days agoJake , says: March 22, 2021 at 5:55 pm GMT • 2.4 days ago
Last week I did a web search for a quote by Goebbels concerning truth and found one regarding TheState and TheBigLie on TheJewishVirtualLibrary. After posting it to Fakebook, I was notified that the quote violated "community standards" and wouldn't be seen by anyone else (except the FBI, or local LEOs perhaps).
Being who I am, I posted the same quote with a link to where I found it [TheJewishVirtualLibrary] and was notified no one would see any of my posts for a week.
Again, being who I am, I posted a video from TheBabylonBee that illustrated the danger of likening everything to Nazis, and was notified of a month-long ban.
I then downloaded my data in two formats and deleted the account.
Living life stupid might be inclusive and entertaining, but there's too many options available to make ignorance enjoyable.Hockeyguy , says: March 22, 2021 at 6:35 pm GMT • 2.4 days ago
...It is partially Brave New World with a dash of 1984 and a healthy helping of Mordor, all of which is brightened and made more alluring and addicting with Sexual Revolution.bj0311 , says: March 23, 2021 at 1:47 am GMT • 2.1 days ago
The "reality police" have infiltrated down to the lowest levels now to look for "new normal" violators anywhere. If CJ thinks he's a nobody, then I am a sub-sub-sub-nobody, yet I have had my user account suspended twice now at an obscure news aggregation website, Fark.com , for making comments that apparently constitute "Covid misinformation."
Once was when I commented on a story that stated that there is a need to vaccinate even those that have recovered from actually having Covid. I said something like, "Why would you need to vaccinate someone whose immune system is functioning properly and already did the job naturally?" Apparently, even mentioning that humans have an immune system is now verboten, and thus my comment was deleted and my account was suspended for 24 hours. The next time I was suspended was just over this past weekend when I commented on a story about someone ignoring covid rules.
I stated something to the effect that we should ALL be ignoring the public health "experts" who are petty tyrants. Well, they have now suspended my account for 72 hours again for "covid misinformation."
Despite being amused that my opinions are somehow "misinformation," it's certainly enraging that speaking plain common truth is becoming more and more difficult.
This will not end well.Simon Tugmutton , says: March 23, 2021 at 7:26 am GMT • 1.8 days ago
I am pretty tired of people who use these antisocial media platforms complaining when these platforms do what they do by their very nature. They weren't set up to help us they were set up to enslave us. Get a clue, Farcebook and Twatter et al are not your friends!@El Datosteinbergfeldwitzcohen , says: March 23, 2021 at 7:34 am GMT • 1.8 days ago
...Remember when Eric Schmidt got his panties in a twist because some enterprising soul had done some digital digging into his private life?
All social media Big Tech platforms are SARPA surveillance programs that added some cool logo, a young captured jew type as Boss and some marketing to morons and lemmings. Absolute joke. The sheer narcissism and desperation on these platforms is disgusting and disturbing. Big data and pedophiles love Facebook.
Mar 26, 2021 | www.unz.com
Mike Robeson , says: March 23, 2021 at 12:50 pm GMT • 1.6 days agoOld and Grumpy , says: March 23, 2021 at 1:54 pm GMT • 1.6 days ago
Based on Facebook's 'community standards' (see above), it has banned all posts praising the US in written or pictorial form for the following reasons –
1. Has created and/or funded terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, paramilitary groups like Blackwater, death squads in El Salvador, Nicaragua, etc.;
2. Creates, trains and funds a vast military system to threaten and/or bomb countries and overthrow governments;
3. Has conducted and prosecuted wars and military actions around the world every single day for the past twenty years;
4. Kidnaps and abducts private citizens in foreign countries and imprisons them in secret bases like Guantanamo;
5. Employs corporate institutions to impose financial embargoes destroying nations' economic infrastructure and citizens' livelihood.
The point is, apparently, the Corporatocracy feel sufficiently threatened by random people on Facebook that they are conducting these COINTELPRO-type ops.
This really seems to be a thing. The elite are supposedly into the occult including things like clairvoyants. Have their soothsayers seen a future rebel that will take them down? Or are they just insecure, criminally insane dopes that irrationally fear independent thinking? Whatever the reason, they are extremely paranoid.
Jan 15, 2021 | www.mintpressnews.com
Predictably, conservative publications like Fox News decried the measures as a power grab by Big Tech and protestations came as far away from Europe, where German Chancellor, Angela Merkel – whose disdain for Donald Trump has never been a secret – called the decision to deplatform a head of state " problematic ," an opinion shared by France's Finance Minister Bruno Le Marie, who warned of a "digital oligarchy" usurping the powers of the state.
Missing in the salacious back-and-forth conversation between ideological factions and absent from the argument that they are private corporations, which have the legal authority to ban or deplatform anybody they wish, is the fact that Twitter, Facebook, and all the other major social media platforms are organs of the state to begin with, and that nothing they do falls outside of the ultimate designs of the powers they serve.
Examples abound of how these platforms regularly engage in cyber reconnaissance missions for American and Atlanticist interests in violation of their own terms of service, such as when NATO commanders made use of coordinates provided by Twitter users in order to select missile strike targets in their war against Libya in 2011.
Facebook's recently created oversight board includes Emi Palmor, who was directly responsible for the removal of thousands of Palestinian posts from the social media giant during her tenure as Director of Israel's Ministry of Justice. She, along with other individuals with clear sympathies to American interests, now sit on an official body tasked with emitting the last word on any disputes regarding issues of deplatforming on the global social network.Following you since 1972
In Yasha Levine's seminal work , "Surveillance Valley," the military origins of the Internet and the close relationship of social media companies to federal and local law enforcement are made patently clear. Since their creation, Twitter, Facebook, and other Silicon Valley behemoths have worked hand in hand with law enforcement agencies to augment their capacity for mass tracking and surveillance.
From facial recognition technologies to aggregated user post history, these platforms have been a crucial component in the development of the pervasive surveillance state we now live in. In the book's prologue, Levine details the attempted creation of a citywide police surveillance hub in Oakland, California called the "Domain Awareness Center" (DAC), which drew intense opposition from the local citizenry and privacy advocates who were quick to undress city officials who were trying to hide the proposed center's insidious links to the NSA, CIA and military contractors.
Among other capabilities, the control hub would be able to "plug in" social media feeds to track individuals or groups that posed any kind of threat to the establishment. While the DAC project was successfully defeated by an engaged public, similar initiatives were quickly implemented throughout law enforcement agencies across the country and continue to be perfected in order to not only track, but infiltrate political groups deemed problematic.
Jan 17, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com
Authored by Niall Ferguson via The Spectator,
'To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle,' George Orwell famously observed. He was talking not about everyday life but about politics, where it is 'quite easy for the part to be greater than the whole or for two objects to be in the same place simultaneously'.
The examples he gave in his 1946 essay included the paradox that 'for years before the war, nearly all enlightened people were in favour of standing up to Germany: the majority of them were also against having enough armaments to make such a stand effective'.
Last week provided a near-perfect analogy. For years before the 2020 election, nearly all American conservatives were in favour of standing up to big tech : the majority of them were also against changing the laws and regulations enough to make such a stand effective. The difference is that, unlike the German threat, which was geographically remote, the threat from Silicon Valley was literally in front of our noses, day and night: on our mobile phones, our tablets and our laptops.
Writing in this magazine more than three years ago, I warned of a coming collision between Donald Trump and Silicon Valley. 'Social media helped Donald Trump take the White House,' I wrote. 'Silicon Valley won't let it happen again.' The conclusion of my book The Square and the Tower was that the new online network platforms represented a new kind of power that posed a fundamental challenge to the traditional hierarchical power of the state.
By the network platforms, I mean Facebook, Amazon, Twitter, Google and Apple, or FATGA for short -- companies that have established a dominance over the public sphere not seen since the heyday of the pre-Reformation Catholic Church . FATGA had humble enough origins in garages and dorm rooms. As recently as 2008, not one of them could be found among the world's largest companies by market capitalisation. Today, they occupy first, third, fourth and fifth places in the market cap league table, just above their Chinese counterparts, Tencent and Alibaba.
What happened was that the network platforms turned the originally decentralised worldwide web into an oligarchically organised and hierarchical public sphere from which they made money and to which they controlled access. That the original, superficially libertarian inclinations of these companies' founders would rapidly crumble under political pressure from the left was also perfectly obvious, if one bothered to look a little beyond one's proboscis.
Following the violent far-right rally at Charlottesville in August 2017, Matthew Prince, chief executive of the internet service provider Cloudflare, described how he had responded: 'Literally, I woke up in a bad mood and decided someone shouldn't be allowed on the internet.' On the basis that 'the people behind the [white supremacist magazine] Daily Stormer are assholes', he denied their website access to the internet. 'No one should have that power,' he admitted. 'We need to have a discussion around this with clear rules and clear frameworks. My whims and those of Jeff [Bezos] and Larry [Page] and Mark [Zuckerberg] shouldn't be what determines what should be online.'
But that discussion had barely begun in 2017. Indeed, many Republicans at that time still believed the notion that FATGA were champions of the free market that required only the lightest regulation. They know better now. After last year's election Twitter attached health warnings to Trump's tweets when he claimed that he had in fact beaten Joe Biden. Then, in the wake of the storming of the Capitol by a mob of Trump supporters, Twitter and Facebook began shutting down multiple accounts -- including that of the President himself, now 'permanently suspended' from tweeting. When Trump loyalists declared their intention to move their conversations from Twitter to rival Parler -- in effect, Twitter with minimal content moderation -- Google and Apple deleted Parler from their app stores. Then Amazon kicked Parler off its 'cloud' service, effectively deleting it from the internet altogether. It was a stunning demonstration of power.
It is only a slight overstatement to say that, while the mob's coup against Congress ignominiously failed, big tech's coup against Trump triumphantly succeeded. It is not merely that Trump has been abruptly denied access to the channels he has used throughout his presidency to communicate with voters. It is the fact that he is being excluded from a domain the courts have for some time recognised as a public forum.
Various lawsuits over the years have conferred on big tech an unusual status: a public good, held in private hands. In 2018 the Southern District of New York ruled that the right to reply to Trump's tweets is protected 'under the "public forum" doctrines set forth by the Supreme Court'. So it was wrong for the President to 'block' people -- i.e. stop them reading his tweets -- because they were critical of him. Censoring Twitter users 'because of their expressed political views' represents 'viewpoint discrimination [that] violates the First Amendment'.
In Packingham vs North Carolina (2017), Justice Anthony Kennedy likened internet platforms to 'the modern public square', arguing that it was therefore unconstitutional to prevent sex offenders from accessing, and expressing opinions on, social network platforms. 'While in the past there may have been difficulty in identifying the most important places (in a spatial sense) for the exchange of views,' Justice Kennedy wrote, 'today the answer is clear. It is cyberspace -- the "vast democratic forums of the internet" in general and social media in particular.'
In other words, as President of the United States, Trump could not block Twitter users from seeing his tweets, but Twitter is apparently within its rights to delete the President's account altogether. Sex offenders have a right of access to online social networks; but the President does not.
This is not to condone Trump's increasingly deranged attempts to overturn November's election result. Before last week's riots, he egged on the mob; he later said he 'loved' them, despite what they had done. Nor is there any denying that a number of Trump's most fervent supporters pose a threat of further violence. Considering the bombs and firearms some of them brought to Washington, the marvel is how few people lost their lives during the occupation of the Capitol.
Yet the correct response to that threat is not to delegate to Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, Twitter's Jack Dorsey and their peers the power to remove from the public square anyone they deem to be sympathetic to insurrection or otherwise suspect. The correct response is for the FBI and the relevant police departments to pursue any would-be Trumpist terrorists, just as they have quite successfully pursued would-be Islamist terrorists over the past two decades.
The key to understanding what has happened lies in an obscure piece of legislation, almost a quarter of a century old, enacted after a New York court held online service provider Prodigy liable for a user's defamatory posts. Congress then stepped in with the 1996 Telecommunications Act and in particular Section 230, which was written to encourage nascent firms to protect users and prevent illegal activity without incurring massive content management costs. It states:
1. No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
2. No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.
In essence, Section 230 gives websites immunity from liability for what their users post if it is in any way harmful, but also entitles websites to take down with equal impunity any content that they don't like the look of. The surely unintended result of this legislation, drafted for a fledgling internet, is that some of the biggest companies in the world enjoy a protection reminiscent of Joseph Heller's Catch-22 . Try to hold them responsible as publishers, and they will say they are platforms. Demand access to their platforms and they will insist that they are publishers.
This might have been a tolerable state of affairs if America's network platforms had been subject to something like the old Fairness Doctrine, which required the big three terrestrial TV networks to give airtime to opposing views. But that was something the Republican party killed off in the 1980s, seeing the potential of allowing more slanted coverage on cable news. What goes around comes around. The network platforms long ago abandoned any pretence of being neutral. Even before Charlottesville, their senior executives and many of their employees had made it clear that they were appalled by Trump's election victory (especially as both Facebook and Twitter had facilitated it). Increasingly, they interpreted the words 'otherwise objectionable' in Section 230 to mean 'objectionable to liberals'.
Throughout the summer of last year, numerous supporters of Black Lives Matter used social media, as well as mainstream liberal media, to express their support for protests that in many places escalated into violence and destruction considerably worse than occurred in the Capitol last week. One looked in vain for health warnings, much less account suspensions, though Facebook says it has removed accounts that promote violence.
Compare, for example, the language Trump used in his 6 January speech and the language Kamala Harris used in support of BLM on Stephen Colbert's show on 18 June. Neither explicitly condoned violence. Trump exhorted the crowd to march to the Capitol, but he told them to 'peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard'. Harris condemned 'looting and acts of violence', but said of the BLM protestors: 'They're not going to stop. They're not. This is a movement. I'm telling you. They're not going to stop, and everyone, beware. Because they're not going to stop. They're not going to stop before election day in November, and they are not going to stop after election day. And everyone should take note of that on both levels.' What exactly was the significance of that 'beware'?
Earlier, on 1 June, Harris had used Twitter to solicit donations to the Minnesota Freedom Fund, which posted bail for people charged with rioting in Minneapolis after the death of George Floyd. It would be easy to cite other examples. 'Destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence,' Nikole Hannah-Jones of the New York Times told CBS in early June, at a time when multiple cities were being swept by arson and vandalism. Her Twitter account is still going strong.
The double standard was equally apparent when the New York Post broke the story of Biden's son Hunter's dubious business dealings in China. Both Twitter and Facebook immediately prevented users from posting links to the article -- something they had never done with stories damaging to Trump.
You don't need to be a Trump supporter to find all this alarming. Conservatives of many different stripes -- and indeed some bemused liberals -- have experienced the new censorship for themselves, especially as the Covid-19 pandemic has emboldened tech companies to police content more overtly. In the UK, TalkRadio briefly vanished from YouTube for airing anti--lockdown views that violated the company's 'community guidelines'. A recording of Lionel Shriver reading one of her Spectator columns on the pandemic was taken down for similar reasons. Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson, two Oxford academics, fell foul of Facebook's censors when they wrote for this magazine about a briefly controversial paper on the efficacy of masks in Denmark.
You might think that FATGA have finally gone too far with their fatwa against a sitting president of the United States. You might think a red line really has been crossed when both Alexei Navalny and Angela Merkel express disquiet at big tech's overreach. But no. To an extent that is remarkable, American liberals have mostly welcomed (and in some cases encouraged) this surge of censorship -- with the honourable exception of the American Civil Liberties Union.
True, during last year's campaign the Biden team occasionally talked tough, especially about Facebook. However, it is increasingly clear that the most big tech has to fear from the Biden-Harris administration is protracted antitrust actions focused on their alleged undermining of competition which, if history is any guide, will likely end with whimpers rather than bangs. Either way, the issue of censorship will not be addressed by antitrust lawsuits.
It is tempting to complain that Democrats are hypocrites -- that they would be screaming blue murder if the boot were on the other foot and it was Kamala Harris whose Twitter account had been cancelled. But if that were the case, how many Republicans would now be complaining? Not many. No, the correct conclusion to be drawn is that the Republicans had their chance to address the problem of over-mighty big tech and completely flunked it.
Only too late did they realise that Section 230 was Silicon Valley's Achilles heel. Only too late did they begin drafting legislation to repeal or modify it. Only too late did Section 230 start to feature in Trump's speeches. Even now it seems to me that very few Republicans really understand that, by itself, repealing 230 would not have sufficed. Without some kind of First Amendment for the internet, repeal would probably just have restricted free speech further.
As Orwell rightly observed, 'we are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality.'
Those words sum up quite a lot that has gone on inside the Republican party over the past four years. There it was, right in front of their noses: Trump would lead the party to defeat. And he would behave in the most discreditable way when beaten. Those things were predictable. But what was also foreseeable was that FATGA -- the 'new governors', as a 2018 Harvard Law Review article called them -- would be the true victors of the 2020 election.
Jan 17, 2021 | turcopolier.typepad.com
Serge , 15 January 2021 at 08:30 PMblue peacock , 15 January 2021 at 10:00 PM
I did so in 2012 and never looked back. I used to recycle Twitter accounts every few months but now you need a phone number to do that. The near future of the internet is the absence of the perception of anonymity, every child will be assigned an internet identifier that will be linked to his social credit score. This is the ultimate goal of the tech companies: to merge the real life with the internet as much as possible, and then own/profit from that outcome. They have a common goal with the government in this quest, control.elaine , 16 January 2021 at 12:38 AM
I've never had a Facebook account. I follow many people on Twitter. Mostly financial market participants but also political commentators across the spectrum. All the "conservatives" on my feed have been disappeared. I stopped using Google for search many years ago as I noticed that their results were getting worse and shifted to DuckDuckGo.
I used WhatsApp for international calling and text messaging - but am part of the wave that have shifted to Signal in the past few weeks.
https://www.netflix.com/title/81254224"It's the gradual, slight, imperceptible change in your own behaviour and perception – that is the product." That is also how these corporations make their money, by "changing what you do, what you think, who you are."
They make profits, big profits, from the predictions business – predicting what you will think and how you will behave so that you are more easily persuaded to buy what their advertisers want to sell you. To have great predictions, these corporations have had to amass vast quantities of data on each of us – what is sometimes called "surveillance capitalism."
Harvard professor Soshana Zuboff rang the bell some years back.
https://youtu.be/QL4bz3QXWEoFourth and Long , 16 January 2021 at 09:47 AM
First they'll teach us not to use gender pronouns & perhaps reward
us with a treat as we learn to think & speak like them. It's just
an obedience school they want to run for the greater good of course.
An old phrase comes to mind, "The beatings will end when compliance
begins" Boycotts are now at best symbolic as "They" run the currency.Ed Lindgren , 16 January 2021 at 10:25 AM
Tor was developed by the US Navy to enable spies to communicate over the web without being traced. But to actually work effectively lots of other more and less normal people had to be encouraged to use it. The details are fascinating. Two links below.
Spy-funded privacy tools (like Signal and Tor) are not going to protect you from the government -- see this from 2016
And this today:
Signal is a government op:
I had a Facebook account for about six weeks (a decade ago). My preferred search engine is DuckDuckGo. I pay five bucks a month for the services of an Australia-based email provider ( fastmail.com ). And Amazon is my vendor of last resort.
What is the path forward for those who desire a forum to present an alternative point of view?
Ron Paul touches on this in his most recent column:
"There are no easy solutions. But we must think back to the dissidents in the era of Soviet tyranny. They had no Internet. They had no social media. They had no ability to communicate with thousands and millions of like-minded, freedom lovers. Yet they used incredible creativity in the face of incredible adversity to continue pushing their ideas."
At the rate this is all going, we might have to start thinking "outside the box."
Dr. Paul's column can be accessed here:
Jan 17, 2021 | jonsnewplace.wordpress.com
Joe Biden's "transition" team is gaining a number of former high-level Facebook executives, which makes sense considering these are the same folks that helped Biden "win" by censoring unsavory news about him on social media.
Former Facebook board member Jeff Zients, it has been announced, will be co-chairing Biden's transition team, while another former Facebook board member will act as an adviser. Two others, one a former Facebook director and the other a former Facebook company lobbyist, will also be assuming key leadership roles in Biden's installation.
Biden's personal friend Nick Clegg, a former top Facebook executive and former U.K. Deputy Prime Minister, will also be joining the transition team that is planning to install Biden into the White House come January.According to Democrats, Facebook hasn't censored conservatives enough
Seeing as how Facebook did everything it possibly could to ensure that Biden "won" the election, including by predictively programming that the vote count would probably be stalled in order to sneak in late ballots, it is hardly a surprise that Facebook is now officially marrying the Biden campaign. On the other hand, the Democrats have hardly been shy in condemning Facebook for supposedly not engaging in enough censorship throughout the election cycle.
Democratic National Committee (DNC) chief mobilization officer Patrick Stevenson, for instance, tweeted recently that he believes "the two biggest institutional threats to our democracy are the Republican Party and Facebook."
Shortly after the mainstream media called the race for Biden, campaign spokesman Bill Russo also suggested that Facebook needs to go because it is "shredding the fabric of our democracy."
"We basically think they're an immoral company," declared an anonymous senior Democratic strategist close to the Biden campaign, at least according to Politico .
"There are thousands and thousands of people in their 20s and 30s and 40s who will be incensed to find themselves working for Secretary of Commerce Sheryl Sandberg, or taking a soft touch to Facebook because Nick Clegg and Joe Biden go way back."Facebook and Joe Biden are officially married
In a way, this anonymous insider makes a good point. Who on either the right or the left would ever want any of these tech "gods" and "goddesses" to rule over their daily lives from Washington, D.C.? Have not these people already done enough damage to our republic?
On the other hand, the Biden camp should probably be grateful beyond words that Facebook and the rest of the Big Tech cabal openly catered to Biden by shielding him from the Huntergate scandal , among other things.
Facebook may as well have just come out and proclaimed when Biden was selected as the Democrat nominee that it would from that point on function as a media gatekeeper to shield Biden from all scrutiny, all the while disenfranchising President Trump at every turn.
Keep in mind that these are not low-level former Facebook employees who are now helping with Biden's transition: they are the company's top brass.
"Biden is not the president-elect," noted one commenter at The Right Scoop , correctly pointing out that all this talk about a transition team is mere fantasy. "Biden should have zero security clearance after the corruption he's been involved in. I'll never accept him. He's a domestic terrorist."
Another commenter pointed out the same, emphasizing that Biden "has not been elected" and is merely trying to steal what is not rightfully his.
"If you thought any kind of bipartisan work towards curbing Big Tech's monopoly on information was going to happen here's your answer," wrote yet another about how Biden's rhetoric about tackling internet censorship was nothing but a lie.
The latest news about the rigged 2020 election can be found at Trump.news .
Jan 15, 2021 | www.moonofalabama.org
William Gruff , Jan 15 2021 13:20 utc | 98
Suppression by the state is expensive and it undercuts productivity. Cyril @59 is correct that state suppression cannot be maintained long term without significant external support; say being backed up by a global hegemon with drones and nukes and control over global finance. No state, no matter how suppressive or oppressive, can exist without the economic wherewithal to support itself. The more suppression the state employs the more personnel it needs to buy off to do the suppressing. The people doing the suppressing must be more generously compensated than the people they are suppressing (usually the working class) to buy their loyalty. Practically all value in capitalist society is created by the working class, but the working class is also the labor pool that the elites have to recruit their enforcers/suppressors from. More suppression personnel means more expense while also meaning less actual productivity.
It is better for big business if you can train the population to suppress themselves. Religion has historically worked pretty good for this with its admonitions to "Give unto Caesar..." and "The meek shall inherit the dirt, probably from some boss's boot grinding their face into it" , but in modern societies religion is losing its effectiveness. That's where Identity Politics is intended to take over. The question is can the establishment force that into the heads of 80+ million people?
Well, not if those 80+ million people see themselves as members of a huge demographic. If they see themselves as isolated individuals on the fringes of society, then they can be bullied and gaslit into shouldering the modern equivalent of original sin and learn to identify with their personalized victim status and rely upon "Identity Politics" for solace.
Will this work for the elites? I am thinking probably not. To enforce the isolation necessary social media must be very tightly controlled to eliminate all disagreement with "Identity Politics" and establishment narratives. This will be more difficult than the elites imagine as it is cheap and easy to set up alternatives to Twitter and Facebook. In fact, Mexico is currently making moves towards setting up a national alternative to Facebook/Twitter . Such national infrastructure would be impossible for the business elites to take over or shut down like TikTok or Parler."What happens if Twitter says tomorrow that AMLO is publishing things that it doesn't like? What happens if the president of Twitter censors the democratically elected president of Mexico? As we've relinquished our technological sovereignty and left our communication tools, even our information systems, in the hands of multinationals with private interests, we've relinquished our [right to] freedom of speech," Sánchez said.
If Mexico goes forward with this then there will be no technological reason why Americans couldn't also use such a social platform.
Ultimately I think the elites will lose this war they are waging, but they will likely win some battles in the near term. Spicy times ahead!
karlof1 , Jan 15 2021 17:50 utc | 110
William Gruff @98--
VK is a Russian version of FB and welcomes one and all and lacks the personal invasion FB pursues, which is one of the main reasons why I joined. I have no second thoughts of being censored there unlike with FB. It seems WeChat is also a worthy platform, but I haven't done any real investigation. Wife uses FB to connect with her family back East, which I use mainly to stay abreast with Pepe Escobar and comment at his site. IMO, it's clear the lessons from previous attempts at suppression within the Outlaw US Empire weren't learned by those seeking control, and they've already blown up in their face and have shown more of their Fascistic nature than Trump could ever do, which in turn will hamper anything Biden tries.
Jan 15, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com
Authored by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,
"The ideal set up by the Party was something huge, terrible, and glittering... all thinking the same thoughts and shouting the same slogans, perpetually working, fighting, triumphing, persecuting - three hundred million people all with the same face."
That was a quote from George Orwell's seminal work 1984 - a masterpiece that describes life in a totalitarian state that demands blind obedience.
The 'Party' controlled everything - the economy, daily life, and even the truth. In Orwell's 1984 , "the heresy of heresies was common sense."
"Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered."
"And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right."
If you were ever caught committing a thoughtcrime -- dissenting from the Party for even an instant– then "your name was removed from the registers, every record of everything you had ever done was wiped out, your one-time existence was denied and then forgotten."
Now, our world obviously hasn't become quite as extreme as Orwell's dystopian vision. But Big Tech, Big Media, and Big Government certainly seem to be giving it their best effort.
70,000 thought criminals have already been purged from Twitter. Facebook and Reddit are feverishly removing user content. Apple, Google, and Amazon have banned entire apps and platforms.
Undoubtedly there is plenty of wacky content all over the Internet– misinformation, ignorance, rage, hate, violence, and just plain stupidity.
But these moves by the Big Tech companies aren't about violence. If they were, they would have deleted tens of thousands of accounts over the last few years– like the mostly peaceful BLM activist who Tweeted "white people may have to die".
Or the countless others who have advocated for violent uprisings against the police
Then, of course, there's the #assassinatetrump and #killtrump hashtags that has Twitter has allowed since at least 2016. Or the #killallmen hashtag that's allowed on Twitter and Instagram.
This is not about violence. It's about ideology. If you hold different beliefs than the 'Party', then you risk being canceled or 'de-platformed' by Big Tech.
Icons like Ron Paul– who spent years criticizing the current administration's monetary and national defense policies, and had nothing to do with the Capitol, have been suspended or locked out of their Facebook pages.
The hammer has dropped, and it is now obvious, beyond any doubt, that you better watch what you say– your livelihood, your social life, and your safety may just depend on it.
Or else, you will be purged, canceled, deleted from the Internet, denied payment processing by Visa, PayPal, and Stripe, and expelled from domain registrars like GoDaddy.
The message is clear: behave and think exactly as we tell you, or you will lose everything you have worked for, in the blink of an eye.
Sure, the 'Party' may give lip service to tolerance and unity. As long as you fall in line. Otherwise it's more rage and ridicule.
They act like you're a crazy person because you have completely legitimate questions and concerns– whether about Covid lockdowns, censorship, media misinformation, etc.
It's extraordinary that after so much deliberate misinformation and bias, the media still expects people to take them seriously. CNN seems to believe that think anyone who doubts their credibility is a 'conspiracy theorist.'
All of these trends are probably making a lot of people very nervous. Even scared. Despair has undoubtedly set in, much like in Winston Smith, the main character in Orwell's 1984.
So, for all the Winstons out there, the most important thing right now is to remain rational. As human beings we tend to make terrible decisions when we're scared, sad, or angry.
Have confidence in knowing that you have MUCH more control over your own life, livelihood, and future than they want to you believe.
But you absolutely will have to make some deliberate, potentially difficult decisions.
For example, if you're fed up with Big Tech, you can de-Google your life. No one is holding a gun to your head to have a Facebook account or use gmail. There are plenty of other options out there that we'll discuss in future letters.
More importantly, you might find that your hometown isn't safe anymore– especially if you live in a big city controlled by politicians intoxicated on their Covid powers.
It's really time to consider your immediate environment – if the local schools are brainwashing your kids, the dictatorial health officials shutting down your business, or nosy neighbors ready to turn you into the Gestapo for having family over for the holidays, then you might think about moving.
That might simply mean moving a few miles to a new county. Or a new state/province. Or potentially overseas. We'll help provide you with information on plenty of options.
It might also be time to reconsider some of your business infrastructure– to have backup web servers and payment processors, for example, if you have an online business.
It might be time to consider some new financial options as well, lest the banks jump on the band wagon and start 'canceling' accounts for heretics.
But that's the silver lining: we've never had more alternatives than now. Everything– technology platforms, financial institutions, and even our personal residence– it's all replaceable. All of it.
We have never had more control over our own privacy, data, livelihood, and environment as long as you have the willingness to take action.
2banana 2 hours ago remove linkSouthern_Boy 1 hour ago (Edited) remove link
GAB and Brave browsers,
rumble and bitchute video,
Signal for voice and messaging,
Session for messaging,
Epoch times for news,
Fastmail and ProtonMail for email,
Duchduckgo and dogpile for search,
And use a paid VPN like private internet access
Leave the phone at home as often as you can and pay cash.Fateful Destiny the Book 2 hours ago
Use https, not http exclusively and don't use any web site that won't take it.
Fastmail is owned by Opera and its mail servers are located in the US, so it will not protect you from subpoenas.
The GAB browser is called Dissenter.
Consider TOR for infrequent forays into the "dark web".
Don't forget that BitCoin (BTC) is traceable.
Use a free version of CCLEANER after every browser session to erase as much of your tracks as you can.
Signal is a suspect because of its controlled ownership community
Using the same vendor for VPN as Anti-Virus is against IT security best practices
Paying for anything with your bank card is a red flag. Whoever you give your credit card to now has your identity, including ZeroHedge. Consider creating an LLC or other identity (preferably offshore) to fund a "burner" credit card or get a refillable debit card that you can fill up using cash. Then you can pay for VPN, email and paid content subscription services using an assumed name or LLC cover name. Assume that any payment to any tech service with your personal card will be used for identification purposes.
Pay with money orders if possible.
Change cellular phone companies every 1 to two years. Avoid data usage on cellular phone, consider using multiple WiFi hotspots for calls.
Consider 2-3 cheap used phones with cheap, pay as you go services and swap them regularly and randomly.
Do not have contact lists on your cell phone and reset to factory settings every 6 months to wipeout any data.
Reload from bare metal your laptop or desktop PC OS every 6 months.
Send random gibberish as an encrypted email every month or so and check if it's unusually slow to be received or if any vendor calls or asks you about anything. If they do, you are being tracked. There are no coincidences.
Make infrequent but regular phone calls with your multiple phones to law enforcement, federal "three letter agency" main switchboards, politicians and random people. Just tell anyone who answers it was a mistake and an improperly dialed number. If you get hold music, then stay on as long as you can because traffic analysis will not know if your actually talking to someone or not. If anyone is investigating or tracking you, your signals traffic (CDR) will automatically confound them and involve unwanted parties that will confound and scare the hounds.
If you are technically competent, consider getting any open source product you use and then compile it yourself after reviewing the source. Check for hidden open doors or reporting communications that aren't needed.TheLastMan 1 hour ago
1984 was prophetic for its time, but Fateful Destiny is the new dystopian benchmark novel for what is to come. Get yours now: https://amzn.to/3owM5ShOpenEyes 1 hour ago
The media filter is dominant. Control the narrative, control the world. The official narratives are perpetually meshed into daily consciousness. You must know it is literally spellbinding.
Similar dangers exist on alt media sites like zh. Beware the narrative. Look for at least three sides to every story - his side her side and maybe the truthMisesmissesme 3 hours ago (Edited) remove link
As much as possible, now is the time to start 'going grey' (if you haven't already started).
One example: I see a lot of people, understandably, saying to delete your facebook account, gmail account, twitter account etc. My recommendation, DO NOT do this. You don't think "they" aren't keeping track of those who are doing this, especially right now? By taking those actions you are pinning a big red flag on yourself.
No, my advice, just simply abandon your account. Stop commenting, posting, reading, etc.. simply walk away and stop using those accounts. It will take some time for 'them' to notice that your account is inactive, if they even do. And, an inactive account will likely be treated far less seriously than an actively deleted or cancelled account.
Keep your heads down and your family safe. Best wishes to all.Cardinal Fang 2 hours ago (Edited)
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- forever. - George Orwell: " An Instruction Guide for 2021 "Jim in MN 2 hours ago
Like that scene in The Graduate where the guy leans in and tells Dustin Hoffman 'One word...Plastics' I am going to lean in and say 'One word...Wearables'
So Google just completes their acquisition of 'FitBit'...even though the Justice Dept has not finished their anti-trust investigation...
Anyhow, it's all coming clear. The next stage in our Orwellian nightmare is Covid will be the excuse to make you 'wear' a device to prove you are Covid free in some way. It will be your permission slip, plus they can spy on you in real time even if you leave your phone home, because you will not be able to leave your home without your 'Wearable'...
Then, in short order, you will get tired of your 'wearable' and beg for the chip implant.
You will beg to be vaccinated and chipped like sheep.
They literally can't help themselves.Dr.Strangelove 2 hours ago
All new and improved ankle bracelets!
Only $299.99 and yes, it is required or else.
Batteries, monthly surveillance fees and random fines not included.SullyLuther 1 hour ago remove link
I just watched 1984 and it is scary similar to the US political environment.
We are all Winston.Workdove PREMIUM 1 hour ago
Huxley will be proven correct. Z O G doesn't need a boot perpetually on our necks, when we are so passive and ignorant.NIRP-BTFD 3 hours ago
They just need to make narcotics and psychedelics free and his vision of the future will be complete. Orwell was correct too. We got both.seryanhoj 2 hours ago
Now, our world obviously hasn't become quite as extreme as Orwell's dystopian vision. But Big Tech, Big Media, and Big Government certainly seem to be giving it their best effort.
This is just the beginning. The technocrats at the WEF are planning to control your thought with chips and brain interfaces. Now tell me what is neuralink that Musk is workign on? I'm sure DARPA has technologcy that can allready do this.
It's hard to believe USA is now headed to a society like the worst days of the USSR.
Back in the fifties , paranoid Senator McCarthy used similar extreme methods to cancel all those who he considered to by stealth communist sympathizers, or anyone who had been within 100 feet of one. Ironically his methods resembled those of Joseph Stalin.
He was finally discredited by an outstanding and brave news man who took the risk of persecution by denouncing senator McCarthy's methods as unamerican .
So this kind of thing is not without precedent in USA.
Jan 13, 2021 | www.unz.com
John Regan , says: January 12, 2021 at 2:22 pm GMT • 13.9 hours ago@anarchyst hen made public utilities available for all (obviously without compensation to the owners). No more of the sad "private company" excuse, and no more billions into the pockets of criminals who hate us.
Also, make Dorsey, Zuckerberg, Pichai et al. serve serious jail time for election tampering if nothing else. Both to send out a clear warning to others, and for the simple decency to see justice served.
Of course this will not happen short of a French Revolution-style regime shift. But since (sadly) the same is equally true even for your extremely generous and modest proposal, I see no harm in dreaming a little bigger.
Jan 09, 2021 | www.rt.com
Tech companies were once the primary tools of US "soft power" used to overthrow authoritarian regimes by exporting 'digital democracy'. Now they employ the same tactics of suppression as those regimes to silence dissent at home.
The permanent suspension of President Trump's Twitter account, carried out unilaterally and devoid of any pretense of due process or appreciation of the First Amendment rights of Donald Trump, represents a low moment in American history. Trump's ban was followed by a decision by Google to de-platform Parler.com, a social media alternative to Twitter favored by many of Trump's supporters. Apple also gave Parler a "24 hour warning" asking it to provide a detailed moderation plan. Twitter, Google, Facebook (who also banned Trump) and the political supporters of President-elect Joe Biden cite concerns that the content of the president's Twitter account, along with exchanges among pro-Trump users of Parler, constituted an "incitement of violence" risk that justified the actions taken.
In the aftermath of the storming of the Capitol by protesters seemingly motivated by the words of President Trump, there is legitimate justification for concern over the link between political violence and social media. But if history has taught us anything, the cure can be worse than the disease, especially when it comes to the issue of constitutionally protected freedom of speech.
This danger is illustrated by the actions of the former First Lady Michelle Obama who has publicly called for tech companies like Twitter and Facebook to permanently ban Trump from their platforms and enact policies designed "to prevent their technology from being used by the nation's leaders to fuel insurrection." The irony of the wife of the last American President Barack Obama, who weaponized so-called digital democracy to export "Western democratic values" in the struggle against authoritarian regimes, to turn to Twitter to release her message of internet suppression, is striking. The fact that neither Michelle Obama nor those who extoll her message see this irony is disturbing.
The Obama administration first sought to use 'digital democracy', the name given to policies which aim to use web-based social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter as vehicles to enhance the organization and activism of young people in repressive regimes to achieve American policy objectives of regime change, during the 2009 Iranian presidential election. US 'digital democracy' efforts anchored a carefully orchestrated campaign to promote the candidacy of Mir Hossein Mousavi. These efforts included a phone call from a US State Department official, Jared Cohen, to executives at Twitter to forgo a scheduled maintenance period and keep the lines in and out of Iran open, under the premise that it was essential to make sure that digital messages sent by Iranian dissidents got out to an international audience. Digital democracy became privatized when its primary architect, Jared Cohen, left the State Department in September 2010 to take a new position with internet giant Google as the head of 'Google Ideas' now known as 'Jigsaw'. Jigsaw is a global initiative 'think tank' intended to "spearhead initiatives to apply technology solutions to problems faced by the developing world." This was the same job Cohen was doing while at the State Department.
Cohen promoted the notion of a "digital democracy contagion" based upon his belief that the "young people in the Middle East are just a mouse click away, they're just a Facebook connection away, they're just an instant message away, they're just a text message away" from sufficiently organizing to effect regime change. Cohen and Google were heavily involved the January 2011 demonstrations in Egypt, using social networking sites to call for demonstrations and political reform; the "Egyptian contagion" version of 'digital democracy' phenomena was fueled by social networking internet sites run by Egyptian youth groups which took a very public stance opposing the Mubarak regime and calling for political reform.
The Iranian and Egyptian experiences in digital democracy-inspired regime change represent the nexus of the weaponization of social media by tech giants such as Twitter and Google, and the US government, which at the time was under the stewardship of Barack Obama and then-Vice President Joe Biden. The fact that both the Iranian and Egyptian efforts failed only underscores the nefarious nature of this relationship. The very tools and methodologies used by Iranian and Egyptian authorities to counter US-sponsored "digital democracy" – suppression through de-platforming – have now been taken up by Twitter, Google, and the political allies of Joe Biden to silence Donald Trump and his supporters from protesting an election they believe was every bit as "stolen" as the 2009 Iranian presidential election that gave birth to 'digital democracy' in the first place.
In a recently published report addressing the issue of internet freedom, Freedom House, a US government-funded non-profit, non-governmental organization that conducts research and advocacy on democracy, political freedom, and human rights, observed that internet connectivity "is not a convenience, but a necessity." Virtually all human activities, including political socialization, have moved online. This new 'digital world', the report noted, "presents distinct challenges for human rights and democratic governance" with "State and nonstate actors shape online narratives, censor critical speech, and build new technological systems of social control."
Freedom House was one of the supporters of 'digital democracy' in Iran and has been highly critical of the actions by Iranian authorities to shut down and otherwise control internet connectivity inside Iran. It noted that such tactics are indicative of a system that is "fearful of their own people and worr[ies] that they cannot control the information space." In its report, Freedom House wrote that "when civic organizing and political dissent overflow from the realm of social media onto the streets dictators shut down networks to choke off any calls for greater democracy and human rights."
In July 2019, the US 2nd District Court of Appeals ruling on Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump determined that President Trump's Twitter account "bear[s] all the trappings of an official, state-run account," meaning that the First Amendment governed the conduct of the account. As such, "the First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees."
By banning Trump from their platform, the unelected employees of Twitter have done to the president of the United States what he was accused of doing in Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump. If it was a violation of First Amendment-protected free speech for Trump to exclude persons from an otherwise open online dialogue, then the converse is obviously also true.
The notion that Trump's tweets somehow represented a "clear and present danger" that required suppression is not supported by the law. In 1919 Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote the majority opinion in Schenck v. United States , a case which examined the limits of free speech protections under the First Amendment, and famously observed that "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic [t]he question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."
Holmes' opinion in Schenck was later limited by the Supreme Court in its 1969 decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio , which replaced the "clear and present danger" standard with what is known as "imminent lawless action," which holds that speech is not protected if it is likely to cause violation of the law "more quickly than an officer of the law reasonably can be summoned." By suppressing the social media expressions of Donald Trump and his supporters, Twitter, Facebook, and Google – egged on by the political supporters of Joe Biden – appear to have unilaterally adopted the "clear and present danger" standard which deviates from the constitutionally-mandated norms, as established by Supreme Court precedent, that govern the protection of speech in America.
Political speech is not just a human right – in America, it is an essential constitutionally guaranteed freedom. When the political supporters of Joe Biden, along with the unelected heads of media giants such as Twitter, Facebook, and Google, actively collaborate to silence the ability of Donald Trump and the tens of millions of Americans who support him to express themselves on social media, they become no better than the authoritarian regimes they once sought to remove from power.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Scott Ritter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer and author of ' SCORPION KING : America's Suicidal Embrace of Nuclear Weapons from FDR to Trump.' He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf's staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector. Follow him on Twitter @RealScottRitter
See alsoWith unilateral censorship of a sitting US president, Big Tech has proven it's more powerful than any government Big Tech giants want to prove they are 'American gods'. Anyone watching the watchers? Tech oligarchs at Apple & Google are 'major obstacles' for Trump-friendly platform to arise – liberal studies scholar to RT Parting is such tweet sorrow... A fond farewell to Donald Trump's Twitter feed
Jan 09, 2021 | www.moonofalabama.orgZanon , Jan 9 2021 9:16 utc | 212
Trump was right on the big tech, he tried to warn about their power for many years, now big-tech crack down on him and his supporters.
The leftwingers at Big tech really proved his point, they are a enormous threat.
Liberals and leftwingers cheer today, they are people that pick tribalism before freedom of speeech, so disgusting.
Jan 09, 2021 | www.rt.com
GottaBeMe 8 hours ago 8 Jan, 2021 02:17 PMAnyone who doesn't see the danger in allowing Facebook, Twitter, and Google to decide what people get to see and what must be censored is living in a fantasy world. With this power, they can -- and have -- influenced the outcomes of elections, changed people's perspectives on matters of importance, and further divided the population.
Sep 23, 2020 | www.nytimes.com
Socrates Verona, N.J. Sept. 20
Facebook needs to be regulated since it has effectively organ-harvested the critical thinking skills of a significant portion of the population. It'd be better if thinking people simply deleted Facebook and let Facebook shrink and become the right-wing agit-prop tool that it truly is. Mark Zuckerberg is happy to to destabilize society with his little toy invention. You'd think with all that money, he could afford a conscience. What a wrecking ball Facebook is.
Jul 25, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com
How major social media companies threaten our most basic freedoms.
It is no secret that the dominant social media companies now monetize what is not theirs: our personal data. In none of the agreements between social media users and these companies is there a transfer of property. Yes, users (and consumers in general) often agree to relinquish some privacy in exchange for a service or a good. But privacy and property are completely different. They should not be conflated.
Privacy is at the core of who we are as free and sovereign individuals. An individual is composed of many attributes. Some are public and open, others we keep to ourselves. All of them define who we are.
Apparently, there is great commercial value in understanding our attributes and then using what is learned. Sometimes this is in our interest, but many times it is not.
In the digital world, companies dissect us and package us for commercial gain without compensating us -- and too often without our consent. That is not merely an invasion of our privacy, but in actuality is a theft of our personal property.
In any free society, respect for the individual is predicated upon his or her sovereignty. Our most important property right is our right to ourselves. If we lose ownership of ourselves, we become the property of others.
Social media companies, and other platforms that sell or monetize our data without permission are appropriating aspects of the sovereign individuals who are their users, and it is a violation of our rights.
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.398.1_en.html#goog_1683085215 Ad ends in 8s Next Video × Next Video J.d. Vance Remarks On A New Direction For Pro-worker, Pro-family Conservatism, Tac Gala, 5-2019 Cancel Autoplay is paused
But selling or monetizing your
personal information isn't the only way tyrannical tech seeks to own you.
In 2019, Facebook's Mark Zuckerbe
rg explicitly said, "We are a tech company, not a media company."
He later gave Congress a more nuanced answer:
"I view us as a tech company because the primary thing we do is build technology and products," Zuckerberg
testified. "I agree that we're responsible for the content, but we don't produce the content. I think when people ask us if we're a media company or a publisher, my understanding of what they're really getting at is do we feel responsible for the content on our platform."
"The answer to that, I think, is clearly yes," he continued. "But I don't think that's incompatible with fundamentally at our core being a technology company."
Zuckerberg's view of his company raises a crucial question: is Facebook a technology company that promotes free speech and exists as a public forum that should be held exempt from liability in connection with the content posted on its platform? Or is it a publisher with the right to edit content at its discretion, whatever the methodology -- but must then assume responsibility and liability for that content?
To say you assume responsibility for content, and then declare yourself exempt from liability in connection with it is an absurd contradiction. An assumption of liability is an indispensable component of statement of responsibility. It is the price one pays for being able to take credit for something, or to exercise control over it.
As troubled as I am regarding Zuckerberg's hypocri
sy, as shown by the contradictions between his words and Facebook's policies and practices, it is even more troubling to me that many of my fellow Zuckerberg critics -- both in the technology community and in the progressive movement–hold a very different conception of free speech than I do. Their view of the range of speech that should be protected is, unfortunately, much narrower.
Essentially, many of them believe technology should be used to censor content, accord
ing to criteria established by whoever controls the technology company. And today, most of the technology companies handling our content have decided to develop these criteria in partnership with those operating on a kind of mob mentality that sees dissent as something that is dangerous, something to be repressed.
A mere platform or "tech company" would not take it upon itself to do this. But publishers would and do, usually in the name of being "responsible." Unfortunately, almost all of today's technology is developed under the auspices of a controlling authority acting as a censor.
This would be acceptable -- if they acknowledged themselves as publishers. But Zuckerberg, during his congressional testimony, walked that not-even-remotely-fine line for a reason. Many of today's tech companies, doing the bidding of the various mobs that want to dictate what speech is allowed, wield the power they have according to their own perspective on what is right, just, and moral. They anoint themselves as the modern version of Torquemada. Yes, I said it: It is an Inquisition. These tech companies, and the mobs whose favor they curry, seek a strategy to dehumanize, delegitimize, and digitally exterminate those with whom they disagree.
Those in academia are often told they must "publish or perish." If platforms like Google, Facebook, Twitter and others dared to verbalize what they were doing in the form of an expression, an appropriate expression might be: "If we decide not to publish you, you will virtually perish. You will be erased."
These companies really aren't "social media." They are not public forums. An actual public forum respects the First Amendment, in spirit, and does not monetize content or personal data. Google, Facebook, Twitter and other tyrannical tech giants are private companies operating opaquely in the digital domain, exempt from discovery or accountability, gifted by Congress with a liability exemption that allows them to do whatever they want. Including deplatforming you.
Rabbi Hillel said, "that which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow."
If you want the right to speak, to express your ideas and opinions, it would be despicable to you if someone prevented you from doing so. You would not want someone else to persecute, dehumanize, deplatform or digitally exterminate you.
Such behavior is abhorrent to the ideal of free speech. It is unfathomable that, in the twenty-first century, "I wholly disapprove of what you say and will defend to the death your right to say it," has, somehow mutated into, "I wholly disapprove of what you say and will digitally exterminate you if you dare try to say it."
A true public forum eschews censorship of any kind. Freedom of expression, and the exchange of knowledge that goes along with it, can flourish only in an environment where there is no authoritative entity or controlling party, where one speaks by right, not by permission.
Jeffrey Wernick is strategic investor in Parler. He is also an early bitcoin adopter, advocate and acquirer. Additionally he is a seed investor and an angel investor. Wernick is a frequently invited lecturer and speaker including at his alma mater, the University of Chicago.
May 16, 2020 | www.unz.com
Anon  Disclaimer , says: Show Comment May 11, 2020 at 11:42 am GMTRealist , says: Show Comment May 11, 2020 at 12:24 pm GMT
With Facebook under enormous pressure to ban all "Coronavirus conspiracy theories," this is the obvious reason for our removal.
I would agree that it's related to the Coronavirus but I think what we're seeing in this case is Deep State's influence on big tech. IMHO, Unz Review was integral to the Chinese pushback on the origin of COVID-19 and for that reason it (UR) was tagged as PNG (as my spook friends would say) by Deep State.
I'm sure we've all seen declassified (TS/SCI/BAR) information on some national security issue or another. While sources and methods are redacted we can see the content. And what is always so remarkable is how unremarkable it is. Some of it even references news articles to establish facts. If the same quality level of info and analysis were used as the basis of an Unz Review column it would be savagely mocked and pilloried by the commenters. Yet people in government jobs treat this useless pile of crap reverently.
Conversely, in many articles on UR, and especially the comments section, you will find some real jaw-dropping bits of info or intel which you think can't possibly be true but upon further research you're able to verify as true. Pretty soon a clear pattern emerges which is vastly different from the official narrative.
From early on UR was challenging the Deep State official narrative on the Wuhan Coronavirus and suggesting it was a bioweapon false flag. The excellent piece by Whitney Webb really got things going. RU's excellent work on the subject was the final straw for Deep State.
When the Chinese government began pushing back against Western propaganda and started to suggest COVID-19 was a U.S. bioweapon by U.S. military personnel in Wuhan I immediately knew that the Chinese government intelligence agencies were reading UR. And I also knew at that time that Deep State would target UR or RU for take down.
So here we are. The banning of UR on FB is the first phase of the campaign. Like an F-117A Stealth Fighter taking out radar and broadcast stations.I should have added to my original comment that FB is a tool of the US government to get around the First Amendment. FB and other social media are propaganda tools used to promote the US government position on issues, mainly by averting anti propaganda from the public, but also by allowing the dissemination of the of government approved propaganda.
The Deep State does exist.
May 11, 2020 | www.unz.com
Free And Clean , says: Show Comment May 11, 2020 at 10:10 am GMTWhat is "Facebook" really? What kind of losers even waste their time on this surveillance platform? Here is it: losers trying to monitor the activities of their past or potential love interests. That's about the extent of its practical utility in the sick, lonely lives captured within the technological hell known as social media.Realist , says: Show Comment May 11, 2020 at 11:24 am GMT
Do this: smash the damned thing. Destroy any and all of your social media log-in credentials once and for all, and be free of them – Faceplants, Twits, etc. The most effective way of destroying a "Facebook" account, or any other, is to publicly post your private log-in name and password along with a public statement of separation and divorce from the platform. Once log-in credentials are publicly know, and random users access the account, then the account becomes useless for tracking and worthless to the surveillance state that partnerships with the front company.
Then, get a real life. Go outside. Meet real people in a real place. Pandemic be damned. Better to die free than waste slowly away inside the sealed coffin of "social media".@Craig NelsenProud_Srbin , says: Show Comment May 11, 2020 at 11:41 am GMT
When I tried to share this via the facebook icon, I got this message:
Why does Unz even still have a link to those anti-free speech tyrants and bullies on his site?
Here is a better question why would anybody use FB?P2P is NOT facebutt, twitter, google, amazon or ANY kind of "cloud" or "gatekeeper" computing.Emslander , says: Show Comment May 11, 2020 at 12:03 pm GMT
"Cloud" is MAINFRAME of the current century.
Freedom and Independence are to be found in DECENTRALIZED Internet as originally envisioned, designed and implemented by Cerf and Kahn.
Without sheeple, faceButt has no PRODUCT to trade and profit from.@Free And Clean I've never used FB, TWTR, Insta, or any other such girly "social" website. Send your articles, opinions, photos, birthday greetings via USPostal and amaze your friends, enemies and total strangers.FB , says: Website Show Comment May 11, 2020 at 12:55 pm GMT
When will thinking people realize that those sites can be defeated by not using them and by setting up better platforms? I have no idea how they'd work or look. If I did, I'd become a rich gentile social media monopolist.Glad to see this piece on UNZMax Parry , says: Show Comment May 12, 2020 at 1:08 am GMT
Yes, the information sphere is of paramount importance the ruling elite has known for a very long time the power of brainwashing and have employed huge programs of information management all to keep the people believing in complete bunk, the same way that illiterate serfs five hundred years ago believed the bullshit they were told by the priest
This is a cradle to grave indoctrination system that encompasses not only electronic media, but also the so-called education system and hard copy publishing
The result is that westerners, and Americans in particular, are almost completely illiterate of important realities of life on earth does anyone remember that Jay Leno segment 'Jaywalking' where he would go and do man-on-the-street interviews with people, asking them basic questions about things like American history, current events etc just unbelievable how stupid and uninformed people really are yet these doorknobs would invariably know all the ins and outs of the latest celebrity gossip just unbelievable
Of course the scumbags that run platforms like facebook are going to work hand in glove with the narrative that the elite has worked so hard to establish I don't see why anyone would use the facebook platform for anything I never have if you want to put information on the web, you just put up a blog page it's just as easy, and no one will censor you
Twitter is another one I have never used and will never sign up for just not interested you will notice that these kinds of so-called 'social media' are all about garnering 'followers' so that's great if you are a sheep and like to follow go right ahead and sign up for facebook, and twitter and instagram and all the other crapola and you can follow these morons right off the edge of the cliff they are headed for
The one platform I do use is youtube, which does have a lot of interesting video content here too the propaganda censorship is an issue, but information sites like South Front regularly put content on youtube without any problems
Bottom line is that 'social media' is a complete waste of time I was living my life just fine before this crapola came out, and continue to do so without it
As for South Front, they have an excellent website that provides very ACCURATE news about Syria, which is my main interest, and is really a pivotal conflict for the entire world in a lot of ways perhaps even more so than the Spanish Civil War in a previous time
I have never seen South Front get a story wrong about the war situation in Syria that says a lot they have proven themselves without doubt, and I highly recommend their website they should just pack up and leave the ridiculous facebook...Facebook has also appointed Emi Palmor, the former Israeli Justice Ministry director-general, to its "Oversight Board" which will be tasked with content moderation on Facebook and Instagram going forward, along with Muslim Brotherhood-linked Yemeni writer Tawakkol Karma.
Mar 10, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
Richard , Mar 10 2020 16:40 utc | 150No need to worry about the corona virus - it'll all be okay as long as you buy enough toilet roll...
Nothing speaks more loudly of the dumbed down, idiotic, Fakebook groupthink of the age than the current rush to buy toilet roll as a response to the Coronavirus crisis.
You've seen it on the tele and (un)social media – supermarket shelves denuded of bog roll and fat birds beating seven shades of sh*t out of each other over the last bag of ass wipe.
I mean, what the hell!? Is this how stupid and pathetic we've become? Someone sees a post on Fakebook that says its a good idea to respond to a potentially fatal virus by buying lots of bog roll and within 5 minutes there's a massive rush on the stuff – after all, you gotta buy it, right, COS IT SAYS SO ON FAKEBOOK...
Jan 19, 2020 | consortiumnews.com
Fran Macadam , January 14, 2020 at 07:28
You've been zucked.
Jul 24, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
GramSci , , , July 23, 2019 at 8:04 am
When Alex Stamos announced that the Internet Research Agency's ad buys were a drop in the ocean, Zuckerberg was promptly taken to the Congressional Woodshed and told to report to the Atlantic Council. Those two billion-odd fake accounts may be a fraud perpetrated on the advertisers, but they are invaluable to US "law" enforcement and to US propaganda, where the ability to open a fake account on Facebook gives the illusion of privacy.
With all due respect to Mr. Greenspan and his Lowell House creds, I think he fails to understand that Facebook is now an NSA asset.
Summer , , July 23, 2019 at 11:55 am
NSA and other law enforcement asset.
Remember stories about stupid criminals on the run who took the time to update their Facebook page?
The Rev Kev , July 23, 2019 at 10:38 am
This is a fascinating article and it certainly put a smile on my dial. As an asset for use by governments around the world, Facebook may be too invaluable to just let sink. One guy reported that he was in a meeting with Facebook’s top brass including the Zuck when a head honcho of the FBI came into the meeting and sang Zuck’s praises for all the help that Facebook gave the FBI. So the question remains. Just how many “real” Facebook accounts does Facebook have? Ones that people check on daily. Now that is the killer question.
Jul 24, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
bruce , July 23, 2019 at 4:14 pm
I have three Facebook accounts. The two I never ever look at are the one for my cat and the one for my feminine alter ego. My own account is used for only one thing, watching "People You May Know" to see how far they've penetrated my graph; occasionally disturbing, occasionally hilarious. I've never looked at my "wall", issued or accepted a friend request, posted anything, messaged anyone but they have my email, and wow do I hate this company!
May 2018, a woman I loved and was ultimately going to get to move in died (age 70, natural causes). Twice a week on average I get emails from Facebook inviting me to read her most recent messages. You can imagine how I feel about that. SHE DED!
Facebook has boasted on the order of 2-3 billion users, a significant percentage of the world's population, and I don't believe a word of it. One may assume that the early adopters were people with more tech savvy, affluence and most important, leisure time to screw around on the internet, and the proles don't have a lot of leisure time. Moreover, the value to the advertiser of a set of eyeball impressions is directly related to the amount of disposable income those eyeballs have, and sure, India has about one and a half billion people, but a lot of them have zero disposable income and zero leisure time.
Die Facebook die!
otishertz , July 23, 2019 at 5:37 pm
From the cited lawsuit:
"Based on a combination of publicly available research and Plaintiffs' own analysis, among 18-34 years-olds in Chicago, for example, Facebook asserted its Potential Reach was approximately 4 times (400%) higher than the number of real 18-34 year-olds with Facebook accounts in Chicago. Based on a combination of publicly available research and Plaintiffs' own analysis, Facebook's asserted Potential Reach in Kansas City was approximately 200% higher than the number of actual 18-54 year-olds with Facebook accounts in Kansas City. This inflation is apparent in other age categories as well."
otishertz , July 23, 2019 at 5:40 pm
"These foundational representations are false. Based on publicly available research and Plaintiffs' own analysis, Facebook overstates the Potential Reach of its advertisements. For example, based on publicly available data, Facebook's purported Potential Reach among the key 18-34 year-
22 old demographic in every state exceeds the actual population of 18-34 year-olds ."
Jul 24, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Unsympathetic , , July 23, 2019 at 8:29 am
If one accepts that FB user numbers are fraudulent, the Russiagate narrative falls apart.
What if the fake ads were only "viewed" by fake accounts?
Larry , , July 23, 2019 at 8:38 am
Bingo. But it's a great story for political elites to paper over their complete failure to maintain their control.
Michael Fiorillo , , July 23, 2019 at 9:42 am
Russiagate, the most extensive disinformation/propaganda campaign since Iraqi WMD, has fallen/is falling apart without any need to reference fake Facebook accounts.
The Collusion narrative/conspiracy theory was preposterous from the get-go, riven with internal inconsistencies, and the recent Federal court ruling that prevents Mueller from continuing to publicly accuse Concord management of "undermining our democracy" (that's a hot one) discredits the second of the three bases of the narrative.
Someday the McResistance TM and unhinged liberals possessed by magical thinking must grapple with the fact that Trump was elected in America, by Americans, and that there is no Santa Claus.
Then again, maybe not.
Jul 24, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
john BOUGEAREL , July 23, 2019 at 9:38 am
The world is a racket.
- From an investor point of view, revs are growing very nicely albeit at a slowing rate and forward earning valuations are not atrocious. 47% rev growth in 2017. 37% rev growth in 2018.
- 24% rev growth forecast for 2019. 21% rev growth forecast in 2020. Those rev growth rates are over the moon compared to the SP500.
- Who gives a rat's ass about fake accounts as long as the revs are growing.
And Singer, poor fella, he was crying in his beer back in August because he probably lost money when the stock price went down following an announcement that rev growth rates would predictably slow. If the cry-baby didn't sell, the market has made him pretty much whole again.
If and when rev growth falls off a cliff instead of a natural rate of deceleration, then the fake accounts may become material. Even if revs fall off a cliff, there is little to no likelihood you will find a Madoff of Ponzi lurking around the corner.
False Solace , July 23, 2019 at 2:22 pm
It sounds like revenue is only growing because advertisers aren't aware of the fake accounts and related puffery.
That will only remain true for so long. Facebook hasn't provided any data to clarify the matter, in fact their data further confuses it. In that respect it resembles a Madoff-style scheme. And that will become terribly relevant once revenue growth slows down.
Fortunately, elites never go after each other so Z and friends will be fine. No worries there.
vlade , July 23, 2019 at 8:33 am
FB fake accounts were an issue for a very long time. It pops up now and then, and then is ignored. Unfortunately.
Google, TBH, has a not dissimilar problem, although it's more obvious to the buyers. That is, it can't tell how many clicks (don't even mention "impressions") are bots. And it has no incentive to put anything strong there, to the contrary, it has incentive to show some captures, but as few as possible.
After all, advertisers pay for clicks and impressions, and you don't want to drop those numbers that your revenue depends on, do you?
If you business model is "user is the product", then of course you have an incentive to fake the users..
pnongrata , July 23, 2019 at 8:57 am
FB and Google have always said that if you can't turn those clicks into customers, it's your own damn fault for not targeting properly.
Successful campaign stories serve to fuel their evil business, like all 'good' Ponzi Schemes. Shameful.
Larry , July 23, 2019 at 8:36 am
I haven't heard much about the advertiser backlash that supposedly had Blue Chip clients like P&G pulling back spend on the platform.
I still see skepticism by marketers, but it would seem that they can't quite pull themselves off the platform gravy train.
Larry , July 23, 2019 at 8:36 am
I haven't heard much about the advertiser backlash that supposedly had Blue Chip clients like P&G pulling back spend on the platform.
I still see skepticism by marketers, but it would seem that they can't quite pull themselves off the platform gravy train.
Jun 19, 2019 | theweek.com
Nothing in our conversations about the pros and cons of the modern internet seems to me more naïve than our complaints about privacy.
... ... ...
The problem is that Facebook is not really a bookstore in this analogy -- at least not in any straightforward sense. To understand what they do you have to imagine a chain for whom selling books is not really the point; the books, which are rather enticingly free, are only there to give the store's owners a sense of what you might be interested in, information that they then sell to other companies that will in turn try to hawk everything from clothing to medicine to political candidates. If you think the neat blue website pays engineers hundreds of millions of dollars to let you share dog scrapbooks and spy on your old high-school classmates out of the goodness of its founders' hearts, you're delusional.
But the issues go well beyond any single platform or website. The internet, as Yasha Levine showed us in an admirable and unfortunately neglected book last year, was always envisioned by the military industrial complex responsible for its creation as a tool for surveillance.
It should come as no surprise that neoliberal capitalism, the only system with even more global reach than the American armed forces (with which big tech is increasingly allied anyway), would turn it to the very purpose for which it was designed. There was never going to be another way.
This doesn't necessarily mean that we have to live with the status quo. It is possible to imagine a future in which the moral hazard of putting all the information available from search engines and email use into the hands of private corporations disappeared. Instead of Google and Gmail we could have a massive Library of Congress search engine and a free -- with paid upgrades available for those who need additional storage -- Postal Service email platform. I for one would not mind entrusting Uncle Sam with the knowledge that the phrase beginning with "M" I am most likely to search for information about is "Michigan football recruiting."
The sad truth, though, is that these things have already been tried . Very few people remember now that the post office once attempted to get into the email business and made various attempts to keep digital commerce within the purview of the government rather than in the hands of private corporations. These efforts failed time and again, often due to Silicon Valley lobbying efforts. (Internal incompetence was also an issue: imagine paying $1.70 per email in 2002.)
This problem might be solved easily enough if those corporations had no say in the matter, like the coal companies under the post-war Labour government in Britain. But even if forcibly nationalizing search, email, and other basic internet services now seems like the ideal solution, it would involve the most radical use of government power since the New Deal. I doubt there is a single member of Congress who would even entertain the idea. What does that leave with us? A box of Band-Aids for some gaping wounds. We can insist on disclosure, but nobody is ever going to read through those terms of service documents. We can also attempt to limit the relationship between digital advertising and free social media services, but the latter could not exist without the former. Nor could the unlimited amount of "content" produced by wage slaves or unpaid amateurs.
I don't mean to sound unduly cynical. The fact that hundreds of companies know virtually everything about me because I use technologies that are all but unavoidable for anyone who participates in modern life is terrifying.
I wonder how many other people now think that the old arrangement -- in which we took photos with real cameras and paid people at department stores to make prints of them and shared them in the privacy of our homes with people we really love, and had beautifully clear conversations on reliable pieces of hardware, and paid for newspapers that offered good wages to their writers and editors thanks to the existence of classified ads -- was so bad.
In the future we should be more mindful of the power of technology to destroy things we value. But how many of those things are still left?
Jun 15, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
A new report by The Intercept has unearthed some stunning quotes from Facebook's lawyers as the controversial social media giant recently battled litigation in California courts related to the Cambridge Analytica data sharing scandal. The report notes that statements from Facebook's counsel "reveal one of the most stunning examples of corporate doublespeak certainly in Facebook's history" concerning privacy and individual users' rights.
Contrary to CEO Mark Zuckerberg's last testimony before Congress which included the vague promise, "We believe that everyone around the world deserves good privacy controls," the latest courtroom statements expose in shockingly unambiguous terms that Facebook actually sees privacy as legally "nonexistent" -- to use The Intercept's apt description of what's in the courtroom transcript -- up until now largely ignored in media commentary. The courtroom debate was first reported by Law360 , and captures the transcribed back and forth between Facebook lawyer Orin Snyder of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher and US District Judge Vince Chhabria.
The Intercept cites multiple key sections of the transcript from the May 29, 2019 court proceedings showing Snyder arguing essentially something the complete opposite of Zuckerberg's public statements on data privacy , specifically, on the idea that users have any reasonable expectation of privacy at all.
Facebook's lawyer argued :
There is no privacy interest , because by sharing with a hundred friends on a social media platform, which is an affirmative social act to publish, to disclose, to share ostensibly private information with a hundred people, you have just, under centuries of common law, under the judgment of Congress, under the SCA, negated any reasonable expectation of privacy .
As The Intercept commented of the blunt remarks , "So not only is it Facebook's legal position that you're not entitled to any expectation of privacy, but it's your fault that the expectation went poof the moment you started using the site (or at least once you connected with 100 Facebook "friends")."
Scipio Africanuz , 7 hours ago linknumapepi , 10 hours ago link
Privacy invasion, is similar to rape - one is an invasion of the body, the other, of the soul..
However, if you don't want your privacy invaded, stop using Facebook, WhatsApp, and all the other privacy invading apps they offer, and find platforms that respect your rights to your privacy..
On the other hand, stop sharing extremely intimate details if you'd rather have them be off limits - do mano a mano sharing, so you can know who leaked what, and when..
Still, monetizing the souls of folks, without their consent, is egregious, and yet, you get what you pay for..if it's free, you're the product, or more accurately, the cow, or better yet, the gold laying geese, or most egregiously, the snitch, snitching on yourself..
Zuckerberg, is NOT anyone's definition of a honest person..his contraption began with a theft, is based on a deception, and operates via blackmail, for the purpose of control..how you describe such a person, is your prerogative, cheers...
"Let me give you a hypothetical of my own. I go into a classroom and invite a hundred friends. This courtroom. I invite a hundred friends, I rent out the courtroom, and I have a party. And I disclose — And I disclose something private about myself to a hundred people, friends and colleagues. Those friends then rent out a 100,000-person arena, and they rebroadcast those to 100,000 people. I have no cause of action because by going to a hundred people and saying my private truths, I have negated any reasonable expectation of privacy , because the case law is clear."
...is spurious because, in his example, it is the friends who are disseminating the information, but Facebook is more like the person who he rented the hall from... disseminating the information. It would be like 101 bankers setting up a meeting in a Marriott, and discussing business plans and tactics, as the Marriott records and sells that information to credit unions. Claiming the Bankers gave up any right to privacy... because there were over 100 of them in that banquet room.
In the case of the Marriott recording and selling information that is passed in their banquet rooms... would the Facebook attorney agree that is acceptable? To be consistent he must.
Jun 15, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
East Indian , 21 hours ago link
"We believe that everyone around the world deserves good privacy controls," - Facebook
"We believe that everyone around the world deserves good health care" - ebola virus
May 14, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com
At the recent F8 conference for Facebook developers, Mark Zuckerberg stood on stage laughing and trying to crack jokes.
"I know that we don't exactly have the strongest reputation on ptrivacy right now, to put it lightly," he said. The audience was speechless. It would be like BP laughing about oil spills or Union Carbide laughing about the Bhopal disaster. Nobody laughed, not even Facebook employees.
That same week, Facebook disclosed that it will be setting aside $5 billion to pay for potential fines from the Federal Trade Commission relating to violations of user privacy. The fine is significant -- if only symbolically -- because when it comes to the tech giants, the Department of Justice and FTC have been toothless enforcers and regulators. The biggest fine they've imposed thus far was for $22.5 million to Google in 2012 for misleading consumers about its online tracking tools, a penalty so inconsequential that it amounts to less than a rounding error.
While banks are too big to fail, tech giants are too big to manage. Facebook has accumulated over 2 billion users on its main platform, and also owns Instagram and Whatsapp. It is far too large to operate with any sensible degree of competent oversight.
The company has been accused of selling advertisements based on anti-Semitic keywords like " Jew haters ," selling ads that discriminate based on age for job advertisements, targeting people by race to exclude minorities , and live-streaming murders and suicides. It has helped fuel the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya in Myanmar, according to the United Nations. It has exposed hundreds of millions of passwords stored internally without encryption. It has saved user videos that it promised were deleted . It has repeatedly misled advertisers about its advertising metrics.
... ... ...
Efforts by Facebook, Google, and Twitter to self-regulate have encountered little success and present a host of problems. For example, the tech giants collaborate in the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism. It shares a database of objectionable content that can be used to ban files and users. The problem with this database is that there is no transparency, accountability or even a right to appeal. The database keeps out extremism, but it is also an overly broad censorship tool. Users have been banned under this system without even knowing why they were banned. And there is nobody that they can appeal to to reverse their ban.
When it comes to privacy in the United States, the tech giants have no interest in harming their ad-driven business models, and there is very little self-regulation. Their surveillance of users is a feature, not a bug. Europe has the General Data Protection Regulation, a regulatory framework to protect individuals, but the tech giants have fought privacy regulations at every step in state legislatures and on Capitol Hill.
The issue of privacy is one that the United States will need to regulate. Facebook and Google are merely the tip of the iceberg.
Many data brokers are far more intrusive, and Google and Facebook buy data from them , as well as from payments companies like Mastercard. Acxiom is a data broker that collects 1,500 data points per person on more than 700 million consumers and sells analysis of such information. The kind of information it collects is vast: identifying and contact information, court and public record information, financial "indicators", health "interests" including web searches for "diabetes, arthritis, homeopathic, organic and senior needs," demographic information such as home value, home characteristics, marital status, presence of children in the household, number of members in the household, education, occupation, and political party, "lifestyle and interest indicators."
Not even the Stasi had as much information on the East Germans as Google, Facebook, and its data brokers have on American citizens.
It is bad when the data is accurate, but it is almost worse when it is not. They store data indefinitely, even when people have had their criminal or misdemeanor records expunged by courts, and it has cost people jobs .
Apple CEO Tim Cook has called on the FTC to create a " data-broker clearinghouse ." All data brokers would have to register and allow users to see what data is held on them and allow users to see what data of theirs has been tracked and sold. It would also allow them to delete it. This is a good first step. Another important step is to require user consent before a merchant passes on data to a third party. This currently takes place with no user content.
Most importantly, the tech giants should be regulated as media companies. Executives from Google and Facebook go to great lengths to deny that they run media companies, even though they behave exactly like media companies.
They aggregate, curate, and distribute content, but bear none of the burdens that come with that designation. Facebook's news feed has become what the front page of the newspaper was for older generations of people; at least 66 percent of the social network's 2 billion users use it as a news source, according to a Pew Research Center study.
Thee are de facto editors of news content. Facebook and YouTube -- a subsidiary of Google's parent company, Alphabet -- have intentionally designed their algorithms to customize user experience to increase engagement. They accomplish this by suggesting stories that user will be most likely to respond to. An algorithm may not be an old-fashioned editor, but it is making editorial choices all the same.
They are also creators of content. Facebook and Google may say they aren't media companies, but they have been investing in originally produced entertainment videos and shows.
If Facebook and Google were held responsible for the content they promote, the Federal Communications Commission would not let them off lightly for their many failings. If Facebook and Google were treated as media companies, they would be held accountable for the content that appears on their platforms. Today, under Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act , tech giants are broadly immune from liability over content posted by others.
The most contentious issue for reform is treating Facebook and Google like the monopolies they are. In a way, it makes sense. For years, Zuckerberg routinely described Facebook as a " social utility ." Indeed, it was originally part of the company's slogan.
Facebook and Google have become essential fixtures of 21st-century life. If you want to be on a network with all of your friends, there is really only one network to be on, and it is on Facebook. Likewise for search where Google has almost a 90 percent market share globally with very strong feedback loops from its platform and advertisers. These business models have become a natural monopoly, much like a phone company or water system except that they remain completely unregulated.
Figures from the Left and Right have called for them to be regulated like public utilities. In 2017, Steve Bannon said tech companies like Facebook and Google have become essential elements of 21st-century life and should be regulated as utilities. The Economist has mooted the idea that the tech giants could be regulated based on a regulated return on assets. They can stay private and enjoy utility-like status, but the returns they can harvest from being natural monopolies are capped at utility like rates based on the return on their assets.
Reform is not impossible. More than two decades ago in 1998, Congress recognized that the internet was revolutionizing media and commerce and passed two laws to address copyright and free speech concerns. Two decades is an awfully long time in Silicon Valley and technology. Times have changed, and updating the laws is long overdue.
Jonathan Tepper is a senior fellow at , founder of Variant Perception , a macroeconomic research company, and co-author of The Myth of Capitalism: Monopolies and the Death of Competition . This article was supported by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. The contents of this publication are solely the responsibility of the authors.
Emil Shitalkovic, says: May 13, 2019 at 12:27 amSection 230, the "media companies" thing, is not enough. These companies have more power than the government did at the time the First Amendment was ratified, especially when they act in concert as they have been doing recently to ban political speech.polistra , says: May 13, 2019 at 1:36 am
The 1934 Universal Service Act is the right approach. Natural monopolies cannot be allowed to curate. They need to stop using demonetizing, Youtube Jail, condescending Twitter "time outs", weaponized spam false positives they claim are "mistakes" when caught, and outright bans to retaliate against legal speech they don't like, whether it is flat earth conspiracies, anti-vaxers, Republicans, "Nazis," whatever. Even "Nazis" are allowed to buy food, have telephones, and print newspapers in this country. It is extreme, but we decided to draw the line where we did for a reason, and have not agreed to move it since the Revolutionary War. It is not their right to unilaterally move that line for us. They are so powerful all legal speech must be allowed, and the people will have to sort out what's true. Achieving social harmony, or bettering humanity by arbitrating truth, are not their responsibilities. They are not media companies.
In short, they cannot be both "media companies" and monopolies because monopoly control of media is the end of democracy. They are monopolies, therefore they cannot be allowed the editorial freedom of media companies.We know what will happen. Dodd-Frank. A "regulation" that makes it even easier for FB and Google to evade taxes and censor opponents and kill competitors.Gene Smolko , says: May 13, 2019 at 2:59 am
Bear in mind that the hearings in both Congress and Parliament were NOT bashing FB for invading privacy and censoring opinion. Both were bashing FB for INADEQUATE censorship and invasion. They expected MORE EVIL, and Zuck was happy to give them more evil.So the free market isn't fixing this?Kent , says: May 13, 2019 at 6:49 amThe issue is very simple. Let capitalism work by simply passing a law that states that information about an individual is the property of that individual. And just like you can't sell the land I own without a contract to do so, you can't sell the information (about me) that I own without a contract to do so.SomeKindOfDruidDude , says: May 13, 2019 at 8:00 am
In the agricultural age, property (land) rights became recognized. In the Industrial Age, capital, debt and share ownership rights became codified. We are in the Information Age, and it's time to recognize the proper ownership of information.Gene Smolko: It doesn't look like it. There used to be a bunch of search engines. Now it looks like there will never be another search engine. "Search engine" is starting to look like a utility, something we all need to share to make more profit elsewhere.Connecticut Farmer , says: May 13, 2019 at 8:52 amWhile I totally agree that FB has evolved into what amounts to a public utility and needs to be treated as such, beware of the following caveat: FB, Google etc. will no longer be "free." The likelihood will be that once the dust settles their services (as well as those of any rival companies that will result from this process) will come with a price tag. FB, Google etc. will become like electricity–if you want it, you have to pay for it.TheSnark , says: May 13, 2019 at 10:45 amNorth Peninsulan , says: May 13, 2019 at 10:45 am
The services provided by Facebook, Google, etc have become an integral part of our daily lives. They are also natural monopolies. In that sense they are like the electric and gas companies, which are regulated utilities. So they, too should be regulated utilities.
On the advertising and data side, there are many competing data brokers who have every incentive to abuse your personal data. What we need there is not just a law, but a constitutional amendment defining a citizen's right to privacy, that we own our own data, and we must approve of any use of it. That simply was not an issue when the Bill of Rights was written, but it is now.
My ancestors didn't fight two world wars and a Cold War to secure a privacy violating mass surveillance society for their posterity. In some ways, we're turning into the very things that Americans fought tooth and nail to destroy, and that real Americans loathe to their marrow. It's sickening.
I doubt "regulation" is enough. They operate like giant, unaccountable monopolies and should probably be broken up or shut down. Do it. Harsh criminal penalties and huge civil fines for violators of individual rights and privacy.
Apr 26, 2019 | www.rt.com
New York Attorney General Letitia James is opening an investigation into Facebook's "unintentional" upload of up to 1.5 million users' contact lists, vowing to hold it accountable for its cavalier attitude toward user privacy. "
It is time Facebook is held accountable for how it handles consumers' personal information ," James said in a statement , claiming the social media company " has repeatedly demonstrated a lack of respect for consumers' information while at the same time profiting from mining that data ."
Also on rt.com Want a new Facebook account? Just hand over your private email password
Facebook admitted last week that it " unintentionally uploaded " 1.5 million new users' email address books since 2016, potentially slurping up hundreds of millions of people's contact information – including non-Facebook users – which was then used for targeted advertising and to suggest potential " friends " based on email connections. The platform gained access to the contacts by asking users for their email passwords after they clicked on a link to verify their account, but did not ask the users before hoovering up their contact lists.
Facebook claims it is deleting the offending address book data and says it has notified people who had their contacts copied. It says the contacts were not shared with anyone.
New York is one of several states currently investigating Facebook based on the March 2018 revelations that Cambridge Analytica used Facebook data scraped from millions of users without their consent to assist the Donald Trump presidential campaign. That investigation continues, while the Federal Trade Commission, which opened its own probe following the Cambridge Analytica revelations alleging violation of a 2011 " consent decree ," is reportedly negotiating a settlement with Facebook. According to the company's first-quarter earnings report, Facebook expects to pay $3 to $5 billion in penalties – the largest FTC settlement ever for a tech company.Also on rt.com Facebook expects record $5 BILLION fine from FTC over privacy violations
The company has been plagued with non-stop scandals since Cambridge Analytica, with users learning last month hundreds of millions of passwords had sat, unencrypted, on an internal server for the past seven years and reports from ex-employee whistleblowers accusing the site of " de-boosting " conservative political content. Facebook has responded to users' worries about privacy by hiring one of the authors of the notorious USA PATRIOT Act as its new general counsel.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
Apr 24, 2019 | viableopposition.blogspot.com
Monday, April 15, 2019 Facebook and Its Close Links to Washington With Facebook taking a very strong stance against so-called fake news and foreign interference in what passes for democracy in the United States and particularly given its recent association with the Atlantic Council and its Digital Forensic Research Lab. I would be remiss if I didn't thank Matt Agorist at the Free Thought Project, one of the entities that was purged by Facebook in October 2018, for inspiring this posting
In no particular order, let's look at some of Facebook's key personnel and their relationship to Washington:
1.) Katie Harbath : Ms. Harbath is currently Director of Global Politics and Government Outreach at Facebook as shown here:
...and has very close links to the Republican Party (a relative rarity among Facebook key personnel) including Deputy eCampaign Director for Rudy Giuliani's run at the Oval Office both before and during her tenure at Facebook as shown here:
It was Ms. Harbath who announced Facebook's "exciting new partnership" with the Atlantic Council on May 17, 2018:
" Today, we're excited to launch a new partnership with the Atlantic Council, which has a stellar reputation looking at innovative solutions to hard problems. Experts from their Digital Forensic Research Lab will work closely with our security, policy and product teams to get Facebook real-time insights and updates on emerging threats and disinformation campaigns from around the world. This will help increase the number of "eyes and ears" we have working to spot potential abuse on our service -- enabling us to more effectively identify gaps in our systems, preempt obstacles, and ensure that Facebook plays a positive role during elections all around the world ."
2.) Nathaniel Gleicher : Mr. Gleicher is Head of Cybersecurity Policy at Facebook as shown here:
...and was former Director for Cybersecurity Policy for the National Security Council at the White House, Senior Counsel for Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section at the United States Department of Justice and a Law Clerk for Senator Patrick Leahy as shown here:
Just so you can get a sense of Mr. Gleicher's belief system, here is what he said in a blog posting on January 17, 2019 entitled " Removing Coordinated Inauthentic Behaviour from Russia ":
" Today we removed 364 Facebook Pages and accounts for engaging in coordinated inauthentic behavior as part of a network that originated in Russia and operated in the Baltics, Central Asia, the Caucasus, and Central and Eastern European countries. The Page administrators and account owners primarily represented themselves as independent news Pages or general interest Pages on topics like weather, travel, sports, economics, or politicians in Romania, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Russia, and Kyrgyzstan. Despite their misrepresentations of their identities, we found that these Pages and accounts were linked to employees of Sputnik, a news agency based in Moscow, and that some of the Pages frequently posted about topics like anti-NATO sentiment, protest movements, and anti-corruption. " (my bolds)
Yes, imagine being anti-NATO and anti-corruption! That's totally unAmerican not to mention totally without merit !
3.) David Recordon : Mr. Recordon lists himself as a "doer" on his Linkedin page as shown here:
...however, his "real position" is Engineering Director for the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, a company founded by Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan which has the goal of "advancing human potential and promoting equality in areas such as health, education, scientific research and energy".
Between March 2015 and January 2017, Mr. Recordon was the Special Assistant to the President and Director of White House IT and a consultant for the U.S. Digital Service at the White House as you can see here:
Please note that prior to his tenure with the federal government, Mr. Recordon was Engineering Director at Facebook.
4.) Aneesh Raman : Mr. Raman is currently the Head of Economic and Social Impact at Facebook as you can see here:
...and was the former speechwriter to President Obama and worked in Strategic Communications at the Pentagon as shown here:
5.) Meredith Carden : Ms. Carden is currently working on Facebook's News Integrity Partnerships as shown here:
..and spent two years working in the Office of First Lady Michelle Obama and spent seven months as a Press Intern for Obama For America as shown here:
6.) Joel Benenson: Mr. Benenson, founder of Benenson Strategy Group , is conducting research for the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative as shown here:
...and was a former senior strategist to Hillary Clinton during her most recent run for the Oval Office as well as doing research and polling programs for President Obama's 2008 and 2012 campaigns and working on President Bill Clinton's campaign during the 1996 election as shown here :
Let's close with this. Remembering that Facebook is now tied to the Atlantic Council who functions as its censor, here is a screen capture that shows the close links between Washington and the Atlantic Council when it comes to leadership:
While I'm quite certain that there are other examples of the very close links between Washington and Facebook, I believe that you have enough information from this posting to come to the conclusion that Facebook is far from a benign, private entity. Facebook put in place an inordinate number of men and women who hail from the federal government and, as such, one might almost conclude that the publicly traded Facebook functions as an extension of the federal government and, more pointedly, the Democratic Party. Perhaps that's why Facebook has had its proverbial "panties in a knot" about Russian-sourced fake news since Hillary Clinton lost the election that was supposed to be hers.
Apr 02, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
Lozion , Mar 31, 2019 4:33:21 PM | link< More and more "resistance" type Twitteratti get shadowbanned, that is, their posts dont appear in the Twitter feed though they are visible on their profiles. Find out if you are shadowbanned here:>
Zachary Smith , Mar 31, 2019 5:24:53 PM | linkLozion , Mar 31, 2019 7:55:34 PM | link
@ Lozion #12
Until recently I didn't know the word "shadowbanning", but that was what happened to me several years ago. The managers of the Indianapolis Star had given their forum to the tender care of a mix of Libertarians, rightwingnuts, and devoted followers of the Holy Cesspool south of Syria. Gradually I realized nobody was responding to my posts, and only by accident did I learn those posts were invisible to everybody else. Only when I was logged in could I see them myself.
So that's why I have gone cold turkey on the only Indianapolis newspaper. I'd recommend it only for folks whose parakeets need a lining for the bottom of the bird's cage. Their editorial page works best for that application.@12 Zachary.
Yeah I first encountered the phenom during the last days of the 2014 Euromaidan while reposting info on Facebook about sniper fire coming from opp held rooftops. I couldnt understand why interaction on the subject stopped until someone confirmed via the chat that none of my posts with the word "Ukraine" appeared in the feed. They must've triggered FBs early filter algorithm. I have since left the Ministry of Truth..
Mar 26, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,
We either take down Facebook and Google and turn them into tightly regulated transparent public utilities available to all or they will destroy what little is left of American democracy.
The RussiaGate Narrative has been revealed as a Big Con (a.k.a. Nothing-Burger), but what's dangerously real is the censorship that's being carried out by the for-profit monopolies Facebook and Google on behalf of the status quo's Big Con.
This site got a taste of Facebook-Google-Big-Media's Orwellian Authoritarian-Totalitarian censorship back in 2016 when a shadowy fake-news site called PropOrNot aggregated every major alt-media site that had published anything remotely skeptical of the coronation of Hillary Clinton as president and labeled us all shills for Russian propaganda.
Without any investigation of the perps running the site or their fake-news methodology, The Washington Post (Jeff Bezos' plaything) saw fit to promote the fake-news on Page One as if it were journalistically legitimate. Why would a newspaper that supposedly values the integrity of its content run with such shameless fake-news propaganda? Because it fit the Post's own political agenda and biases.
This is the essence of Facebook-Google-Big-Media's Orwellian Authoritarian-Totalitarian censorship: sacrifice accepted journalistic practice, free speech and transparency to promote an absurdly obvious political and social agenda.
If there was any real justice in America, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Google CEO Sundar Pichai should be wearing prison jumpsuits for what Facebook and Google have done to American democracy. Both of these monopolies have manipulated news feeds, search results and what individuals are shown in complete secret, with zero public oversight or transparency .
The damage to democracy wrought by Facebook and Google is severe: free speech no longer exists except in name, and what individuals see in search and social media feeds is designed to manipulate them without their consent or knowledge--and for a fat profit. Whether Facebook and Google are manipulating users for profit or to buy off Status Quo pressures to start regulating these monopolistic totalitarian regimes or to align what users see with their own virtue-signaling, doesn't matter.
What matters is that no one can possibly know how Facebook and Google have rigged their algorithms and to what purpose. The typical corporation can buy political influence, but Facebook and Google are manipulating the machinery of democracy itself in three ways:
1. They are secretly censoring alternative media and skeptics of the status quo narratives.
2. They are selling data and ads to anyone interested in manipulating voters and public opinion.
3. They are providing data to the National Security organs of the state which can then use this data to compile dossiers on "enemies of the people," i.e. skeptics and dissenters who question the "approved" context and narrative.
That's a much more dangerous type of power than buying political influence or manipulating public opinion by openly publishing biased "commentary."
We all understand how America's traditional Corporate Media undermines democracy: recall how every time Bernie Sanders won a Democratic primary in 2016, The New York Times and The Washington Post "reported" the news in small typeface in a sidebar, while every Hillary Clinton primary win was trumpeted in large headlines at the top of page one.
But this sort of manipulation is visible; what Google and Facebook do is invisible. What their algorithms do is invisible, and the shadow banning and other forms of invisible censorship cannot be easily traced.
A few of us can trace shadow banning because we have access to our site's server data. Please consider the data of Google searches and direct links from Facebook to oftwominds.com from November 2016 and November 2018:
Nov. 2016: Google Searches: 36,779
Nov. 2016: links from Facebook: 9,888
Nov. 2018: Google Searches: 12,671
Nov. 2018: links from Facebook: 859
Oftwominds.com has been around since 2005 and consistently draws around 250,000 page views monthly (via oftwominds.com and my mirror site on blogspot, which is owned/operated by Google. Interestingly, traffic to that site has been less affected by shadow banning ; Coincidence? You decide....).
Given the consistency of my visitor traffic over the years, it's "interesting" how drastically the site's traffic with Google and Facebook has declined in a mere two years. How is this shadow banning not Orwellian Authoritarian-Totalitarian censorship? It's akin to China's Orwellian Social Credit system but for private profit .
It wouldn't surprise me to find my photo airbrushed out of group photos on Facebook and Google just as the Soviet propaganda organs did when someone fell out of favor in the 1930s.
Fortunately, oftwominds.com isn't dependent on Facebook or Google for its traffic; other content creators who were skeptical of RussiaGate are not so fortunate. One of the implicit goals of shadow banning and filters is to destroy the income of dissenting sites without the content creators knowing why their income plummeted.
Strip dissenters of their income and you strip them of the ability to dissent. Yea for "free speech" controlled by for-profit monopolies!
Where's the "level playing field" of free speech? As long as Facebook and Google are free to censor and filter in secret, there is no free speech in America. All we have is a simulacrum of free speech in which parroting "approved" narratives is promoted and dissent is censored/banned--but without anyone noticing or even being able to tell what's been filtered, censored or banned.
So when are we going to tackle privately held monopolies which are selling user data to the highest bidder, obliterating free speech in secret and manipulating news feeds and search to promote hidden agendas? I've argued (see links below) that the solution is very simple:
1. Regulate Facebook and Google as public utilities. Ban them from collecting and selling user data to anyone, including federal agencies.
2. Allow a modest profit to each firm via display adverts that are shown equally to every user.
3. Require any and all search/content filters and algorithms be made public, i.e. published daily.
4. Any executive or employee of these corporations who violates these statutes will face criminal felony charges and be exposed to civil liability lawsuits from users or content providers who were shadow-banned or their right to free speech was proscribed or limited by filters or algorithms.
There is no intrinsic right for privately held corporations to establish monopolies that can manipulate and filter free speech in secret to maximize profits and secret influence. We either take down Facebook and Google and turn them into tightly regulated transparent public utilities available to all or they will destroy what little is left of American democracy.
I recently addressed these invisible (but oh-so profitable) mechanisms in a series of essays:
- How Far Down the Big Data/'Psychographic Microtargeting' Rabbit Hole Do You Want to Go?
- Is Profit-Maximizing Data-Mining Undermining Democracy?
- Should Facebook, Google and Twitter Be Public Utilities?
- Should Facebook and Google Pay Users When They Sell Data Collected from Users?
- Are Facebook and Google the New Colonial Powers? September 18, 2017
- The Demise of Dissent: Why the Web Is Becoming Homogenized November 17, 2017
- Addictions: Social Media & Mobile Phones Fall From Grace November 24, 2017
- The Blowback Against Facebook, Google and Amazon Is Just Beginning April 27, 2018
- Shadow Banning Is Just the Tip of the Iceberg: We're All Digital Ghosts Now October 27, 2018
- Hell Hath No Fury Like a Liberal Scorned: The Media Turns on Facebook and Google November 19, 2018
* * *
Pathfinding our Destiny: Preventing the Final Fall of Our Democratic Republic ($6.95 ebook, $12 print, $13.08 audiobook ): Read the first section for free in PDF format. My new mystery The Adventures of the Consulting Philosopher: The Disappearance of Drake is a ridiculously affordable $1.29 (Kindle) or $8.95 (print); read the first chapters for free (PDF) . My book Money and Work Unchained is now $6.95 for the Kindle ebook and $15 for the print edition. Read the first section for free in PDF format. If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com .
Mar 09, 2019 | www.rt.com
Mark Zuckerberg is on a mission to rehabilitate Facebook's image. The CEO announced his new "privacy-focused vision" for the social media platform this week – but it looks more like a PR stunt than anything else. "Privacy gives people the freedom to be themselves and connect more naturally, which is why we build social networks," Zuckerberg wrote . Now, is there anyone who really believes Facebook was built to give people "the freedom to be themselves?"
Zuckerberg does understand, however, why people are questioning Facebook's newfound commitment to privacy, "...because frankly we don't currently have a strong reputation for building privacy protective services." For a company plagued with privacy scandal after privacy scandal, that seems like a bit of an understatement.
Putting "Privacy-focussed" in the headline is a great strategy, but none of the things mentioned stop Facebook knowing who you are, your location, mobile number, who you're connected to, linking this to other data sets, or following you around the web https://t.co/iKhYUtl4CC pic.twitter.com/UeRRpxWzz2-- Jeremy Burge (@jeremyburge) March 6, 2019
Still, reading through Zuckerberg's grand vision for a new kind of privacy-focused Facebook, we are given the impression that the company is about to completely revamp itself from top to bottom – but the only real concrete change proposed is one that critics are already saying might not enhance privacy that much and isn't even really motivated by privacy concerns at all. Essentially, Zuckerberg plans to integrate Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp and Instagram direct messages to build a kind of single, end-to-end messaging system (which we've actually known-about since January). This change is because he now believes "the future of communication will increasingly shift to private, encrypted services where people can be confident what they say to each other stays secure."
*LOL* So @facebook merges all the data from #Instagram , #WhatsApp and #Facebook , while only encrypting the content data (not the meta data) of Facebook messages and sells the package as a #privacy move - a PR masterpiece and the media falls for it.. 😜😂-- Max Schrems (@maxschrems) March 7, 2019
While it's nice that Zuckerberg has suddenly realized that people value their privacy online, and end-to-end encryption for private conversations is obviously a positive step, his critics aren't entirely buying the new image. One technology writer described the move as "a power grab disguised as an act of contrition."
Why? Because the long-winded spiel about the importance of privacy masks the fact that Zuckerberg's real motivation for combining the three services is to stave off efforts by US and EU regulators to force the unbundling of Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram and introduce new competition to the market.
Does anybody think that Facebook owning Instagram and WhatsApp is a good thing for America, privacy, journalism, or anything except Zuck & shareholders getting rich?
Breaking up Facebook from Instagram and WhatsApp seems like the least radical idea, and I hope we do it soon.-- Zephyr Teachout (@ZephyrTeachout) March 7, 2019
Zuckerberg is now firmly on a collision course with regulators around the world. Germany's antitrust body ruled last month that Facebook was abusing its dominant position in the market by combining the three services. Facebook, Zuckerberg wrote, has been "obsessed" with creating an "intimate environment" for WhatsApp users. But an "intimate" feeling "environment" isn't really going to cut it. Facebook has already been fined $122 million by the EU for misleading antitrust regulators when it said its WhatsApp acquisition would not mean user information from the two platforms would be combined (which, of course, it was).
Facebook exists primarily to sell advertisements – and its entire business model rests on mining our data to do just that. So while protecting private conversations is a good thing in and of itself, it doesn't appear that anything else fundamental about Facebook will really be changing. Facebook still has a million other ways to get hold of our data and monitor our online activity – and even with stronger messaging encryption, Facebook can still use metadata to tell who we are talking to and when, which is valuable information in itself.
This wasn't Zuckerberg's first effort to redeem himself and do damage control for Facebook and its multiplying privacy scandals – and it certainly won't be his last. A blog post laying out a blueprint for a "privacy-focused" company that doesn't actually exist doesn't mean much. Zuckerberg has been offering apologies left, right and center for the last year.
He doesn't have a great track record when it comes to keeping his promises, though. Plenty of privacy tools Facebook has promised in the past never came to fruition. Remember that "clear history" button that Zuckerberg promised nearly two years ago and users are still waiting for today?
Anyone who thinks Facebook is really going to put its business model at risk, as it scrambles to shield itself from regulators and maintain its monolithic status is more than likely deluded.
Danielle Ryan, RT
Subscribe to RT newsletter to get stories the mainstream media won't tell you.
Mar 09, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
Government-To-Facebook Pipeline Reveals A Corrupt Mix Of Social Media & The State
by Tyler Durden Fri, 03/08/2019 - 18:40 525 SHARES Authored by Matt Agorist via TheFreeThoughtProject.com,
The next time someone tells you that "Facebook is a private company" ask them if they know about the dozens of government employees who fill its ranks...
As the Free Thought Project has previously reported, the phrase "Facebook is a private company" is not accurate as they have formed a partnership with an insidious neoconservative "think tank" known as the Atlantic Council which is directly funded and made up of groups tied to the pharmaceutical industry, the military industrial complex, and even government itself. The Atlantic Council dictates to Facebook who is allowed on the platform and who is purged.
Because the Atlantic Council is funded in part by the United States government -- and they are making decisions for Facebook -- this negates the claim that the company is private.
Since our six million followers and years of hard work were wiped off the platform during the October purge , TFTP has consistently reported on the Atlantic Council and their ties to the social media giant. This week, however, we've discovered something just as ominous -- the government to Facebook pipeline and revolving door.
It is a telltale sign of a corrupt industry or company when they create a revolving door between themselves and the state. Just like Monsanto has former employees on the Supreme Court and Pharmaceutical industry insiders move back and fourth from the FDA to their companies, we found that Facebook is doing the same thing.
Below are just a few of corrupt connections we've discovered while digging through the list of current and former employees within Facebook.
Facebook's Head of Cybersecurity Policy -- aka, the man who doles out the ban hammer to anyone he wishes -- is Nathaniel Gleicher. Before Gleicher was censoring people at Facebook, he prosecuted cybercrime at the U.S. Department of Justice, and served as Director for Cybersecurity Policy at the National Security Council (NSC) in the Obama White House.
While Facebook may have an interest in seeking out Gleicher's expertise, this man is an outspoken advocate of tyranny.
After deleting the pages of hundreds of antiwar and pro-peace media and activist outlets in October, last month, Facebook made another giant move to silence. This time, they had no problem noting that they went after pages whose specific missions were "anti-corruption" or "protest" movements. And it was all headed up by Gleicher.
"Some of the Pages frequently posted about topics like anti-NATO sentiment, protest movements, and anti-corruption ," Gleicher wrote in a blog post.
"We are constantly working to detect and stop this type of activity because we don't want our services to be used to manipulate people."
Seems totally legit, right?
The list goes on.
In 2017, as the Russian/Trump propaganda ramped up, Facebook hired Joel Benenson , a former top adviser to President Barack Obama and the chief strategist for Hillary Clinton's failed 2016 presidential campaign, as a consultant.
While filling team Zuck with Obama and Clinton advisers, Facebook hired Aneesh Raman , a former Obama speechwriter who now heads up Facebook's "economic impact programming."
Highlighting the revolving door aspect of Facebook and the US government is Sarah Feinberg who left the Obama train in 2011 to join Facebook as the director of corporate and strategic communications. She then moved on after and went back to Obama in 2015 to act as the administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA).
David Recordon also highlights the revolving door between Facebook and the government. Recordon was the former Director of IT for Obama's White House. He was also Engineering Director at Facebook prior to his role at the White House, and returned to the position after the 2016 election. He is currently Engineering Director for the Chan-Zuckerberg initiative.
Starting to see a pattern of political influence here? You should. But just in case you don't, the list goes on.
Meredith Carden -- who, you guessed, came from the Obama administration -- joined the Facebook clan last year to be a part of Facebook's "News Integrity Team." Now, she's battling fake news on the platform and as we've shown, there is a ridiculous amount of selective enforcement of these so-called "standards."
In fact, there are dozens of former Obama staffers, advisers, and campaign associates who quite literally fill Facebook's ranks. It is no wonder the platform has taken such a political shift over the past few years. David Ploufe, Josh W. Higgins, Lauryn Ogbechie, Danielle Cwirko-Godycki , Sarah Pollack, Ben Forer, Bonnie Calvin , and Juliane Sun , are just some of the many Facebook execs hailing out of the Obama era White House.
But fret not right wingers, Facebook likes their neocons too.
Jamie Fly, who was a top adviser to neocon Florida Senator Marco Rubio and who started his career in US political circles as an adviser to the George W. Bush administration, actually took credit for the massive purge of peaceful antiwar pages that took place last October.
"They can invent stories that get repeated and spread through different sites. So we are just starting to push back. Just this last week Facebook began starting to take down sites. So this is just the beginning," Fly said in December.
Fly backs up his words with the fact that he works with Facebook's arm of the Atlantic Council to ensure those dangerous antiwar folks don't keep pushing their propaganda of peace and community.
And yes, this list goes on.
Joel David Kaplan is Facebook's vice president of global public policy. Prior to his major role within Facebook, Kaplan took the place of neocon extraordinaire Karl Rove as the White House Deputy Chief of Staff for George W. Bush. Before that, from 2001 to 2003 he was Special Assistant to the President for Policy within the White House Chief of Staff's office. Then he served as Deputy Director of the Office of Management And Budget (OMB).
Myriah Jordan was a special policy assistant in the Bush White House, who was hired on as a policy manager for Facebook's congressional relations team -- aka, a lobbyist. Jordan has moved back and forth between the private sector and the US government multiple times over his career as he's made millions greasing the skids of the state for his corrupt employers.
So there you have it. Facebook, who claims to be a private entity, is quite literally made up of and advised by dozens of members of government. We're ready for a change, are you?
Jung , 1 hour ago linkStarGate , 3 hours ago link
As q just posted, FB is backed completely by the CIA, so this is all part of still needs to be drained in this swamp where the CIA calls the shots. A lot of people will have to be replaced, not only in the FBI and DOJ where a lot has already happened.
So far, against my early prejudice against Q, all he posted has come true and it has been a news source where facts have found a place.FGopher , 5 hours ago link
It's been reported Facebook is the 2nd incarnation of DARPA's (US military intel) program "Lifelog". Lifelog stopped one day and Facebook launched the next on the Lifelog platform. Sort of a friendly way to collect everyone's personal data as they mindlessly volunteer it.
So the govt tech geniuses just moved over too.wolf pup , 7 hours ago link
"It is a telltale sign of a corrupt industry or company when they create a revolving door between themselves and the state."
It is also a sign of a corrupt and fascist government.uhland62 , 7 hours ago link
The revolving door to and from EvilGoogle and the Obama White House never stopped rotating, either. Far more Wh->EvilGoogle back to WH then again EvilGoogle employees than even Facebook. Even the WaPo and NYT wrote of the "peculiar" nature of those employments. It went on for years.
That was BT; Before Trump. Every so often WaPo etc. could still write a few items in a less than fully politicized tone.
I saved several such items as links, but alas, funny thing happened on the way to viewing them; they've been deleted. It was noteworthy in its numbers. Only several months would pass and the original EvilGoogle or WH employees would have come and gone to and from the other.
Where the Atlantic Council has its finger in, there is propaganda and brainwashing.
Before 1989 they had a right to exist as we did not really want the corruption and militarism from the Warsaw Pact countries. Now we have a worse militarism and corruption under the NATO umbrella.
The Atlantic Council is another tool for fleecing us through NATO and by global companies operating from tax havens. (never been on FB)
Mar 28, 2018 | www.theguardian.com
The harvesting of our personal details goes far beyond what many of us could imagine. So I braced myself and had a look .
A slice of the data that Facebook keeps on the author: 'This information has millions of nefarious uses.' Photograph: Dylan Curran W ant to freak yourself out? I'm going to show just how much of your information the likes of Facebook and Google store about you without you even realising it. Google knows where you've been
Google stores your location (if you have location tracking turned on) every time you turn on your phone. You can see a timeline of where you've been from the very first day you started using Google on your phone.
Here is every place I have been in the last 12 months in Ireland. You can see the time of day that I was in the location and how long it took me to get to that location from my previous one.
Google stores search history across all your devices. That can mean that, even if you delete your search history and phone history on one device, it may still have data saved from other devices .
Click on this link to see your own data: myactivity.google.com/myactivity
Why have we given up our privacy to Facebook and other sites so willingly?
Google has an advertisement profile of you
Google creates an advertisement profile based on your information, including your location, gender, age, hobbies, career, interests, relationship status, possible weight (need to lose 10lb in one day?) and income.
Click on this link to see your own data: google.com/settings/ads/
Google knows all the apps you use
Google stores information on every app and extension you use. They know how often you use them, where you use them, and who you use them to interact with. That means they know who you talk to on Facebook, what countries are you speaking with, what time you go to sleep.
Click on this link to see your own data: security.google.com/settings/securGoogle has all of your YouTube history
Google stores all of your YouTube history, so they probably know whether you're going to be a parent soon, if you're a conservative, if you're a progressive, if you're Jewish, Christian, or Muslim, if you're feeling depressed or suicidal, if you're anorexic
Click on this link to see your own data: youtube.com/feed/history/s
The data Google has on you can fill millions of Word documents
Google offers an option to download all of the data it stores about you. I've requested to download it and the file is 5.5GB big , which is roughly 3m Word documents.
Manage to gain access to someone's Google account? Perfect, you have a diary of everything that person has done
This link includes your bookmarks, emails, contacts, your Google Drive files, all of the above information, your YouTube videos, the photos you've taken on your phone, the businesses you've bought from, the products you've bought through Google
They also have data from your calendar, your Google hangout sessions, your location history, the music you listen to, the Google books you've purchased, the Google groups you're in, the websites you've created, the phones you've owned, the pages you've shared, how many steps you walk in a day
Click on this link to see your own data: google.com/takeout
Facebook has reams and reams of data on you, too
Facebook offers a similar option to download all your information. Mine was roughly 600MB, which is roughly 400,000 Word documents.
This includes every message you've ever sent or been sent, every file you've ever sent or been sent, all the contacts in your phone, and all the audio messages you've ever sent or been sent.
Click here to see your data: https://www.facebook.com/help/131112897028467Facebook Twitter Pinterest 'A snapshot of the data Facebook has saved on me.' Photograph: Dylan Curran Facebook stores everything from your stickers to your login location
Facebook also stores what it thinks you might be interested in based off the things you've liked and what you and your friends talk about (I apparently like the topic "girl").
Somewhat pointlessly, they also store all the stickers you've ever sent on Facebook (I have no idea why they do this. It's just a joke at this stage).
They also store every time you log in to Facebook, where you logged in from, what time, and from what device.
And they store all the applications you've ever had connected to your Facebook account, so they can guess I'm interested in politics and web and graphic design, that I was single between X and Y period with the installation of Tinder, and I got a HTC phone in November.
(Side note, if you have Windows 10 installed, this is a picture of just the privacy options with 16 different sub-menus, which have all of the options enabled by default when you install Windows 10)Facebook Twitter Pinterest Privacy options in Windows 10. Photograph: Dylan Curran They can access your webcam and microphone
The data they collect includes tracking where you are, what applications you have installed, when you use them, what you use them for, access to your webcam and microphone at any time, your contacts, your emails, your calendar, your call history, the messages you send and receive, the files you download, the games you play, your photos and videos, your music, your search history, your browsing history, even what radio stations you listen to.
Facebook told me it would act swiftly on data misuse – in 2015 | Harry Davies
Here are some of the different ways Google gets your data
I got the Google Takeout document with all my information, and this is a breakdown of all the different ways they get your information.Facebook Twitter Pinterest 'My Google Takeout document.' Photograph: Dylan Curran
Here's the search history document, which has 90,000 different entries, even showing the images I downloaded and the websites I accessed (I showed the Pirate Bay section to show how much damage this information can do).Facebook Twitter Pinterest 'My search history document has 90,000 different entries.' Photograph: Dylan Curran Google knows which events you attended, and when
Here's my Google Calendar broken down, showing all the events I've ever added, whether I actually attended them, and what time I attended them at (this part is when I went for an interview for a marketing job, and what time I arrived).Facebook Twitter Pinterest 'Here is my Google calendar showing a job interview I attended.' Photograph: Dylan Curran And Google has information you deleted
This is my Google Drive, which includes files I explicitly deleted including my résumé, my monthly budget, and all the code, files and websites I've ever made, and even my PGP private key, which I deleted, that I use to encrypt emails.Facebook Twitter Pinterest Google can know your workout routine
This is my Google Fit, which shows all of the steps I've ever taken, any time I walked anywhere, and all the times I've recorded any meditation/yoga/workouts I've done (I deleted this information and revoked Google Fit's permissions).Facebook Twitter Pinterest And they have years' worth of photos
This is all the photos ever taken with my phone, broken down by year, and includes metadata of when and where I took the photosFacebook Twitter Pinterest Google has every email you ever sent
Every email I've ever sent, that's been sent to me, including the ones I deleted or were categorised as spam.Facebook Twitter Pinterest And there is more
I'll just do a short summary of what's in the thousands of files I received under my Google Activity.
First, every Google Ad I've ever viewed or clicked on, every app I've ever launched or used and when I did it, every website I've ever visited and what time I did it at, and every app I've ever installed or searched for.Facebook Twitter Pinterest 'They have every single Google search I've made since 2009.'
They also have every image I've ever searched for and saved, every location I've ever searched for or clicked on, every news article I've ever searched for or read, and every single Google search I've made since 2009. And then finally, every YouTube video I've ever searched for or viewed, since 2008.
This information has millions of nefarious uses. You say you're not a terrorist. Then how come you were googling Isis? Work at Google and you're suspicious of your wife? Perfect, just look up her location and search history for the last 10 years. Manage to gain access to someone's Google account? Perfect, you have a chronological diary of everything that person has done for the last 10 years.
This is one of the craziest things about the modern age. We would never let the government or a corporation put cameras/microphones in our homes or location trackers on us. But we just went ahead and did it ourselves because – to hell with it! – I want to watch cute dog videos.
NOTE: A caption was corrected on 28 March 2018 to replace "privacy options in Facebook" with "privacy options in Windows 10".Dylan Curran is a data consultant and web developer, who does extensive research into spreading technical awareness and improving digital etiquette
Feb 23, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
Smartphone Apps Sending "Intensely Personal Information" To Facebook - Whether Or Not You Have An Account
by Tyler Durden Fri, 02/22/2019 - 18:05 72 SHARES
Facebook has been collecting "intensely personal information" from millions of people - whether they have Facebook accounts or not, according to testing performed by the Wall Street Journal .
According to tests of more than 70 apps using software to monitor internet communications, the Journal found that "the apps often send the data without any prominent or specific disclosure," and that " Facebook software collects data from many apps even if no Facebook account is used to log in and if the end user isn't a Facebook member. "
Eleven of the apps tested sent Facebook "potentially sensitive information about how users behaved or actual data they entered."
For example, Flo Health Inc.'s "Period & Ovulation Tracker" - which boasts 25 million active users, was sending Facebook information on when women were having their periods - or indicated their desire to get pregnant , according to the tests.Note: After being contacted by the Journal, Flo said it has 'substantially limited' data sharing with third-party analytics services.
Source: Wall Street Journal testing of the app
Other apps found sending Facebook information include; Instant Heart Rate: HR MOnitor, Realtor.com's app, "at least six of the top 15 health and fitness apps" and BetterMe: Weight Loss Workouts"
Apple Inc. and Alphabet Inc.'s Google, which operate the two dominant app stores, don't require apps to disclose all the partners with whom data is shared. Users can decide not to grant permission for an app to access certain types of information, such as their contacts or locations. But these permissions generally don't apply to the information users supply directly to apps, which is sometimes the most personal.
In the Journal's testing, Instant Heart Rate: HR Monitor, the most popular heart-rate app on Apple's iOS, made by California-based Azumio Inc., sent a user's heart rate to Facebook immediately after it was recorded . - Wall Street Journal
Facebook told The Journal that some of the data sharing uncovered by the tests violate its business terms, by which app developers are instructed not to send "health, financial information or other categories of sensitive information." The company has notified app developers identified in the tests to stop sending sensitive information to them, and it may take additional steps if the apps don't adhere to their requests.
""We require app developers to be clear with their users about the information they are sharing with us," said a Facebook spokeswoman. In other words, they're sorry they got caught and are now on a finger-wagging campaign.
Apple and Google had relatively lawyerly responses to the investigation; Apple said its guidelines require apps to seek "prior user consent" before collecting user data, adding "When we hear of any developer violating these strict privacy terms and guidelines, we quickly investigate and, if necessary, take immediate action." Google declined to comment - pointing to the company's policy requiring that apps which handle sensitive data prominently "disclose the type of parties to which any personal or sensitive user data is shared."
Flo initially said in a written statement that it doesn't send "critical user data" and that the data it does send Facebook is "depersonalized" to keep it private and secure.
The Journal's testing, however, showed sensitive information was sent with a unique advertising identifier that can be matched to a device or profile. A Flo spokeswoman subsequently said the company will "substantially limit" its use of external analytics systems while it conducts a privacy audit.
"This is a big mess," said Disconnect's chief technology officer Patrick Johnson, who analyzed apps for the Journal analysis. "This is completely independent of the functionality of the app."
While the software used by the Journal wasn't able to decipher specific content sent by Android apps, Defensive Lab Agency's Esther Onfroy found in a separate test that at least one Android app flagged by the Journal - BetterMe: Weight Loss Workouts, shared users' weights and heights with Facebook almost immediately after they were entered.
How is this possible?
Apps often incorporate code known as software-development kits (SDKs) which allow developers to integrate various features or functions across platforms. One of these is Facebook's SDK - which allow apps to collect data for targeted advertising or to allow apps to beter understand user behavior.
Facebook's SDK, which is contained in thousands of apps, includes an analytics service called "App Events" that allows developers to look at trends among their users. Apps can tell the SDK to record a set of standardized actions taken by users, such as when a user completes a purchase. App developers also can define "custom app events" for Facebook to capture -- and that is how the sensitive information the Journal detected was sent.
Facebook says on its website it uses customer data from its SDK, combined with other data it collects, to personalize ads and content, as well as to "improve other experiences on Facebook, including News Feed and Search content ranking capabilities." - Wall Street Journal
A Facebook spokeswoman said that Facebook is now looking into how to search for apps violating its data sharing terms, and will build safeguards to prevent the company from storing any sensitive data which may be provided by apps.
Last year Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg claimed that the company would create a "Clear History" feature to allow users to analyze data which had been collected about them from various apps and websites - and then delete it from Facebook.
We're still waiting on that...
Thom Paine , 3 minutes ago linkme or you , 14 minutes ago link
keep a separate camera. message via Wickr. Use a VPN on phone and PC. Encrypt all personal data immediately (cards, passwords etc) and keep under two factor security (I do this)
If you use your phone as camera disconnect from networks first, then bluetooth to somewhere else, delete - if you are photographing the misstress.smacker , 18 minutes ago link
Time for all of you to consider an Open Source Android OS.
I've been using /e/ for almost a year already and all my apps are Open Source...I don't need Google for anything.GeezerGeek , 22 seconds ago link
Solution's easy. Shut down Phacephuq and deal with Zuckerslimeberg.Rockwell , 32 minutes ago link
Try Linux. Create multiple user accounts. Use a VPN. If you do wireless, use a few extra cheap wireless USB devices to swap MACs. On a wired (ethernet) connection, see if you can sometimes use wireless, and vice versa. Use different size monitors. It's frightening what your PC tells the rest of the world about your system so web sites know what to send you.
For linux, use Ubuntu because more people use that than any other distro, I think. That is part of what gets sent out when you connect to the internet.
You may want to load up VirtualBox and create a handful of different virtual machines. That, too, can add to the confusion.
Alternate solution: read a book.itstippy , 1 hour ago link
Surveillance Capitalism at its finest. This won't stop until blood is spilt.yourlifeisamyth , 1 hour ago link
Some clever hacking group is going to start massively corrupting Facebook, Amazon, Google, and Alphabet data (and thus NSA data) instead of stealing it. It can't be too difficult to submit bogus data if these idiot data collectors are so cavalier about their sources that they accept info from "Flo Health Inc."
Send 'em intel on Maxine Water's preferred brand of cigars, Donald Trump's menstrual cycle, Ralph Crandon's interest in high end Manhattan real estate, Carrot Top's NASCAR obsession, Mitch McConnel's "How To Make A Bomb" searches, that kind of thing, only on a grand scale. Make the databases so corrupted that they're utterly unreliable and useless to advertisers and spooks.Lucky Guesst , 1 hour ago link
You are the product... but then do you really care?Consuelo , 1 hour ago link
My daughter and her husband have this experiment where they pick a random product that they don't own and have never researched online. They start saying the name of that item out loud randomly when they are on the phone with each other. Two out of the three times they started getting ads for that item on FB. I'm still working on getting her to delete FB.
Most of the know-nothings using this waste of time & space don't know what the F they care about, other than that their daily hedonistic rituals of eating, entertaining and cell-phoning aren't interrupted by a bolt of clear thinking.
Feb 18, 2019 | www.theguardian.com
Company broke privacy and competition law and should be regulated urgently, say MPsFacebook deliberately broke privacy and competition law and should urgently be subject to statutory regulation, according to a devastating parliamentary report denouncing the company and its executives as "digital gangsters".
The final report of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport select committee's 18-month investigation into disinformation and fake news accused Facebook of purposefully obstructing its inquiry and failing to tackle attempts by Russia to manipulate elections.
"Democracy is at risk from the malicious and relentless targeting of citizens with disinformation and personalised 'dark adverts' from unidentifiable sources, delivered through the major social media platforms we use every day," warned the committee's chairman, Damian Collins.
The report accuses Mark Zuckerberg , Facebook's co-founder and chief executive, of contempt for parliament in refusing three separate demands for him to give evidence, instead sending junior employees unable to answer the committee's questions.
Warns British electoral law is unfit for purpose and vulnerable to interference by hostile foreign actors, including agents of the Russian government attempting to discredit democracy.
Calls on the British government to establish an independent investigation into "foreign influence, disinformation, funding, voter manipulation and the sharing of data" in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, the 2016 EU referendum and the 2017 general election.
Feb 09, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
Authored by Jeff Charles via Liberty Nation,
The social media giant has a disturbing number of former Obama officials in key positions of authority over content...
Imagine for a moment what it would look like if the federal government launched its own social media network. Every day, Americans could freely use the platform to express their views on everything from economic theory to the best tips for baking peanut butter cookies. They could even discuss their political views and debate the important issues of the day.
But what if the government were empowered to determine which political views are appropriate and which are too obscene for the American public? Well, it looks like this is already happening. Of course, the state has not created a social media network; they didn't have to. It appears the government is using Facebook – the world's largest social media company – to sway public opinion.The Government's Fingers In Facebook
The Free Thought Project recently published a report revealing that Facebook has some troubling ties to the federal government and that this connection could be enabling former state officials to influence the content displayed. The social media provider has partnered with various think tanks which receive state funding, while hiring an alarming number of individuals who have held prominent positions in the federal government.
Facebook recently announced their partnership with the Atlantic Council – which is partly funded by tax dollars – to ensure that users are presented with quality news stories. And by "quality," it seems that they mean "progressive." The council is well known for promoting far-left news sources, including the Xinhua News Agency, which was founded by the Communist Party of China. Well, that's reassuring. What red-blooded American capitalist doesn't want to get the news from a communist regime?
But there one aspect of this story is even more troubling: the government-to-Facebook pipeline. The company has employed a significant number of former officials in positions that grant them influence over what content is allowed on the platform.
Nathaniel Gleicher, Facebook's Head of Cybersecurity Policy, prosecuted cybercrimes at the Department of Justice under President Obama. Now, he is responsible for determining who gets banned or suspended from the network. But that's not the worst of it. He also spearheaded the company's initiative to scrub anti-war content and "protest" movements. In a blog post, Gleicher wrote: "Some of the Pages frequently posted about topics like anti-NATO sentiment, protest movements, and anti-corruption." He continued, "We are constantly working to detect and stop this type of activity because we don't want our services to be used to manipulate people."
The company has also hired others who served in key positions in the Obama administration. Some of these include:
- Aneesh Raman: Former speechwriter
- Joel Benenson: Top adviser
- Meredith Carden: Office of the First Lady
To make things more interesting, Facebook has also hired neocons to help them determine the type of content that is being published. So if you happen to be a conservative that isn't too crazy about interventionism, your views are not as welcome on the network as others. After all, how many times have you heard of people being banned for posting pro-war or socialist propaganda?Are Private Companies Truly Private?
The notion that government officials could be using positions of power in the private industry to advance a statist agenda is disturbing, but the fact that most Americans are unaware of this is far worse. It would be inaccurate to argue that the government is controlling Facebook's content, but the level of the state's involvement in the world's biggest social media company is a disturbing development.
This is not the only case of state officials becoming involved with certain industries. This trend is rampant in the certain industries in which individuals move back and forth between private organizations and the FDA. For example, Monsanto, an agricultural and agrochemical company, has been under scrutiny for its ties to the federal government.
It is not clear if there is anything that can be done to counteract inappropriate relations between the government and certain companies – especially organizations with the level of influence enjoyed by the likes of Facebook. But it essential that the public is made aware of these relations, otherwise the state will continue to exert influence over society – with Americans none the wiser.
Jan 24, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
The team detailed their findings in a 70-page report published on their website.
Facebook has been lying to the public about the scale of its problem with fake accounts, which likely exceed 50% of its network. Its official metrics -- many of which it has stopped reporting quarterly -- are self-contradictory and even farcical. The company has lost control of its own product.
Ultimately, this is just the latest sign that Facebook - formerly one of the world's most successful companies - is doomed to go the way of CompuServe and AOL.
PlainSite is a project launched by the Think Computer Corporation and Think Computer Foundation which aims to make "data accessible to the public free of charge" and "lets ordinary citizens impact the law- making process," according to Bloomberg. Aaron Greenspan recently told his story about how he fit into the history of Facebook's founding at Harvard on a podcast .
Facebook's fraudulent numbers hurt its customers (advertisers) by overstating the effectiveness of Facebook's product, the company said.
- Fake accounts affect Facebook at its core in numerous ways:
- Its customers purchase advertising on Facebook based on the fact that it can supposedly target advertisements at more than 2 billion real human beings. To the extent that users aren't real, companies are throwing their money down the drain.
- Fake accounts click on advertising at random, or "like" pages, to throw off antifraud algorithms. Fake accounts look real if they do not follow a clear pattern. This kind of activity defrauds advertisers, but rewards Facebook with revenue.
- Fake accounts often defraud other users on Facebook, through scams, fake news, extortion, and other forms of deception. Often, they can involve governments
DeathMerchant , 13 minutes ago link
" Zuckerberg's creation is a reflection of his own flaws. It is a mirror of his own personality and the insecurity and endless need of approval he has sought his whole life leading to its creation. It is Zuckerberg made virtually. It is not a success nor is it a triumph, it is a window into a flawed psyche. It spreads as an infection because it is."
Jan 22, 2019 | www.unz.com
Pinche Perro , says: January 19, 2019 at 6:06 am GMTMr. Shamir, Facebook is a complete and total cesspool. You are too good for it! Why bother with it? I deleted my account and I haven't looked back.israel shamir , says: January 20, 2019 at 8:01 am GMT@Dacian Julien Soros Facebook has no (or little) original content. It does not compete with Unz.com or with CNN. It leads users to the sites where original content is published. It is meta-site.Che Guava , says: January 20, 2019 at 12:33 pm GMT
So much is being published on so many sites that we need a community to cross-post. This is done by Facebook.
I hope now you understand that you do not waste your time here instead of Facebook. Facebook can lead you here, that's all. Or to Moon of Alabama, or to LRB or to wherever something interesting had been published. Facebook is like a map of Treasure Island, not the treasure itself.You have a good point, but why not always avoid Facebook? I have read about it since it was Harvard-only, then student-only.onebornfree , says: Website January 20, 2019 at 12:47 pm GMT
That it had so much press coverage at those times, while it never had the accounts, clearly a conspiracy.
I have somewhat friends, they say 'You must go on Facebook', I say 'No, you have my telephone number and e-mail address, why are you trying to force me onto Facebook?' They are generally stupid, but then, one must tolerate the stupid to have any social life.
Back to the progation of FB. Google was quite similar, there were many search engines that were as good or better at the time, the NYT ran many articles to promote them, I was working at a U.S.-owned company at the time, it was neo-religious, 'oh, you have to use Google', it was the same kind of propaganda, earlier of course, as compulsory FB.
I never used google (the mis-spelling of googol shows what morons they are), OK, I don't want to lie, did a little early last decade (very few), other search engines are usually better.This "just" in:jacques sheete , says: January 20, 2019 at 1:00 pm GMT
Facebook = CIA/NSA etc.
Alphabet/Google/YouTube = CIA/NSA etc.
Wikipedia= CIA/NSA etc.
Always were, always will be. And thats just "the tip of the iceberg".
Regards, onebornfreeAnonymous  Disclaimer , says: January 20, 2019 at 1:32 pm GMT
The mainstream media from Tokyo to Paris [yap, yap, yap ]
Stopped reading right there.
Look, the word is mass media because that's what it's for, i.e., the unthinking masses. Even an ignorant moron such as myself can understand that the media use the term to help make mindless, mass-produced, garbage appear acceptable. It's obvious that the term is supposed to suggest that "everyone" goes along with the message when it's their own compostable ideas that they're trying to introduce and promote. The interests of the "mainstream" or majority are in no way promoted, nor are they intended to be.
Anyone who's so mentally lazy as to use mass media's own legitimizing term for themselves in the way they intend has nothing to say to me. Furthermore, I don't come to UR to be exposed to the usual drivel mouthed incessantly by narcissistic, sociopathic, simple-minded, goons.
Other acceptable terms are corporate media, propaganda media, or sewage media. No one with a lick of sense views it as "mainstream" in any way. Get a clue already!@gmachine1729 ... ... ...Anon  Disclaimer , says: January 20, 2019 at 1:48 pm GMT
WeChat? Bad advice. End-to-server encryption means the Chinese government inspects all messages. Right now, they're crouching tiger but who knows when they're going to go all hidden dragon on us?
Use WhatsApp. It's got full end to end encryption and built in ways to verify no MITM attacks. Safe choice.
For search engines, use startpage or duckduckgo.com. If you're performing really sensitive searches, use tor browser. Only need to use yandex or baidu if the search terms themselves are sensitive (very rare).I do not use Facebook . It is evident that they spy everything , you just look for a hotel in your computer and they send you hotel propaganda for weeks or months .wayfarer , says: January 20, 2019 at 2:50 pm GMT
But , commercial purposes apart , don`t you think that a system that spies so much ends up losing the sense of reality and thus dementing itself ?AnonFromTN , says: January 20, 2019 at 4:33 pm GMT
There is no calamity greater than lavish desires. There is no greater guilt than discontent. And there is no greater disaster than greed.
Manufactured Consent and the Homogeneity of Public Discourse@jacques sheeteAnonFromTN , says: January 20, 2019 at 5:03 pm GMT
Other acceptable terms are corporate media, propaganda media, or sewage media
Germans have a more descriptive term: Lugenpresse (lying press).@gmachine1729 Yes, as a stopgap measure one can boycott FB, Twitter, Google, and other services that practice disgusting PC. I don't use FB or Twitter, use Google only occasionally. Need to stop using it altogether and switch to Yandex and/or Baidu.
However, in the long run what needs to be built is a PC-free Internet. This would require huge investment that only governments of serious countries (like China or Russia) that are not subservient to the Empire can afford. These governments do have their own axes to grind, but at the moment they are not as disgusting as the Empire and its vassals, or Israel, for that matter.
Mar 30, 2017 | www.theguardian.com
Bankers, pharmaceutical giants, Google, Facebook ... a new breed of rentiers are at the very top of the pyramid and they're sucking the rest of us dry @rcbregman
'A big part of the modern banking sector is essentially a giant tapeworm gorging on a sick body'.
This piece is about one of the biggest taboos of our times. About a truth that is seldom acknowledged, and yet – on reflection – cannot be denied. The truth that we are living in an inverse welfare state. These days, politicians from the left to the right assume that most wealth is created at the top. By the visionaries, by the job creators, and by the people who have "made it". By the go-getters oozing talent and entrepreneurialism that are helping to advance the whole world.
Now, we may disagree about the extent to which success deserves to be rewarded – the philosophy of the left is that the strongest shoulders should bear the heaviest burden, while the right fears high taxes will blunt enterprise – but across the spectrum virtually all agree that wealth is created primarily at the top.
So entrenched is this assumption that it's even embedded in our language. When economists talk about "productivity", what they really mean is the size of your paycheck. And when we use terms like " welfare state ", "redistribution" and "solidarity", we're implicitly subscribing to the view that there are two strata: the makers and the takers, the producers and the couch potatoes, the hardworking citizens – and everybody else.
In reality, it is precisely the other way around. In reality, it is the waste collectors, the nurses, and the cleaners whose shoulders are supporting the apex of the pyramid. They are the true mechanism of social solidarity. Meanwhile, a growing share of those we hail as "successful" and "innovative" are earning their wealth at the expense of others. The people getting the biggest handouts are not down around the bottom, but at the very top. Yet their perilous dependence on others goes unseen. Almost no one talks about it. Even for politicians on the left, it's a non-issue.
To understand why, we need to recognise that there are two ways of making money. The first is what most of us do: work. That means tapping into our knowledge and know-how (our "human capital" in economic terms) to create something new, whether that's a takeout app, a wedding cake, a stylish updo, or a perfectly poured pint. To work is to create. Ergo, to work is to create new wealth.
But there is also a second way to make money. That's the rentier way : by leveraging control over something that already exists, such as land, knowledge, or money, to increase your wealth. You produce nothing, yet profit nonetheless. By definition, the rentier makes his living at others' expense, using his power to claim economic benefit.
'From Wall Street to Silicon Valley, zoom in and you'll see rentiers everywhere.'
For those who know their history, the term "rentier" conjures associations with heirs to estates, such as the 19th century's large class of useless rentiers, well-described by the French economist Thomas Piketty . These days, that class is making a comeback. (Ironically, however, conservative politicians adamantly defend the rentier's right to lounge around, deeming inheritance tax to be the height of unfairness.) But there are also other ways of rent-seeking. From Wall Street to Silicon Valley , from big pharma to the lobby machines in Washington and Westminster, zoom in and you'll see rentiers everywhere.
There is no longer a sharp dividing line between working and rentiering. In fact, the modern-day rentier often works damn hard. Countless people in the financial sector, for example, apply great ingenuity and effort to amass "rent" on their wealth. Even the big innovations of our age – businesses like Facebook and Uber – are interested mainly in expanding the rentier economy. The problem with most rich people therefore is not that they are coach potatoes. Many a CEO toils 80 hours a week to multiply his allowance. It's hardly surprising, then, that they feel wholly entitled to their wealth.
It may take quite a mental leap to see our economy as a system that shows solidarity with the rich rather than the poor. So I'll start with the clearest illustration of modern freeloaders at the top: bankers. Studies conducted by the International Monetary Fund and the Bank for International Settlements – not exactly leftist thinktanks – have revealed that much of the financial sector has become downright parasitic. How instead of creating wealth, they gobble it up whole.
Don't get me wrong. Banks can help to gauge risks and get money where it is needed, both of which are vital to a well-functioning economy. But consider this: economists tell us that the optimum level of total private-sector debt is 100% of GDP. Based on this equation, if the financial sector only grows, it won't equal more wealth, but less. So here's the bad news. In the United Kingdom, private-sector debt is now at 157.5% . In the United States, the figure is 188.8% .
In other words, a big part of the modern banking sector is essentially a giant tapeworm gorging on a sick body. It's not creating anything new, merely sucking others dry. Bankers have found a hundred and one ways to accomplish this. The basic mechanism, however, is always the same: offer loans like it's going out of style, which in turn inflates the price of things like houses and shares, then earn a tidy percentage off those overblown prices (in the form of interest, commissions, brokerage fees, or what have you), and if the shit hits the fan, let Uncle Sam mop it up.
The financial innovation concocted by all the math whizzes working in modern banking (instead of at universities or companies that contribute to real prosperity) basically boils down to maximizing the total amount of debt. And debt, of course, is a means of earning rent. So for those who believe that pay ought to be proportionate to the value of work, the conclusion we have to draw is that many bankers should be earning a negative salary; a fine, if you will, for destroying more wealth than they create.
Bankers are the most obvious class of closet freeloaders, but they are certainly not alone. Many a lawyer and an accountant wields a similar revenue model. Take tax evasion . Untold hardworking, academically degreed professionals make a good living at the expense of the populations of other countries. Or take the tide of privatisations over the past three decades, which have been all but a carte blanche for rentiers. One of the richest people in the world, Carlos Slim , earned his millions by obtaining a monopoly of the Mexican telecom market and then hiking prices sky high. The same goes for the Russian oligarchs who rose after the Berlin Wall fell , who bought up valuable state-owned assets for song to live off the rent.
But here comes the rub. Most rentiers are not as easily identified as the greedy banker or manager. Many are disguised. On the face of it, they look like industrious folks, because for part of the time they really are doing something worthwhile. Precisely that makes us overlook their massive rent-seeking.
Take the pharmaceutical industry. Companies like GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer regularly unveil new drugs, yet most real medical breakthroughs are made quietly at government-subsidised labs. Private companies mostly manufacture medications that resemble what we've already got. They get it patented and, with a hefty dose of marketing, a legion of lawyers, and a strong lobby, can live off the profits for years. In other words, the vast revenues of the pharmaceutical industry are the result of a tiny pinch of innovation and fistfuls of rent.
Even paragons of modern progress like Apple, Amazon, Google , Facebook, Uber and Airbnb are woven from the fabric of rentierism. Firstly, because they owe their existence to government discoveries and inventions (every sliver of fundamental technology in the iPhone, from the internet to batteries and from touchscreens to voice recognition, was invented by researchers on the government payroll). And second, because they tie themselves into knots to avoid paying taxes, retaining countless bankers, lawyers, and lobbyists for this very purpose.
Even more important, many of these companies function as "natural monopolies", operating in a positive feedback loop of increasing growth and value as more and more people contribute free content to their platforms. Companies like this are incredibly difficult to compete with, because as they grow bigger, they only get stronger.
Aptly characterising this "platform capitalism" in an article, Tom Goodwin writes : "Uber, the world's largest taxi company, owns no vehicles. Facebook, the world's most popular media owner, creates no content. Alibaba, the most valuable retailer, has no inventory. And Airbnb, the world's largest accommodation provider, owns no real estate."Facebook Twitter Pinterest 'Every sliver of fundamental technology in the iPhone, from the internet to batteries and from touchscreens to voice recognition, was invented by researchers on the government payroll.' Photograph: Regis Duvignau/Reuters
So what do these companies own? A platform. A platform that lots and lots of people want to use. Why? First and foremost, because they're cool and they're fun – and in that respect, they do offer something of value. However, the main reason why we're all happy to hand over free content to Facebook is because all of our friends are on Facebook too, because their friends are on Facebook because their friends are on Facebook.
Most of Mark Zuckerberg's income is just rent collected off the millions of picture and video posts that we give away daily for free. And sure, we have fun doing it. But we also have no alternative – after all, everybody is on Facebook these days. Zuckerberg has a website that advertisers are clamouring to get onto, and that doesn't come cheap. Don't be fooled by endearing pilots with free internet in Zambia. Stripped down to essentials, it's an ordinary ad agency. In fact, in 2015 Google and Facebook pocketed an astounding 64% of all online ad revenue in the US.
But don't Google and Facebook make anything useful at all? Sure they do. The irony, however, is that their best innovations only make the rentier economy even bigger. They employ scores of programmers to create new algorithms so that we'll all click on more and more ads. Uber has usurped the whole taxi sector just as Airbnb has upended the hotel industry and Amazon has overrun the book trade. The bigger such platforms grow the more powerful they become, enabling the lords of these digital feudalities to demand more and more rent.
Think back a minute to the definition of a rentier: someone who uses their control over something that already exists in order to increase their own wealth. The feudal lord of medieval times did that by building a tollgate along a road and making everybody who passed by pay. Today's tech giants are doing basically the same thing, but transposed to the digital highway. Using technology funded by taxpayers, they build tollgates between you and other people's free content and all the while pay almost no tax on their earnings.
This is the so-called innovation that has Silicon Valley gurus in raptures: ever bigger platforms that claim ever bigger handouts. So why do we accept this? Why does most of the population work itself to the bone to support these rentiers?
I think there are two answers. Firstly, the modern rentier knows to keep a low profile. There was a time when everybody knew who was freeloading. The king, the church, and the aristocrats controlled almost all the land and made peasants pay dearly to farm it. But in the modern economy, making rentierism work is a great deal more complicated. How many people can explain a credit default swap , or a collateralised debt obligation ? Or the revenue model behind those cute Google Doodles? And don't the folks on Wall Street and in Silicon Valley work themselves to the bone, too? Well then, they must be doing something useful, right?
Maybe not. The typical workday of Goldman Sachs' CEO may be worlds away from that of King Louis XIV, but their revenue models both essentially revolve around obtaining the biggest possible handouts. "The world's most powerful investment bank," wrote the journalist Matt Taibbi about Goldman Sachs , "is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money."
But far from squids and vampires, the average rich freeloader manages to masquerade quite successfully as a decent hard worker. He goes to great lengths to present himself as a "job creator" and an "investor" who "earns" his income by virtue of his high "productivity". Most economists, journalists, and politicians from left to right are quite happy to swallow this story. Time and again language is twisted around to cloak funneling and exploitation as creation and generation.
However, it would be wrong to think that all this is part of some ingenious conspiracy. Many modern rentiers have convinced even themselves that they are bona fide value creators. When current Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein was asked about the purpose of his job, his straight-faced answer was that he is " doing God's work ". The Sun King would have approved.
The second thing that keeps rentiers safe is even more insidious. We're all wannabe rentiers. They have made millions of people complicit in their revenue model. Consider this: What are our financial sector's two biggest cash cows? Answer: the housing market and pensions. Both are markets in which many of us are deeply invested.
Recent decades have seen more and more people contract debts to buy a home, and naturally it's in their interest if house prices continue to scale new heights (read: burst bubble upon bubble). The same goes for pensions. Over the past few decades we've all scrimped and saved up a mountainous pension piggy bank. Now pension funds are under immense pressure to ally with the biggest exploiters in order to ensure they pay out enough to please their investors.
The fact of the matter is that feudalism has been democratised. To a lesser or greater extent, we are all depending on handouts. En masse, we have been made complicit in this exploitation by the rentier elite, resulting in a political covenant between the rich rent-seekers and the homeowners and retirees.
Don't get me wrong, most homeowners and retirees are not benefiting from this situation. On the contrary, the banks are bleeding them far beyond the extent to which they themselves profit from their houses and pensions. Still, it's hard to point fingers at a kleptomaniac when you have sticky fingers too.
So why is this happening? The answer can be summed up in three little words: Because it can.
Rentierism is, in essence, a question of power. That the Sun King Louis XIV was able to exploit millions was purely because he had the biggest army in Europe. It's no different for the modern rentier. He's got the law, politicians and journalists squarely in his court. That's why bankers get fined peanuts for preposterous fraud, while a mother on government assistance gets penalised within an inch of her life if she checks the wrong box.
The biggest tragedy of all, however, is that the rentier economy is gobbling up society's best and brightest. Where once upon a time Ivy League graduates chose careers in science, public service or education, these days they are more likely to opt for banks, law firms, or trumped up ad agencies like Google and Facebook. When you think about it, it's insane. We are forking over billions in taxes to help our brightest minds on and up the corporate ladder so they can learn how to score ever more outrageous handouts.
One thing is certain: countries where rentiers gain the upper hand gradually fall into decline. Just look at the Roman Empire. Or Venice in the 15th century. Look at the Dutch Republic in the 18th century. Like a parasite stunts a child's growth, so the rentier drains a country of its vitality.
What innovation remains in a rentier economy is mostly just concerned with further bolstering that very same economy. This may explain why the big dreams of the 1970s, like flying cars, curing cancer, and colonising Mars, have yet to be realised, while bankers and ad-makers have at their fingertips technologies a thousand times more powerful.
Yet it doesn't have to be this way. Tollgates can be torn down, financial products can be banned, tax havens dismantled, lobbies tamed, and patents rejected. Higher taxes on the ultra-rich can make rentierism less attractive, precisely because society's biggest freeloaders are at the very top of the pyramid. And we can more fairly distribute our earnings on land, oil, and innovation through a system of, say, employee shares, or a universal basic income .
But such a revolution will require a wholly different narrative about the origins of our wealth. It will require ditching the old-fashioned faith in "solidarity" with a miserable underclass that deserves to be borne aloft on the market-level salaried shoulders of society's strongest. All we need to do is to give real hard-working people what they deserve.
And, yes, by that I mean the waste collectors, the nurses, the cleaners – theirs are the shoulders that carry us all.
• Pre-order Utopia for Realists and How Can We Get There by Rutger Bregman
• Translated from the original Dutch by Elizabeth Manton
Jan 02, 2019 | www.theonion.com
CHICAGO -- Saying it was ultimately a small price to pay in exchange for the splendid spectacle that has followed, millions of Americans admitted Thursday that they didn't really mind having their Facebook data stolen if it meant getting to watch that little fucker squirm.
Dec 10, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Over the last few years, the potentially damaging impact of the internet, and particularly social media, on democracy has increasingly come to dominate the news. The recently disclosed internal Facebook emails, which revealed that employees discussed allowing developers to harvest user data for a fee, are but the latest in a long line of scandals surrounding social media platforms. Facebook has also been accused, alongside Twitter, of fuelling the spread of false information. In October, the Brazilian newspaper Folha exposed how Jair Bolsonaro's candidacy benefited from a coordinated disinformation campaign conducted via Whatsapp, which is owned by Facebook. And there are growing concerns that this tactic could be used to skew the Indian general elections in April.
Dec 09, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
... ... ...
Yet, reality could be bleeker. A handful of private companies control the information that is needed to understand how the online ecosystem works. They manage the key infrastructure, and most experts in the field are running this infrastructure after having signed non-disclosure agreements. Thus, Plato's Allegory of the Cave might be a more fitting metaphor. Control over key data allows these companies to play the role of shadow-masters. They get the chance to reveal only the portions of reality they find convenient, defining how the general public perceives the online space. Information scarcity is therefore not just the natural consequence of the internet's novelty; it is created artificially and for strategic purposes: To shape public opinion.
Should we break up these big companies? Should we allow them to continue growing, but under strict, utility-type rules? Should we do nothing? Whatever we do should be the result of a robust public debate. One that is based on the best available evidence regarding the effects the internet is having on power relations, and is therefore capable of defining the set of actions that would best serve the public interest. In short, at this point, we need key information to be disclosed and available for public scrutiny. But information is power – and it is unlikely to be disclosed voluntarily. It might require regulation.
When food production became industrialized, the US Government created the Food and Drug Administration, which was tasked with monitoring and disclosing information regarding compliance with quality standards. When government became too complex for the average citizen to navigate, ombuds offices sprouted across the globe. As an independent institution of government, ombuds were given the duty and power to investigate how government units work, and report on matters concerning people's rights. The current situation requires exploring a similarly bold institutional reform. One focused on ensuring the data needed to inform public debate is made available by the tech industry.
Most people scoffed at the limited understanding of our digital world members of the US Congress revealed when they grilled Mark Zuckerberg . And yet its likely Facebook is not the only company behaving recklessly, nor the US Senators the only public representatives that are "ignorant".
What we have is a growing gap between where power lies and where the institutions that seek to hold it accountable to the people operate. Such institutions are incapable of allowing democratically elected leaders to deliver their campaign promises. This is what is ultimately triggering social tensions and undermining trust in our democracies. We need our institutions to interpret these tensions as red flags and a call for a new social contract. And we need institutions to react now. This situation goes far beyond the debate around digitalization. Yet the online space is our future, and is therefore where this gap is most visible and urgent.
If our current institutions of government fail to ensure the ongoing technological revolution puts people first, these institutions will sooner or later be rendered irrelevant.
A previous version of this article was published at Chatham House .
James McRitchie , December 8, 2018 at 10:16 am
Facebook is a dictatorship of one. Alphabet is a dictatorship of two. As long as corporate governance is anti-democratic that will have an unfortunately negative impact on civil society. I hope shareholders in these and other companies will vote in favor of proposals by NorthStar and others to phase out multi-class share structures, require that directors get at least a majority vote to take office, do away with supermajority voting requirements, etc.
Michael Fiorillo , December 8, 2018 at 11:00 am
The Internet was "born in sin," developed as it was to maintain communications during a nuclear holocaust against a fundamentally fake threat.
Let's remember that the Soviet Union, however repressive it may have been toward its own people and those in satellite countries, never posed the existential threat to the US that was claimed. Rather, as Senator Arthur Brandenburg of Michigan infamously told Harry Truman at the dawn of the Cold War, it would be necessary "to scare the hell out of the American people" to get them to turn against their former Soviet allies, which the State and compliant media spent the next forty years doing, often/largely producing weapons that don't work against enemies that don't exist.
How has the Internet ever not been a tool of the national security state, and why should we have ever expected otherwise?
Nick Stokes , December 8, 2018 at 3:31 pm
The internet is "mind control" for the elite. By making basic bias of the individual easy to qualify and nuture
precariat , December 8, 2018 at 5:45 pm
While the discussion of of the need for new paradigms for regulation and accountability -- lest democratic or civil institutions become irrelevant -- is very much needed, I am bewildered by the framing of the discussion to only the internet. The internet is just one, interactive and immediately visible use of technology that has the potential to undermine a fair society.
Some of the most insidious and destructive uses of data technology is not on the internet; it's tools and processes used by previously trusted corporations, governments, and institutions that is not regulated, not transparent and not accountable. So framing the discussion with the 'internet' seems disengenuous.
Dec 05, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
Update: As the giant cache of newly released internal emails has also revealed, Karissa Bell of Mashable notes that Facebook used a VPN app to spy on its competitors .
The internal documents , made public as part of a cache of documents released by UK lawmakers, show just how close an eye the social network was keeping on competitors like WhatsApp and Snapchat , both of which became acquisition targets.
Facebook tried to acquire Snapchat that year for $3 billion -- an offer Snap CEO Evan Spiegel rejected . (Facebook then spent years attempting, unsuccessfully, to copy Snapchat before finally kneecapping the app by cloning Stories.)
Facebook's presentation relied on data from Onavo, the virtual private network (VPN) service which Facebook also acquired several months later . Facebook's use of Onavo, which has been likened to "corporate spyware," has itself been controversial.
The company was forced to remove Onavo from Apple's App Store earlier this year after Apple changed its developer guidelines to prohibit apps from collecting data about which other services are installed on its users' phones. Though Apple never said the new rules were aimed at Facebook, the policy change came after repeated criticism of the social network by Apple CEO Tim Cook. - Mashable
A top UK lawmaker said on Wednesday that Facebook maintained secretive "whitelisting agreements" with select companies that would give them preferential access to vast amounts of user data, after the parliamentary committee released documents which had been sealed by a California court, reports Bloomberg .
The documents - obtained in a sealed California lawsuit and leaked to the UK lawmaker during a London business trip, include internal emails involving CEO Mark Zuckerberg - and led committee chair Damian Collins to conclude that Facebook gave select companies preferential access to valuable user data for their apps, while shutting off access to data used by competing apps. Facebook also allegedly conducted global surveys of mobile app usage by customers - likely without their knowledge , and that "a change to Facebook's Android app policy resulted in call and message data being recorded was deliberately made difficult for users to know about," according to Bloomberg.
In one email, dated Feb. 4, 2015, a Facebook engineer said a feature of the Android Facebook app that would "continually upload" a user's call and SMS history would be a "high-risk thing to do from a PR perspective." A subsequent email suggests users wouldn't need to be prompted to give permission for this feature to be activated. - Bloomberg
The emails also reveal that Zuckerberg personally approved limiting hobbling Twitter's Vine video-sharing tool by preventing users from finding their friends on Facebook.
In one email, dated Jan. 23 2013, a Facebook engineer contacted Zuckerberg to say that rival Twitter Inc. had launched its Vine video-sharing tool, which users could connect to Facebook to find their friends there. The engineer suggested shutting down Vine's access to the friends feature, to which Zuckerberg replied, " Yup, go for it ."
"We don't feel we have had straight answers from Facebook on these important issues, which is why we are releasing the documents," said Collins in a Twitter post accompanying the published emails. - Bloomberg
We don't feel we have had straight answers from Facebook on these important issues, which is why we are releasing the documents.-- Damian Collins (@DamianCollins) December 5, 2018
Thousands of digital documents were passed to Collins on a London business trip by Ted Kramer, founder of app developer Six4Three, who obtained them during legal discovery in a lawsuit against Facebook. Kramer developed Pikinis, an app which allowed people to find photos of Facebook users wearing Bikinis. The app used Facebook's data which was accessed through a feed known as an application programming interface (API) - allowing Six4Three to freely search for bikini photos of Facebook friends of Pikini's users.
Facebook denied the charges, telling Bloomberg in an emailed statement: "Like any business, we had many of internal conversations about the various ways we could build a sustainable business model for our platform," adding "We've never sold people's data."
A small number of documents already became public last week, including descriptions of emails suggesting that Facebook executives had discussed giving access to their valuable user data to some companies that bought advertising when it was struggling to launch its mobile-ad business. The alleged practice started around seven years ago but has become more relevant this year because the practices in question -- allowing outside developers to gather data on not only app users but their friends -- are at the heart of Facebook's Cambridge Analytica scandal.
Facebook said last week that the picture offered by those documents was misleadingly crafted by Six4Three's attorneys. - WaPo
"The documents Six4Three gathered for this baseless case are only part of the story and are presented in a way that is very misleading without additional context," said Facebook's director of developer platforms and programs, Konstantinos Papamiltiadis, who added: "We stand by the platform changes we made in 2015 to stop a person from sharing their friends' data with developers. Any short-term extensions granted during this platform transition were to prevent the changes from breaking user experience."
Kramer was ordered by a California state court judge on Friday to surrender his laptop to a forensic expert after he admitted giving the UK committee the documents. The order stopped just short of holding the company in contempt as Facebook had requested, however after a hearing, California Superior Court Judge V. Raymond Swope told Kramer that he may issue sanctions and a contempt order at a later date.
"What has happened here is unconscionable," said Swope. "Your conduct is not well-taken by this court. It's one thing to serve other needs that are outside the scope of this lawsuit. But you don't serve those needs, or satisfy those curiosities, when there's a court order preventing you to do so ."
Trouble in paradise?
As Facebook is now faced with yet another data harvesting related scandal, Buzzfeed reports that internal tensions within the company are boiling over - claiming that "after more than a year of bad press, internal tensions are reaching a boiling point and are now spilling out into public view."
Throughout the crises, Facebook's CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who maintains majority shareholder control, has proven remarkably immune to outside pressure and criticism -- from politicians, investors, and the press -- leaving his employees as perhaps his most important stakeholders. Now, as its stock price declines and the company's mission of connecting the world is challenged, the voices inside are growing louder and public comments, as well as private conversations shared with BuzzFeed News, suggest newfound uncertainty about Facebook's future direction.
Internally, the conflict seems to have divided Facebook into three camps: those loyal to Zuckerberg and chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg; those who see the current scandals as proof of a larger corporate meltdown ; and a group who see the entire narrative -- including the portrayal of the company's hiring of communications consulting firm Definers Public Affairs -- as examples of biased media attacks. - Buzzfeed
"It's otherwise rational, sane people who're in Mark's orbit spouting full-blown anti-media rhetoric, saying that the press is ganging up on Facebook," said a former senior employee. "It's the bunker mentality. These people have been under siege for 600 days now. They're getting tired, getting cranky -- the only survival strategy is to quit or fully buy in."
A Facebook spokesperson admitted to BuzzFeed that this is "a challenging time."
Madcow , 7 minutes ago linksmacker , 2 hours ago link
When exactly did [neo]Liberal Dems become enthusiastic cheerleaders for rapacious profit-maximizing corporations acting illegally against the public interest?
Why would "progressives" want to shield Facebook from anti-trust legislation? Compared to the 1950s / 60s / 70s ... it seems like "liberals" and "conservatives" have switched roles.pedoland , 2 hours ago link
Why is it that Zucker.slime.berg and so many other people of his ilk are basically crooks. They go into business to wheel & deal and to rip people off. There are no depths that they won't sink to just to enrich themselves with wealth and power. They quickly learn how to sidestep and evade every law on the statute books. They have no integrity, no ethical standards and no moral compass. They are conscienceless and shameless.
The world would be better off without them. Who would miss Phacephuq?Tirion , 2 hours ago link
Dumb **** gets caught saying dumb ****.
Stop using the dumb ****'s website.Fluff The Cat , 2 hours ago link
Surely by now people realize that FB is a data-gathering organ for a Deep State geointelligence database? Why all the indignation? Every key stroke you have ever made has been recorded. Just stop using all the Deep State social media (ie, all of them).
Get your faces out of your phones and look around you and see what's happening. Humanity is becoming digital. This is a control mechanism. To regain its sovereignty, humanity needs to unite spiritually and head in a new direction. Reject all the "divide-and-conquer" BS. We are many, they are few. United we stand. Divided, we fall.DEDA CVETKO , 2 hours ago link
Never used FaceBook nor any other social media platform. All they exist to do is aggregate personal data which is then either sold or handed to governments to build profiles and keep tabs on what people are doing. The hell with that.Idiocracy's Not Sure , 3 hours ago link
Secrecy? In American elitist establishment, the most transparent Skull-and-Boner tomb in history? NOOOOOOOOooooooo....!!!!
In the USA we have always had will always have corruption to the fullest extent possible. I know rich and powerful people who are very well connected and if the average person knew what they truly think they would be freakin pissed!!
Nov 26, 2018 | craigmurray.org.uk
Isa , October 23, 2018 at 18:05SA , October 23, 2018 at 18:35
Off topic but it's an excellent article .
https://grayzoneproject.com/2018/10/23/facebook-censorship-of-alternative-media-just-the-beginning-says-top-neocon-insider/pretzelattack , October 23, 2018 at 19:35
Note the role of the Atlantic council in this censorship. It is also subsiding the misinformation website called Bellingcat.
yep the atlantic council seems to be playing the role of doug feith's pentagon propaganda operation during the buildup to iraq 2.0.
Nov 25, 2018 | www.rt.com
Published time: 25 Nov, 2018 04:39 Get short URL © Global Look Press / ZUMAPRESS.com / Panoramic The UK Parliament has taken hold of documents from Facebook that may shed light on the online giant's carefree approach to user privacy amid claims that it was fully aware of user data loopholes exploited by Cambridge Analytica. The documents were seized from the founder of US tech startup Six4Three, who was on a business trip to the UK, the Guardian reported , citing MP Damian Collins, chair of the Commons select committee for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). The DCMS is in charge of investigating a siphoning of Facebook user data by UK consultancy firm Cambridge Analytica. The news on the massive data breach broke in March with Facebook later admitting the data of up to 87 million people might have been shared with Cambridge Analytica without their explicit consent. Read more 'In-house fake news shop' – Facebook facing new scandal and losing friends
It is alleged that the data was harvested to target the users in political campaigns, including in former UKIP leader Nigel Farage's Leave.EU campaign.
The UK parliamentary investigators used the former Six4Three top executive's brief stay in London to force him to hand over documents his firm had obtained from a US court in Six4Three's own lawsuit against Facebook.
The Guardian reported that the tech entrepreneur was warned he might go to jail or face a hefty fine if he refuses to comply with the British authorities' request.
The documents, which are now to be reviewed by the British MPs, are said to include a confidential correspondence between Facebook's senior officials, including Mark Zuckerberg, who has so far snubbed requests to testify before parliament.
The lawsuit Six4Three, an app-developing startup, brought against Facebook back in 2015, alleges that Zuckerberg was personally involved in a "malicious and fraudulent scheme" and deliberately left loopholes for data-harvesting companies to fend off competition.
The documents are expected to reveal the scope of the Facebook CEO's involvement in the alleged scheme.
"We have followed this court case in America and we believed these documents contained answers to some of the questions we have been seeking about the use of data, especially by external developers," Collins said.
Six4Three is in a long-running litigation with Facebook over the demise of its app Pikinis, that allowed users to scan through friends' photos in an automatic search for bikini pics. After Facebook disabled the function that allowed apps to access users' friend lists, Six4Three filed a complaint against Facebook, arguing that it hurt its business model by no longer permitting customers to share the data. Facebook argues that the allegations of its improper handling of personal data have nothing to do with the lawsuit and had unsuccessfully fought the release of its internal documents to Six4Three. The documents were provided to the startup by the San Mateo Superior Court in California and are subject to a non-disclosure order, meaning that are unlikely to be revealed to the public.
In response to the seizure of the documents by British MPs, Facebook has urged lawmakers "to refrain from reviewing them" while calling to "return them to counsel or to Facebook."
Zuckerberg has previously denied that he knew of illegal harvesting of user data by Cambridge Analytica before the breach was reported in the media.
It is alleged that Facebook's off-hand approach to personal data might have helped to alter the outcome of the Brexit vote. In March, former director of research at Cambridge Analytica, Chris Wylie, testified before MPs that the research carried out by a Canadian company with ties to Cambridge Analytica before 2016 Brexit referendum might have swayed the vote.
Nov 12, 2018 | tech.slashdot.org
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Gizmodo: A study from the Norwegian Consumer Council dug into the underhanded tactics used by Microsoft, Facebook, and Google to collect user data . "The findings include privacy intrusive default settings, misleading wording, giving users an illusion of control, hiding away privacy-friendly choices, take-it-or-leave-it choices, and choice architectures where choosing the privacy friendly option requires more effort for the users," states the report , which includes images and examples of confusing design choices and strangely worded statements involving the collection and use of personal data.
Google makes opting out of personalized ads more of a chore than it needs to be and uses multiple pages of text, unclear design language, and, as described by the report, "hidden defaults" to push users toward the company's desired action. "If the user tried to turn the setting off, a popup window appeared explaining what happens if Ads Personalization is turned off, and asked users to reaffirm their choice," the report explained. "There was no explanation about the possible benefits of turning off Ads Personalization, or negative sides of leaving it turned on." Those who wish to completely avoid personalized ads must traverse multiple menus, making that "I agree" option seem like the lesser of two evils. In Windows 10, if a user wants to opt out of "tailored experiences with diagnostic data," they have to click a dimmed lightbulb, while the symbol for opting in is a brightly shining bulb, says the report.
Another example has to do with Facebook. The social media site makes the "Agree and continue" option much more appealing and less intimidating than the grey "Manage Data Settings" option. The report says the company-suggested option is the easiest to use. "This 'easy road' consisted of four clicks to get through the process, which entailed accepting personalized ads from third parties and the use of face recognition. In contrast, users who wanted to limit data collection and use had to go through 13 clicks."
dromgodis ( 4533247 ) writes: on Thursday June 28, 2018 @02:50AM ( #56858014 )Re:And if you optout it just makes you even more o ( Score: 5 , Informative)
You seem to be keeping your gaze too low. You are not just a target for buying stuff; you are also a target for modifying your opinion and behaviour in politics and other questions.
You can be targeted through other vectors than traditional ads, e.g. notification flows, news flows, ads-or-propaganda-disguised-as-news, product placement, insurance company policies, employability, police knocking on your door,
As an extreme, think China. The view we outsiders get is that if they collect the wrong data about you, they will *target* you in a way that no ad-blocker will stop.This should not be a surprise ( Score: 3 , Insightful)by Anonymous Coward writes: on Wednesday June 27, 2018 @11:44PM ( #56857560 )
This info has been out there for years yet no one is listening and/or cares. The mantra of people seems to be "it's free" so why not. I have long ago seen this coming. Use Fedora Linux or Debian. Use an iPhone over Android despite Apple having some issues. Use P2P apps in lieu of things like Skype. Own your own domain and use that for email. It's cheap and you have control of your user name and domain name. Tie that domain name to a privacy-respecting service like Fastmail.
Don't use spy devices like Alexa or Google Home. These exist not to help you but to harvest your data 24/7. Roll your own solutions, especially if you're technical or in IT. Use your own skills. Run a Pi-hole, block and defund the ad companies and tracking companies. Like drugs, just say no...This should not be a surprise ( Score: 3 , Insightful)by Anonymous Coward writes: on Wednesday June 27, 2018 @11:44PM ( #56857560 )
This info has been out there for years yet no one is listening and/or cares. The mantra of people seems to be "it's free" so why not. I have long ago seen this coming. Use Fedora Linux or Debian. Use an iPhone over Android despite Apple having some issues. Use P2P apps in lieu of things like Skype. Own your own domain and use that for email. It's cheap and you have control of your user name and domain name. Tie that domain name to a privacy-respecting service like Fastmail.
Don't use spy devices like Alexa or Google Home. These exist not to help you but to harvest your data 24/7. Roll your own solutions, especially if you're technical or in IT. Use your own skills. Run a Pi-hole, block and defund the ad companies and tracking companies. Like drugs, just say no...Never attribute to malice ( Score: 3 )by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) writes: on Thursday June 28, 2018 @03:40AM ( #56858106 )
what can be attributed to three companies who are some of the worst offenders of screwing up general UI design.
Who the hell cares about my privacy settings when I can no longer safely use maps for navigation due to its shitty settings of minimising into a useless picture in picture everytime there's a hiccup on my phone and has removed the option to force audio output throught the speaker meaning I can't hear it with bluetooth on either.
Who the hell cares about privacy settings on a website that makes it borderline impossible to easily scroll through past messages, or whose mobile app doesn't let you post pictures because it ends up in a select picture loop.
And as for Microsoft, one word... err two words: Start Menu *raises middle finger*triffid_98 ( 899609 ) writes: on Thursday June 28, 2018 @02:29AM ( #56857984 )Re: Gee, what a surprise ... ( Score: 5 , Insightful)
While Facebook is avoidable good luck avoiding Microsoft and Google if you're not a member of the zombie Steve Jobs fan club...that said, whatever they extract is far less damaging than the Equifax breach, after that I'd say cell phone carriers and all of the historical gps data they share with third parties without your consent. Just like the instigators of the 2008 global financial meltdown the penalties = zero dollars.Raenex ( 947668 ) writes: on Thursday June 28, 2018 @06:28AM ( #56858434 )Re: Alternatives ( Score: 4 , Insightful)
You sound like a Google employee. There's no doubt about Google tracking. At least DuckDuckGo has a stated policy of not tracking, and is an alternative to the Google Goliath.
Oct 27, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org
BM , Oct 27, 2018 9:25:05 AM | link
This could hit MoA soon:
Facebook Censorship of Alternative Media 'Just the Beginning,' Warns Top Neocon Insider
The first stage is social media censorship. The next stage is the total blocking of websites offering alternative news to the MSM. This is by far the most dangerous threat to individual freedom.
The intenet addressing system is controlled at the top by the US military (and always was). The ultimate arbiter for any internet address lookup is in the US InterNIC system (owned and controlled by the US military), to which all the national domain name registries defer. By manipulating or falsifying lookup data they can block international access to any website in the world (including covertly). US/UK censorship is going to rapidly expand over the very near future, as the West moves to ever more suppressionist policies. We urgently need a new internet addressing infrastructure with a capability to bypass the US structures and allow any internet access that might be blocked by the US, before alternative media outlets are totally silenced.
There are vague references in the alternate media from time to time of Russian/Chinese initiatives to develop an alternative infrastructure, but I have not seen anything specific. I don't know how advanced these projects are, or whether they are intended for use from anywhere in the world or only internally in the officially participating countries.
Under the current internet system, the local user uses configurable numerical addresses as local address lookup under TCP/IP (Name Server) - ISPs normally try to set this to their own servers through their installation software, but you can also set it manually to some other name server that you find more reliable. For example, many ISPs illegally block certain websites by sabotaging the address lookup on their own name server (i.e. it does not match the data held by the official registry for the domain name) with false data (I have seen this done many times to my own website, both my own ISP and other people's ISP; it blocks email based on the blocked domain name at the same time, or the block can be specific to sub-domain such as www). When you try to access the site you then get an error message from the browser. If you challenge the ISP they will be forced to correct the data, but then they may silently sabotage it again later. Instead of using your ISPs own name server, you can use any other name server that is publicly accessible (some name servers might not be accessible from a different ISP, but many are accessible to anyone). A good solution is often a name server belonging to a local (or non-local!) university. Sometimes you might find you then get more reliable access to non-mainstream websites, and fewer browser errors (address not found).
What I would like to see Russia/China/BRICS/SCO/etc offer ASAP is some nameserver infrastructure that can be accessed through the standard nameserver settings under TCP/IP on any computer, and which offer configurable access to the internet address lookup registries around the world without critical dependence on the US controlled InterNIC database.
Numerical internet addresses (IP addresses) change from time to time. This is in itself normal. For example if MoA changes its service provider (web server), the MoA numerical IP address will be changed. The change in IP address is registered in the database stored in the registry for the .org upper level domain name in the US, and other name servers around the world regularly update their own data from that. If the US substitutes false values, any attempt to access the website can be diverted to an alternative address (sometimes a fake website!) managed by the US. Sometimes they do this even now, and then if challenged they pretend it was a "mistake". Russia/China need to provide name server infrastructure combined with user software (browser inferface) that is capable of selecting archived IP address lookup data when the most recently available data in the registry is false, selectable by date (the registry contains information on when the data was last changed). By selecting an IP address from archived data before the block, it can re-enable access to the site (as long as the website is still on the servers - if on US servers that is still under US control, but if it is on Russian servers it is not under US control).
Some websites legitimately need to be blocked - eg ISIS propaganda sites etc - the system would need to be able to block access to archived IP addresses for such legitimately blocked sites.
As I suggested some weeks ago, B really needs to prepare for possible blocking in advance - I am quite sure it will come eventually - by registering a non-US website such as moonofalabama.org.ru etc, and announcing that alternate address. When the internet is cut, it is already too late to announce the backup site! That can still be blocked by the US, but there are more ways to get around it.
Oct 22, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
Facebook's New Troll-Crushing "War Room" Confirms Surveillance By Corporation Is The New America
by Tyler Durden Sun, 10/21/2018 - 22:30 270 SHARES
Facebook on Wednesday briefed journalists on its latest attempt to stop fake news during the election season , offering an exclusive tour of a windowless conference room at its California headquarters, packed with millennials monitoring Facebook user behavior trends around the clock, said The Verge .
This is Facebook's first ever "war room," designed to bring leaders from 20 teams, representing 20,000 global employees working on safety and security, in one room to lead a crusade against
conservativesmisinformation on the platform as political campaigning shifts into hyperdrive in the final weeks leading up to November's US midterm elections. The team includes threat intelligence, data science engineering, research, legal, operations, policy, communications, and representatives from Facebook and Facebook-owned WhatsApp and Instagram.
"We know when it comes to an election, every moment counts," said Samidh Chakrabarti, head of civic engagement at Facebook, who oversees operations in the war room.
"So if there are late-breaking issues we see on the platform, we need to be able to detect and respond to them in real time, as quickly as possible."
This public demonstration of Facebook's internal efforts comes after a series of security breaches and user hacks, dating back to the 2016 presidential elections. Since the announcement of the Cambridge Analytics privacy scandal in March, Facebook shares have plunged -14.5% It seems the war room is nothing more than a public relations stunt, which the company is desperately trying to regain control of the narrative and avoid more negative headlines.
The war room is staffed with millennials from 4 am until midnight, and starting on Oct. 22, social media workers will be monitoring trends 24/7 leading up to the elections. Leaders from 20 teams will be present in the room. Workers will use machine learning and artificial intelligence programs to monitor the platform for trends, hate speech, sophisticated trolls, fake news, and of course, Russian, Chinese, and Iranian interference.
Nathan Gleicher, Facebook's head of cybersecurity, told CNBC the company wants fair elections, and that "debate around the election be authentic. ... The biggest concern is any type of effort to manipulate that."
In the first round of presidential elections in Brazil, Facebook's war room identified an effort to suppress voter turnout:
"Content that was telling people that due to protest, that the election would be delayed a day," said Chakrabarti. "This was not true, completely false. So we were able to detect that using AI and machine learning. The war room was alerted to it. Our data scientist looked into what was behind it and then they passed it to our engineers and operations specialist to be able to remove this at scale from our platform before it could go viral."
The war room has been focused on the US and Brazilian elections because it says misinformation in elections is a global problem that never ends. Gleicher warns that Facebook is observing an increased effort to manipulate the public debate ahead of US midterms.
"Part of the reason we have this war room up and running, is so that as these threats develop, not only do we respond to them quickly, but we continue to speed up our response, and make our response more effective and efficient." Gleicher adds that it is not just foreign interference but also domestic "bad actors" who are hiding their identity, using fake accounts to spread misinformation.
"This is always going to be an arms race, so the adversaries that we're facing who seek to meddle in elections, they are sophisticated and well-funded," said Chakrabarti.
"That is the reason we've made huge investments both in people and technology to stay ahead and secure our platforms."
Big Brother is watching you: surveillance by corporations is the new America.
Sid Davis , 2 hours ago linkjunction , 4 hours ago link
One of the privileges granted to corporations under State laws is the limitation of liabilities as to shareholders. If you operate a business as a sole proprietor or as one of the partners in a general partnership, then you can personally be sued for the unpaid debts or other liabilities arising from the operation of the business. But if you are an owner of a corporation, which is what shareholders are, then you have no personal liability and can't be held accountable for the unpaid debts or other liabilities arising from the operation of the corporation.
This limited liability privilege is what is wrong with corporations. The most you stand to lose as a shareholder is what you paid for your shares. As a result, corporations can amass a large amount of capital and when they become very large they not only damage free market competition, but they power associated with their size and importance gives them control over the political process. They can lobby and bribe politicians for laws that are favourable to themselves, and unfavourable to the rest of us. And shareholders lose control over the operation, just like your vote for politicians is relatively meaningless as a percentage of the total vote. Management takes over, just like the elite take over governments, and ethics disappear.
If shareholders of corporations did not have limited liability, the incentive to buy shares would disappear, and most businesses would be carried out by small entities; we would have a competitive "mom and pop" economy instead of a monopoly or oligopoly type economy. And with a competitive economy if one of the competitors pulled the **** that the big internet corporations pull, they would soon suffer the wrath of their customers who would have alternative places to go.
Corporate laws are just another example of government interference in the economy that produces the bad results we see today from corporatism. Corporatism is just another mechanism to create rule by the elite and slavery for the majority. The solution is to prohibit States from franchising corporations, and to use existing anti-trust laws to bust up all the big corporations.
It is sad that so many people think that corporatism is capitalism and then reach the conclusion that socialism or communism is the solution to the bad results they see today. It is not. Capitalism is a free market with no government granted privilege to any of the competitors. The only role of government in the economy is to protect rights, instead of destroying rights as they do today.HRH of Aquitaine 2.0 , 3 hours ago link
I just had to uninstall my ESET anti-virus software. It was intentionally erasing utorrent from my computer. To get to Pirate Bay, now blocked in the USA, I set my VPN to Belgium. Almost immediately, I started getting messages from my e-mail provider, MSN, asking if I was signing in from Belgium. When I make any payments via Internet banking, I have to turn off my VPN or the transaction will not be recognized. When Trump and his NWO puppeteers decide to take their gloves off, I am pretty sure my Internet connection will be on the Kill List. Just like yours, you ZH posters.Cryptopithicus Homme , 5 hours ago link
Thanks for the info. Keep your head on a swivel.Jack Offelday , 5 hours ago link
I am pretty sure they are NOT using "artificial intelligence programs" as no such thing exists.
Also, they can't censor you or decide what you see when you are not on Fakebook.Normal , 6 hours ago link
On a long enough timeline the survival rate for (social media companies) drops to zero.Md4 , 6 hours ago link
That is why my description on Facebook states that if you post political information you will be unfollowed. I only allow photos of kittens and well a lot of nebulous stuff, education, and health and fitness. If they knew my ideas I would be followed by all the worlds security agencies. I am resolved to help people become Normal within the infosphere. I allow no politics because politics is Fake News and the sooner people forget about the concept the sooner they will be inclined to decentralize existing concentrations of wealth.J S Bach , 6 hours ago link
" The war room is staffed with millennials from 4 am until midnight, and starting on Oct. 22, social media workers will be monitoring trends 24/7 leading up to the elections. Leaders from 20 teams will be present in the room. Workers will use machine learning and artificial intelligence programs to monitor the platform for trends, hate speech, sophisticated trolls, fake news, and of course, Russian, Chinese, and Iranian interference."
With all this fascist (and highly provocative) techno-insanity at their disposal before the midterms...
...what, pray tell, will these pointy-headed leftist brats say about a red asshamering in November?
Their silly "war room" wasn't expansive or invasive enough...?
Sick pricks...WorkingClassMan , 6 hours ago link
Even the dullest people should be able to figure out that the easiest way to divulge the truth about anything is to allow ALL information to flow like a stream. Whoever's telling the lies will be discovered apace. Of course, FaceBook, Google, Twitter and all of the other corporate entities know this. And they also know who the (((great masters of the lie))) are. It is themselves. They are in panic mode, folks. We must kill this latest effort of (((theirs))) by simply avoiding their platforms. Use their own weapons against them... BOYCOTT. Seek alternative sites and search engines. Most importantly, spread far and wide what you know to be their ulterior motives.Bricker , 6 hours ago link
Starve the beast...don't use Fedbook. Simple solution to a simple problem.LetThemEatRand , 6 hours ago link
If you are using Fakebook, you deserve to be hung
This is what fascism looks like, bitchez. When fascism comes to America it will be draped in a t-shirt and holding an iPad.
Oct 12, 2018 | www.rt.com
Alternative voices online are incensed after Facebook and Twitter closed down hundreds of political media pages ahead of November's crucial midterm elections. Facebook says they broke its spam rules, they say it's censorship. Some 800 pages spanning the political spectrum, from left-leaning organizations like The Anti Media, to flag-waving opinion sites like Right Wing News and Nation in Distress, were shut down. Other pages banned include those belonging to police brutality watchdog groups Filming Cops and Policing the Police.
Even RT America's Rachel Blevins found her own page banned for posts that were allegedly "misleading users."
Journalist Glenn Greenwald hit out at those on the left who cheered Facebook and Twitter's coordinated 'deplatforming' of right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones in August. "Those who demanded Facebook & other Silicon Valley giants censor political content...are finding that content that they themselves support & like end up being repressed," he wrote. "That's what has happened to every censorship advocate in history."
In America, Conservatives were the first to complain about unfair treatment by left-leaning Silicon Valley tech giants. However, leftist sites have increasingly become targets in what Blumenthal calls "a wider war on dissident narratives in online media." In identifying enemies in this "war," Facebook has partnered up with the Digital Forensics Lab, an offshoot of NATO-sponsored think tank the Atlantic Council. The DFL has promised to be Facebook's "eyes and ears" in the fight against disinformation (read: alternative viewpoints).
Aug 14, 2018 | caucus99percent.com
'Deeply Disturbing': For Second Time This Year, Facebook Suspends Left-Leaning teleSUR English Without Explanation
"It seems like the censorship power many people on the left want Silicon Valley executives to unilaterally exercise might end up being wielded against the left. One good way to know that would happen is that is already is happening."
For the second time this year, Facebook has suspended teleSUR English's page, claiming the left-leaning Latin American news network violated the social media platform's terms of service without any further explanation -- a move that provoked outrage and concern among journalists, free speech advocates, and Big Tech critics.
In a short article posted on teleSUR's website on Monday, the regional news network -- which is based in Venezuela but also has received funding from Argentina, Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, and Nicaragua -- explained:
teleSUR English's page has been removed from Facebook for the second time this year without any specific reason being provided. It should be noted that the first time this occurred back in January 2018, Facebook did NOT provide any explanation in spite of our best efforts to understand their rationale. This is an alarming development in light of the recent shutting down of pages that don't fit a mainstream narrative.
According to the outlet, "the only communication" teleSUR has received from Facebook is the following message:
Max Blumenthal tweet shows the role of the Atlantic counsel had in removing the site from Facebook. Click the link to show who is on the counsel. This group has had a hand in a lot of shit that has been happening since Trump was elected.
Facebook has just deleted the page of @telesurenglish . A network source tells me FB justified eliminating the page on the vague basis of "violation of terms." The NATO-backed @DFRLab is currently assisting FB's purge. This is deeply disturbing. pic.twitter.com/MQe3Brdn15
-- Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) August 13, 2018
It is Deeply Concerning when one of the biggest social media platform censors whomever the hell they want and people say that "what's the big deal? It's a private company that should be able to monitor the content if they want."
Well it seems that its a Big Fucking Deal when that private company is working hand in hand with the government. Facebook has already been removing left leaning website's post for some time now and it looks like they are upping their game.
Azazello on Tue, 08/14/2018 - 2:47pmHere's a Reuters article on the role of the Atlantic Council. And yes, their board is a rogue's gallery of warmongers and imperialists.Amanda Matthews on Tue, 08/14/2018 - 5:51pm
ReutersIt's kind of ironic that these are HONORARYRaggedy Ann on Tue, 08/14/2018 - 3:15pm
Directors. There's some real stinkers on that list. 'Honor' has nothing to fo with it.
David C. Acheson
James A. Baker, III
Frank C. Carlucci, III
Ashton B. Carter
Robert M. Gates
Michael G. Mullen
Leon E. Panetta
William J. Perry
Colin L. Powell
Edward L. Rowny
George P. Shultz
Dr. Horst Teltschik
John W. Warner
William H. WebsterThey're coming for all of us.snoopydawg on Tue, 08/14/2018 - 5:08pm
If you don't think that, then good luck. They are tightening the screws. I am more grateful each day that I never signed up for any of this horrific social media. This is as social as I get.
Good luck to us all. Let's hope a supervolcano blows before we are all actually further imprisoned in this open air prison.Doesn't matter if you signed up for FB or notThe Aspie Corner on Tue, 08/14/2018 - 5:21pm
They track your web movement any time you read a page that has their "like us" button. They can learn everything about you from your family and friends who are on it because they get access to their contacts in their phones and tons of other places. This is a huge invasion of privacy, but no one should be surprised. The CIA gave Zucchini his start up money to build his site for that reason.
Many lefties were happy when FB deleted Jones and were mad at the Twitter guy who didn't. The site that they censored today isn't an American one, but I'm sure those lefties would be sh*tting bricks if FB did that to Rachel's show and website.
If you don't think that, then good luck. They are tightening the screws. I am more grateful each day that I never signed up for any of this horrific social media. This is as social as I get.
Good luck to us all. Let's hope a supervolcano blows before we are all actually further imprisoned in this open air prison.Rachel is right-wing. And she tows their uniparty line.Raggedy Ann on Tue, 08/14/2018 - 8:34pm
@snoopydawg If she's left-wing, I'm the queen of England.
They track your web movement any time you read a page that has their "like us" button. They can learn everything about you from your family and friends who are on it because they get access to their contacts in their phones and tons of other places. This is a huge invasion of privacy, but no one should be surprised. The CIA gave Zucchini his start up money to build his site for that reason.
Many lefties were happy when FB deleted Jones and were mad at the Twitter guy who didn't. The site that they censored today isn't an American one, but I'm sure those lefties would be sh*tting bricks if FB did that to Rachel's show and website.Don't I know it, snoopy.snoopydawg on Tue, 08/14/2018 - 10:21pm
I realize not participating in social media does not exempt me from the surveillance state. Heaven forbid they miss someone. But it's one or three less things I am giving absolute permission to my life.
Anyway, it's disheartening how we are giving away our freedoms so easily.Or maybe how they are taking them away from usthanatokephaloides on Tue, 08/14/2018 - 7:46pm
and not enough people care about it because it. This I don't get. They are the ones who say that our military is fighting to defend our freedoms and yet they say that it's okay if the government spies on them because they have nothing to hide.
I realize not participating in social media does not exempt me from the surveillance state. Heaven forbid they miss someone. But it's one or three less things I am giving absolute permission to my life.
Anyway, it's disheartening how we are giving away our freedoms so easily.ceterem censeo.....QMS on Tue, 08/14/2018 - 4:26pm
I am more grateful each day that I never signed up for any of this horrific social media. This is as social as I get.
Ceterem censeo, Facebook delendum est!
(Further, I opine, Facebook must be abolished!)
edit: Adjusted translation to less violent (but still accurate) terminology.
If you don't think that, then good luck. They are tightening the screws. I am more grateful each day that I never signed up for any of this horrific social media. This is as social as I get.
Good luck to us all. Let's hope a supervolcano blows before we are all actually further imprisoned in this open air prison.Like you, we avoid the social immediaThe Aspie Corner on Tue, 08/14/2018 - 4:53pm
like the plague. Really donna needa that much back feeden (jive talk for feedback, aka faceback)
after all, it's the rooskies to blame
https://www.youtube.com/embed/lP5Xv7QqXiMThe left will never have a say anywhere.thanatokephaloides on Tue, 08/14/2018 - 8:01pm
The pigs will make sure of that.Why c99's still on Facebookmimi on Wed, 08/15/2018 - 12:34am
So, why is C99p then still on Facebook?
Probably because we are careful just which Essays we post over there. Also, there's this:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/UL6BdiaGaJhmm ... well ... never mind /ntearthling1 on Tue, 08/14/2018 - 11:28pm
So, why is C99p then still on Facebook?
Probably because we are careful just which Essays we post over there. Also, there's this:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/UL6BdiaGaJ8The purge of telsursnoopydawg on Wed, 08/15/2018 - 1:08am
inspired me to seek it out and add it to my home page. I'm going to paste Infowars (Alex Jones) on here too, just to spite them. Also, it's good to know what the crazies are up to. Jones got a big spike from the ban.Big, big spike in traffic to his site
Infowars Website Traffic Explodes After Silicon Valley Blacklists Alex Jones
Silicon Valley's coordinated purge of all things Infowars from social media has had an unexpected result; website traffic to Infowars.com has soared in the past week, according to Amazon's website ranking service Alexa.
That said, Google and Apple are still allowing people to access Infowars content via apps, which have seen their downloads spike as well.
Consumers still can access InfoWars through the same tech companies that just banned it. Google still offers the Infowars app for Android users, and Apple customers can download it through the App Store.
As of Friday, the show's phone app remained near the top of the charts in both the Apple App and Google Play stores. Infowars Official, an app that lets viewers stream Jones' shows and read news of the day, was ranked fourth among trending apps in the Google Play store Friday. In the news category on Apple's App Store, Infowars earned the fourth slot under the top free apps, behind Twitter and News Break, a local and breaking news service, revealing a sudden boost of user downloads. –American Statesman
I like your idea. I'm going to hit both sites daily just to spite them.
inspired me to seek it out and add it to my home page. I'm going to paste Infowars (Alex Jones) on here too, just to spite them. Also, it's good to know what the crazies are up to. Jones got a big spike from the ban.
Aug 23, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org
worldblee , Aug 22, 2018 9:02:34 PM | 26
Authentic = Pro-US (and allies), pro-Atlanticist, pro-corporate (at least, the right corporations), pro-Israel
Inauthentic = pro-Russian, Palestinian, Syrian, Iranian, Venezuelan, etc.
The inauthentic voices shall be censored without mercy.
Piotr Berman , Aug 22, 2018 9:20:38 PM | 27I followed FireEye link a bit and I have several conclusions.Guerrero , Aug 23, 2018 12:34:08 AM | 28
1. The diagram they made about several "inauthentic sites" is totally bogus. People have various reasons to create anonymous accounts, for example if they have Saudi citizenship and they post something "pro-Iranian" because of authentic views they may be kidnapped, whipped and perhaps even executed. An American citizens may want to be anonymous if his/her views are unpopular among H management where they work. Besides several black lines of "shared e-mail addresses" that are already inconclusive they have "red arrows" of "promotional activity", presumably links, re-Tweets etc. of which there are billions.
2. I checked a "persona" and black-linked "fake journal". Persona has almost zero activity, 3 Twitter followers. Journal seems to be somewhat fake because it has several articles with low originality, nicely looking frontpage and some pages that are totally empty (e.g. Central Asia). It seems that this is one person effort to collate themes and views to his/her liking and practice web design, and due to sparse posting and mediocre originality, probably zero effective influence.
3. Eliminating 543 such accounts changes next to nothing given their sparse traffic. But FireEye identifies them as "threats". WFT?
4. By the way of contrast, when I followed tweets about fighting in Syria I witness huge concerted waves of masked re-tweets, identical tweets presented not as re-tweets that clearly had the purpose of swamping the traffic sympathetic to their opponents. The numbers were not surprising given the number of jihadi volunteers that actually served as cannon fodder rather than twitter warriors.
5. People with original content and distingushable personalities were purged from Twitter for reasons that are hard to discern (posting bloody pictures from battlefields? non-purged accounts show them too).
Probably 99% of posters at Twitter (the only "social media" that I read) are amateurs who never had time, talent or inclination to post anything original. For example they may find several posts of their liking and re-post them, expressing their views without inventing new content. If they create more than one account and are noticed by others, they could fall into FireEye criteria.
If we count re-tweets or copies of pictures of cute cats and puppies, the percentage of "inauthenticity" is huge. But when one posts about atrocities in Yemen rather than puppies or adorable Israeli settlers in West Bank then he/she can be identified as a "threat". To USA? to humanity? to puppies? to the adorable settlers?. Who knows and who cares.That's quite an intelligent and observant post Piotr Berman. The evolution of the social media phenomena has me, for one, astounded. Not to mention confounded. How to go viral?Guerrero , Aug 23, 2018 1:24:26 AM | 30
That's the question to answer. Even the mightiest sea wall can not resist the big tide.I had never heard of the claquer tradition. Only, now there are robotic claquers. Oooof!George Lane , Aug 23, 2018 2:01:02 AM | 31@25 pB, respectfully, you must not know a lot of people... Many, many people still use Facebook and even use it as their main source of information; instead of ridiculing and thinking oneself superior to these people, we should engage them where they are at and tell them that it is not the best place to rely on for news.Harry , Aug 23, 2018 4:05:38 AM | 32
The social media censorship has certainly escalated lately but it is of course following a long trend - we've known for several months for example that Facebook was shutting down pro-Palestine pages at the behest of the Israeli, American, and German governments, and of course there was the PropOrNot fiasco and the tweaking of Google's algorithms to supress alternative, mainly (real, not liberal-capitalist) left-wing websites. I am hopeful however that in a sense the cat is out of the bag, there is a critical mass of people who simply do not trust enough in the official channels anymore, and eventually all this censorship will backfire. That is an optimistic view anyway...When I tried to open MoA at work today, got a message: "Access denied. Contact Administrator."Zanon , Aug 23, 2018 4:26:30 AM | 33
Congratz 'b! Your work is noticed and active suppression started by the usual suspects. If they didn't deem you noteworthy, they wouldn't bother.DMchris , Aug 23, 2018 6:20:46 AM | 34
Alot of people get news from Facebook, after all why wouldn't they? Its all about sharing links, just like here or any other social media place.there's a long and even honourable history behind the use of such professional actors going back to Ancient Egypt and the use of wailers at high-class peoples funerals, and one could see the point to all of that. But that was all done for the best of intentions.V , Aug 23, 2018 6:36:03 AM | 35
unfortunately the modern incarnation of such ancient traditions is now being done for all the worst of intentions. (originally it was all done to generate positive emotions and feelings) nowadays its the complete opposite.
what you see going on nowadays reminds you of George Orwells "2 minutes of hate" in his book 1984.
if you are going to say anything, at please do try to be positive or constructive. Otherwise probably best not to do or say anything at all.Why (for what reason) is anybody on this social media shit? Not a rhetorical question; I dumped all of it well more than a decade ago. I'm not claiming some kind of superiority here; just questioning where critical thinking skills failed big time. It should have been obvious (it was to me) where this would end. And here we are...Zanon , Aug 23, 2018 7:32:38 AM | 38Vfastfreddy , Aug 23, 2018 8:48:30 AM | 40
Certainly a justification , but not on on my part: Two-thirds of American adults get news from social media: survey
there's a long and even honourable history behind the use of such professional actors going back to Ancient Egypt and the use of wailers at high-class peoples funerals, and one could see the point to all of that. but that was all done for the best of intentions.
Best of intentions, maybe not. The proletariat struggled greatly against their rulers. Slavery and serfdom were cultural norms. Not that these were attendees of upper class funerals, but in service to the elite to be sure. The illusion that oppressors are benevolent must be upheld. The reports would be spread throughout the town. Perhaps we were wrong in our assessment that ol' Joe was a cruel and miserable oppressor.
This trick has endured through the ages. See Facebook. By the looks of it, everyone now suffers from Stockholm Syndrome.
dh , Aug 23, 2018 10:08:21 AM | 41@36 I don't see much serious debate on FB. Most people are communicating with friends, or people they call friends. And they are not anonymous which makes people cautious about expressing their true feelings.Charles R , Aug 23, 2018 10:43:45 AM | 42I work in a library part-time. Most of my regular patrons who do nothing but use the computers use Facebook for their entire two hours for messaging friends or lovers, or they divide up their time between that and YouTube videos. I try to help them from time to time figure out the latest changes to their Facebook accounts, even though I haven't used it in years.dh , Aug 23, 2018 10:51:56 AM | 43
They're ordinary sorts of people whose lifestyles require them to get their Internet through our public space rather than at home, or they don't want to use their phones for it. There are also folks who have various social or physical disabilities who enjoy watching videos of trains and steam engines. There are also kids who don't use Facebook but watch endless reiterations of AI-generated YouTube videos or play roblox or agar.io.
So, I guess I'm saying people use social media shit to pass the time. Much like those of us who are passing the time using this site. While we might believe we are getting deeper to the truth of our realities through MoA, we're also sitting in front of a screen just as much.
Sometimes more.@42 "While we might believe we are getting deeper to the truth of our realities through MoA, we're also sitting in front of a screen just as much."Ross , Aug 23, 2018 11:34:45 AM | 44
Party pooper! You just ruined my whole internet experience!Guerrero , Aug 23, 2018 12:32:57 PM | 45
Selling advertisements is Facebook's business. Well only partially, a secondary line. Their main business is harvesting the psychometric data all its users so carelessly hand them, and then selling said data on to nefarious third parties.
@karlof1 | Aug 22, 2018 3:31:39 PM | 14
In the battles over ideas, printing presses were often targeted for destruction so ideas could be restricted--what's happening with Twitter and Facebook is merely an updated version of such repression.
While Amazon (and others) banning books is the updated version of book burning.
@Nicole | Aug 22, 2018 6:24:47 PM | 21
First they came for the revisionists...
V wrote: @35Jackrabbit , Aug 23, 2018 12:57:18 PM | 46Why (for what reason) is anybody on this social media shit? Not a rhetorical question; I dumped all of it well more than a decade ago. I'm not claiming some kind of superiority here; just questioning where critical thinking skills failed big time. It should have been obvious (it was to me) where this would end. And here we are...
I was active on a few web-places in the years 2002-2008 or so. The opportunity for "platonic dialog" was suited to my temperament I guess and the results were interesting.
I turned more than one big site on it's head with my questioning. Some of my posts went insanely viral. Those were the early days. I noticed professional trolls from the outset who seemed to be part of the web-site forum itself. They were my adversaries, and over time began to mimic my posts since no one could beat me at Socratic dialoging.
The topics were many different: for examples: global warming and the environmental ethos, the old Leibnitz-Newton argument, and regarding the justifications for the Iraq War...
It was fun! A Socratic dialog site with member-referees would actually be a great thing.
This is based on my experience: it is a great learning experience to have to defend a thesis. I did independent research at that time to avoid getting caught in an argument with my pants down. In every thread it was just about EVERYBODY in there against me.
(I knew the non-poster listeners were fascinated by what was going on. One site employed a software called Motet which is excellent for making repeated references to one´s own posts or to the posts of another or to documentary evidence, so the discussions don't get bogged down explaining the debate to new-comers). I came to realize that my posts were being studied when i drew some conclusions from the responses they were provoking.
Ten years ago, I totally dropped out of these kinds of internet forums where ideas might so usefully be examined in light of the opinions and knowledge of a diversity of persons.
b: "Facebook Kills ..."james , Aug 23, 2018 1:05:53 PM | 47
Young Millennials were drawn to Facebook like 1950's teenyboppers were drawn to smoking. All the kids were doing it. Decades later, those smokers paid a terrible price: lung cancer, COPD, etc. And they had even (unknowingly) poisoned their own kids (via secondhand smoke).
People simply have no "sense" for systemic risk. We only seem to learn via disaster. Whether it is social media, MIC, financial markets, propaganda, climate change, etc.
Hey all the cool kids are on THIS side of the boat!!
Despite the well-known problems with Facebook, few care to explore alternatives. Here's one struggling for attention that pays for your time on the social network .
But the naivete of Millennials is now legendary. From SJW "snowflakes" to attractive joggers that think their cellphone protects them in sparsely populated areas :Rivera told officials he exited his vehicle and started "running behind her and alongside her," according to the criminal complaint. Tibbetts then grabbed her phone and told him she was going to call the police , according to the criminal complaint.well, at least one poster thinks fb is a viable place to get ''''information''', lol.... these promo pitches are getting worse by the minute..james , Aug 23, 2018 1:15:51 PM | 48fb is relevant.. the sultan in turkey thinks it is relevant and his goons in syria think it is relevant, lol..james , Aug 23, 2018 1:25:29 PM | 49
"Free Syrian Army sentences Syrian doctor to 6 months in prison for criticizing Erdogan on Facebook"
and that is why i believe everything i read on the internut, especially on facebook, rof!ot - i see harper at sst has an article up on zukerberg as well..HARPER: ZUCKERBERG JOINS THE WAR PARTY CONTINUED...dh , Aug 23, 2018 1:30:01 PM | 50@46 "But the naivete of Millennials is now legendary. From SJW "snowflakes" to attractive joggers that think their cellphone protects them in sparsely populated areas:..."Mike P , Aug 23, 2018 1:46:39 PM | 51
And that is precisely what I dislike about FB. If I was to post something like that there I would be called a fascist or dragged into unwinnable arguments. Or, horror of horrors, publicly unfriended.
(Messenger is pretty good though)@7"...we assess with moderate confidence that this activity originates from Iranian actors."
Jeez, can't they at least produce a "highly likely" for us?
Here you go:
"...we assess with moderate confidence this activity is highly likely to originate from Iranian actors."
Sep 03, 2018 | craigmurray.org.uk
Facebook has deleted all of my posts from July 2017 to last week because I am, apparently, a Russian Bot. For a while I could not add any new posts either, but we recently found a way around that, at least for now. To those of you tempted to say "So what?", I would point out that over two thirds of visitors to my website arrive via my posting of the articles to Facebook and Twitter. Social media outlets like this blog, which offer an alternative to MSM propaganda, are hugely at the mercy of these corporate gatekeepers.
Facebook's plunge into censorship is completely open and admitted, as is the fact it is operated for Facebook by the Atlantic Council - the extreme neo-con group part funded by NATO and whose board includes serial war criminal Henry Kissinger, Former CIA Heads Michael Hayden and Michael Morrell, and George Bush's chief of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff , among a whole list of horrors .
The staff are worse than the Board. Their lead expert on Russian bot detection is an obsessed nutter named Ben Nimmo, whose fragile grip on reality has been completely broken by his elevation to be the internet's Witchfinder-General. Nimmo, grandly titled "Senior Fellow for Information Defense at the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab", is the go-to man for Establishment rubbishing of citizen journalists, and as with Joseph McCarthy or Matthew Clarke, one day society will sufficiently recover its balance for it to be generally acknowledged that this kind of witch-hunt nonsense was not just an aberration, but a manifestation of the evil it claimed to fight.
There is no Establishment cause Nimmo will not aid by labeling its opponents as Bots. This from the Herald newspaper two days ago, where Nimmo uncovers the secret web of Scottish Nationalist bots that dominate the internet, and had the temerity to question the stitch-up of Alex Salmond.
Nimmo's proof? 2,000 people had used the hashtag #Dissolvetheunion on a total of 10,000 tweets in a week. That's five tweets per person on average. In a week. Obviously a massive bot-plot, eh?
When Ben's great expose for the Herald was met with widespread ridicule , he doubled down on it by producing his evidence - a list of the top ten bots he had uncovered in this research. Except that they are almost all, to my certain knowledge, not bots but people . But do not decry Ben's fantastic forensic skills, for which NATO and the CIA fund the Atlantic Council. Ben's number one suspect was definitely a bot. He had got the evil kingpin. He had seen through its identity despite its cunning disguise. That disguise included its name, IsthisAB0T, and its profile, where it called itself a bot for retweets on Independence. Thank goodness for Ben Nimmo, or nobody would ever have seen through that evil, presumably Kremlin-hatched, plan.
No wonder the Atlantic Council advertise Nimmo and his team as " Digital Sherlocks ".
Aug 24, 2018 | disqus.com
Barbara Ann 16 hours agoIs there something wrong with this picture, or am I just being overly suspicious or even paranoid?
No, just "inauthentic".
The boundaries for paranoia are moving rapidly. Trump's election appears to have caused the security state to move into overdrive and in its haste drop almost all pretense re the attempts to control access to dissenting narratives. I truly fear for SST in this fast-deteriorating environment. If Trump's presidency does nothing else but bring the thought-control swamp to the attention of the masses, he will have done his country a great service.
RaisingMac has the right idea.
Rights waste away unless frequently exercised and 'voting' to switch to less censorious platforms is a vital part of defending the right to free speech. Inertia, or even misplaced patriotism over US corporations like Facebook, is the road to hell.
The Second Amendment make specific provision for the people's right to prevent tyranny by their government in the material world. So far, the Constitution lacks a similar provision preventing government tyranny in cyberspace. This does not mean that defense of this right should be fought for any less vigorously and in the 21st century I'd consider it at least as important.
Pat Lang Mod Barbara Ann • 11 hours ago ,The Beaver • 18 hours ago ,
I, too, fear for SST. If there is silence one day it will be a case of "dead key" one way or another.
Did you see this one also?
FireEye's tip eventually led Facebook to remove 652 fake accounts and pages. And Liberty Front Press, the common thread among much of that sham activity, was linked to state media in Iran, Facebook said on Tuesday.
Zuck and his ilk Sandberg are doing CYA and using those who have contacts inside the beltway.
Aug 22, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org
The creation of digital content led to the re-establishment of claqueurs :By 1830 the claque had become an institution. The manager of a theatre or opera house was able to send an order for any number of claqueurs. These were usually under a chef de claque (leader of applause), who judged where the efforts of the claqueurs were needed and to initiate the demonstration of approval. This could take several forms. There would be commissaires ("officers/commissioner") who learned the piece by heart and called the attention of their neighbors to its good points between the acts. Rieurs (laughers) laughed loudly at the jokes. Pleureurs (criers), generally women, feigned tears, by holding their handkerchiefs to their eyes. Chatouilleurs (ticklers) kept the audience in a good humor, while bisseurs (encore-ers) simply clapped and cried "Bis! Bis!" to request encores.
Today anyone can create content and rent or buy virtual claqueurs in from of "likes" on Facebook or "followers" on Twitter to increase its distribution.
An alternative is to create artificial social media personas who then promote ones content. That is what the Internet Research Agency , the Russian "troll factory" from St. Petersburg, did. The fake personas it established on Facebook promoted IRA created clickbait content like puppy picture pages that was then marketed to sell advertisements .
The profit orientated social media giants do not like such third party promotions. They prefer that people pay THEM to promote their content. Selling advertisements is Facebook's business. Promotional accounts on its own platform are competition.
The anti-Russian mania in U.S. politics gives social media companies a welcome excuse to clamp down on promotional schemes for sites like Liberty Front Press by claiming that these are disinformation campaigns run by the U.S. enemy of the day .
Yesterday Facebook announced that it deleted a number of user accounts for "inauthentic behavior":We've removed 652 Pages, groups and accounts for coordinated inauthentic behavior that originated in Iran and targeted people across multiple internet services in the Middle East, Latin America, UK and US. FireEye, a cybersecurity firm, gave us a tip in July about "Liberty Front Press," a network of Facebook Pages as well as accounts on other online services.The FireEye report Facebook acted on notes:
We are able to link this network to Iranian state media through publicly available website registration information, as well as the use of related IP addresses and Facebook Pages sharing the same admins. For example, one part of the network, "Quest 4 Truth," claims to be an independent Iranian media organization, but is in fact linked to Press TV, an English-language news network affiliated with Iranian state media.FireEye has identified a suspected influence operation that appears to originate from Iran aimed at audiences in the U.S., U.K., Latin America, and the Middle East. This operation is leveraging a network of inauthentic news sites and clusters of associated accounts across multiple social media platforms to promote political narratives in line with Iranian interests. These narratives include anti-Saudi, anti-Israeli, and pro-Palestinian themes, as well as support for specific U.S. policies favorable to Iran, such as the U.S.-Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) .
Based on an investigation by FireEye Intelligence's Information Operations analysis team, we assess with moderate confidence that this activity originates from Iranian actors.
The evidence FireEye presents is quite thin. The purpose of its inquest and report is obviously self-promotion.
Moon of Alabama is also promoting anti-Saudi , anti-Israeli , and pro-Palestinian themes. It supports the JCPOA deal. This is, according to FireEye, "in line with Iranian interests". It may well be. But does that make Moon of Alabama a "suspected influence operation"? Is it an "inauthentic news site"?
Is the @MoonofA Twitter account showing "coordinated inauthentic behavior" when it promotes the pieces presented on this site? We, by the way, assess with high confidence that that this activity originates from a German actor. Is that a reason to shut it down?
Who will shut down the tons of "inauthentic" accounts U.S. spies , the British military and Israeli propaganda organisations run?
Here is another high confidence tip for FireEye. There is proof, and even an admission of guilt, that a hostile government financed broadcasting organization is creating inauthentic Facebook accounts to disseminate disinformation. These narratives include anti-Russian, anti-Syrian, and pro-Saudi views, as well as support for specific U.S. policies favorable to Israel, such as its financing of the anti-Iranian headscarf campaign .
This year the U.S. government run Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) will spend more than $23 million for its Office of Cuba Broadcasting (OCB). OCB administers Radio and Television (TV) Martí programs directed at the Cuban public. In its 2019 budget request to Congress (pdf) the BBG admits that it creates inauthentic Facebook accounts to increase the distribution of its dreck:In FY 2018, OCB is establishing on island digital teams to create non-branded local Facebook accounts to disseminate information . Native pages increase the chances of appearing on Cuban Facebook users newsfeeds. The same strategy will be replicated on other preferred social media networks.
How is this different from what the PressTV may have done? When will Facebook shut those inauthentic BBG accounts down?
h/t to Left I on the News
jo6pac , Aug 22, 2018 1:31:58 PM | 1The truth hurts the 1%librul , Aug 22, 2018 1:48:13 PM | 2
Thanks bChipnik , Aug 22, 2018 1:50:52 PM | 4
Before most of us had ever heard of "Putin's Chef", the Pentagon was bragging publicly that it was using Facebook click-bait for propaganda.
https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2017/09/analysts-are-quitting-state-departments-anti-propaganda-team/140936/At the Defense One Summit last November , former GEC director Michael Lumpkin [GEC, Pentagon propaganda department] described how the Center was using the data it received as a Facebook advertiser to maximize the effectiveness of its own targeted appeals.
"Using Facebook ads, I can go within Facebook, I can go grab an audience, I can pick Country X, I need age group 13 to 34, I need people who have liked -- whether it's Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi or any other set -- I can shoot and hit them directly with messaging," Lumpkin said. He emphasized that with the right data, effective message targeting could be done for "pennies a click."Ironically, when I created a FB page hangout for my foreign students to disseminate topical educational materials that were freely available as PDF links, or free 'loss-leader' lessons from for-profits, or Khan Academy free lesson links ... in other words, organizing a docent-guided free education feed for terribly poor 3W students ...Ianovskii , Aug 22, 2018 2:16:03 PM | 5
FB informed me that this was an 'illegal' business activity, lol. They shut it down with *zero* warning. One moment it was a beautiful colorful uplifting education resource, the next it was burnt to ashes. 404.
ATM, on an Anony FB page I launched to reconnect with my students, after a couple ill-advised comments to their thread posts, discussing what's *really* going on in the world, FB has blocked any posts that I might want to make. They just never show up when I hit enter. Like training a bad puppy, lol. All FB lets me do is 'like' or emoji or 'wave' to my students, so it's a semaphore that I still exist, even in FB lockup.
But I think I'll stop. It's bread-crumbing them to FBs candy-cane house and the boiling cauldron that awaits. Frog in a Pot!Regarding 4:Bart Hansen , Aug 22, 2018 2:30:32 PM | 7
Chipnik, Open a VK account and invite your students! No more censorship!"...we assess with moderate confidence that this activity originates from Iranian actors." Jeez, can't they at least produce a "highly likely" for us? On the intelligence community's confidence scale, "moderate" has to be just above "wishful" and "doubtful"fastfreddy , Aug 22, 2018 2:32:46 PM | 8One of the tricks of corporate propaganda: Often, when exposed to capitalist propaganda, a socialist gets the impression that he can have the best of both worlds! - the perceived benefits of capitalism as he keeps his beloved social benefits.Zanon , Aug 22, 2018 2:45:53 PM | 9
It isn't until some time after the bmobing has stopped, that he realizes that he has lost ALL his former social benefits and what he has thereafter is hard capitalism and no money.Well this surely shows that Facebook/Twitter is run through the help of US/Western intelligence. Only way is to fight back or you will eventually have fines and end up in jail for thoughtcrimes.ben , Aug 22, 2018 2:47:13 PM | 10
This site and us here commenting is of course already targeted by these scums, besides, sites like this will certainly be shut down sooner or later.
Remember Facebook also attacked Venezuela recently, "Why Did Facebook Purge TeleSUR English?"TeleSUR English is a rare voice of dissent to US foreign policy. Is that why Facebook deleted its page?https://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/Why-Did-Facebook-Purge-TeleSUR-English-20180816-0016.htmlSorry, but, if you let any opinion on Facebook or Twitter sway your politics, you're an idiot. At the very least, naive to a fault.Zanon , Aug 22, 2018 2:49:46 PM | 11
Claqueurs is a new word for me b, thanks for the education.benjames , Aug 22, 2018 3:20:48 PM | 12
Its not facebook itself this is about but views, freedom of speech itself - that is what being attacked.b.. thanks... your first paragraph giving context to how the public was swayed going back close to 200 years ago was very interesting..karlof1 , Aug 22, 2018 3:31:39 PM | 14
The usa gov't has something to sell and something to buy.. fireEye, google, yahoo, facebook and so many other tech companies are all in a few miles radius of one another in San Jose area of California.. If Russia was to bomb somewhere in the usa - that would be one good place to start!
They are all selling to the usa gov't at this point... the usa devotes so much to propaganda and these corps all try to peddle the needed tools to keep the fearmongering going, when they're not snooping of course! hey - they can do both - snoop and sell!!Long ago before the Hydrocarbon Epoch, the Broadsheet was your typical newscast assembled by the local printer who was often reporter and editor, and even in small towns there was competition, with readers of news gathering in coffee shops to discuss their contents. The vociferousness of many publications was extreme, but as Jefferson observed in the 1790s, easily disproved hyperbole was far more desirable than censorship -- people were deemed capable of determining a publication's veracity for themselves and thus their success or failure would be determined by the marketplace of ideas.AriusArmenian , Aug 22, 2018 4:30:10 PM | 15
In the battles over ideas, printing presses were often targeted for destruction so ideas could be restricted -- what's happening with Twitter and Facebook is merely an updated version of such repression. With the advent of the personal computer and internet, ease of publishing exploded, which presented elites determined to control the overall discourse with a huge problem they are still grappling with. One of the aims of the Independent Media Center on its founding in 1999 was to turn every activist into a reporter and every computer into a printing press with contents published collectively at regional Media Centers. Unfortunately, after a promising first several years, the nascent movement failed and remains in dormancy, being mostly replaced by personal blogs.
Blogs today represent yesterday's broadsheets, and by using social media, they can increase their exposure to a wider audience. Thus, social media represents a point-of-control for those trying to shape/frame discourse/content. They may be private companies, but they interact with public discourse and ought to be subjected to Free Speech controls like the USA's 1st Amendment.Very many hi-tech companies in the US are working with the CIA. Such as Oracle that has an office on the east coast of the US that keeps a very low profile inside the company. In fact the first contract that launched the company was a contract with the CIA to implement the IBM SQL standard. I shouldn't have to explain to anyone here why the CIA would use a relational database (have to keep all those subversive secret ops in order). Similar connection to CIA for Google, Facebook, Symantec, etc.karlof1 , Aug 22, 2018 5:13:35 PM | 17
If you are using US software (very likely) then assume CIA and NSA back-doors. Some solutions are to use Linux and VPNs, and Yandex for cloud storage. Get away from US software.Robert Bridge provides us with a timely written article dealing with the issue at hand: "And if US intel is in bed with Hollywood you can be damn sure they're spending time in the MSM whorehouse as well."karlof1 , Aug 22, 2018 5:28:53 PM | 18Sorry, should have included this in 17. As many know, Caitlin Johnstone, a Truth Seeker par excellence, has also been censored, but prior to that wrote this essay on the subject at hand, which is all about manufacturing consent as she sees it:fast freddy , Aug 22, 2018 5:53:49 PM | 20
"This is a setup. Hit the soft target so your oligarch-friendly censorship doesn't look like what it is, then once you've manufactured consent, go on to shut down the rest of dissenting media bit by bit."
This is a US government ordered setup supported by the evidence she presents in her intro, but not by Trump!IMHO, it would be foolish to presume that the CIA would simply discontinue and to walk away from (as it claims!) a program like Operation Mockingbird. Government agencies have famously infiltrated the Quakers (ferchrissakes!). Facebook was funded and developed by a CIA front shop. Zuckerburg is a dopey kid and a frontispiece.Pft , Aug 22, 2018 7:06:53 PM | 22The danger of course is when people start to conclude that any media site permitted by FB or SM is Sanctioned by the Propaganda department of the Ministry of Truth and ignored. Then these few truthful media sites that are unbanned will need to beg these social media giants to ban them so as to restablish credibility. FB and SM will then need to ban a few controlled MSM sites so people will believe they are credible and read the propagandakarlof1 , Aug 22, 2018 7:13:05 PM | 23
I guess we are not there yet, or are we? I do not use FB or other SM for news or anything else, although I do occasionally click on links to them from a web page, but I guess a lot of people do. Maybe that will change.The battle over Net Neutrality is related to this. Recently, Verizon blackmailed a California fire department engaged in fighting the state's largest ever wildfire by throttling its data feed thus threatening public safety for a Few Dollars More.Curtis , Aug 22, 2018 7:21:01 PM | 24
Trump would be hailed a savior if he were to morph into President Taft and Bust the Trusts like BigLie Media, its allied telecoms and social media corps.Claqueurs. One of the earliest versions of the annoying "laugh track" used in television. Like Ben 10, I learned something new today.pB , Aug 22, 2018 8:41:56 PM | 25
As to a lack authenticity, what about the tweets from outside Egypt pushing and reporting on the "Arab Spring" protests there. We have other examples of "inauthentic" social messaging on other agendas pushed like Syria. What about "A Gay Girl in Damascus?"
As usual, thanks for pointing out the hypocrisy of US govt/media.who still uses facebook? The only people i know who still are active users are senior citizens.
Aug 15, 2018 | gravatar.com
Warren , August 11, 2018 at 8:18 pmkirill says: August 11, 2018 at 8:59 pm
Published on 11 Aug 2018
From Alex Jones to alleged Russian trolls, major internet companies are increasingly policing content on their platforms. Max Blumenthal of the Grayzone Project says the partnership between Facebook and the Atlantic Council highlights "the merger of the national security state and Silicon Valley."
TheRealNews, Published on 11 Aug 2018
Russiagate has deepened the partnership between Washington and Silicon Valley, and leftist websites are among the first casualties. After falsely accusing an anti-white supremacist rally event page of being a fake, Facebook shut down the page of VenezuelaAnalysis.com for several hours without explanation. We speak to VA founder and TRNN host Greg Wilpert, as well as the Grayzone Project's Max BlumenthalWestern "freedom" of expression in action. I find it interesting how the voices of a few heretics are supposedly some big threat to NATzO. That would indicate that NATzO is not quite the bastion of democracy it paints itself to be. It is unstable because it is based on lies and heretics can initiate the crashing of the facade. But if this is indeed the case, then NATzO is on its way out since no amount of repression of dissidents will change the fundamental inconsistency of its existence.
Mark Chapman says: August 12, 2018 at 9:41 amAmerica has a real problem here with accomplishing its goals – which it is obviously achieving, the silencing of legitimate dissent and the prioritization of the national-security narrative – while simultaneously advertising itself as the center of what the evildoers hate for its freedoms.
Americans, and everyone who uses their services, are increasingly regulated in everything they do and say, extending now to what you are allowed to see and hear. Actual freedom is dwindling away to a pinpoint, and what the government wants every election cycle is more cops, more law and order and more security.
Aug 11, 2018 | www.nytimes.com
I was surprised by the reactions (good and bad) to the column. Some readers were sarcastic. Not having access to Google, Facebook or Twitter? "Lucky them!" wrote one Facebook user. "They have not missed anything important!" said another.
... ... ...
In other news this week:
Li Yuan is the Asia tech columnist for The Times. She previously reported on China technology for The Wall Street Journal. You can follow her on Twitter here: @LiYuan6.
Aug 07, 2018 | www.cnn.com
Actually there were a couple of moments in this dog and pony show where truth surfaced ;-)Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg told lawmakers today that his company has a counterterrorism team.
The team is comprised of 200 people, who he said are just focused on counterterrorism. Zuckerberg said content reviewers also go over flagged information.
"I think we have capacity in 30 languages that we are working on and in addition to that, we have a number of AI tools that we are developing like the one's that I mentioned that can proactively go flag the content," he said in response to a question from Rep. Susan Brooks of Indiana.
She asked Zuckerberg how the team stops terrorist groups from recruiting and communicating.
He said the team first identifies those groups' patterns of communicating. They then design systems that proactively flag the messaging, so those accounts could be removed.
The company outlined its counterterrorism approach in 2017 in a blog post , where it said that the team included "academic experts on counterterrorism, former prosecutors, former law enforcement agents and analysts, and engineers."
Aug 06, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,
I wrote just one post last week and it centered around the dangers posed to society by U.S. tech giants . I specifically called out Facebook, pointing out how company executives are currently groveling to politicians in order to prevent legislation that might deem it a monopoly and curtail its power.
I explained how U.S. politicians prefer to use the power and reach of tech giants for their own ends rather than take them down a notch. Politicians aren't at all concerned about the outsized influence of centralized tech behemoths engineering society using secret algorithms, they just want to be in control of how this power is abused.
Meanwhile, today's biggest news is the uniform move by three U.S. tech giants to de-platform Alex Jones and his Infowars website. The main companies involved are Apple, Facebook and Google (via YouTube), as reported in The Guardian :
All but one of the major content platforms have banned the American conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, as the companies raced to act in the wake of Apple's decision to remove five podcasts by Jones and his Infowars website.
Facebook unpublished four pages run by Jones for "repeated violations of community standards", the company said on Monday. YouTube terminated Jones's account over him repeatedly appearing in videos despite being subject to a 90-day ban from the website, and Spotify removed the entirety of one of Jones's podcasts for "hate content"
Facebook's and YouTube's enforcement action against Jones came hours after Apple removed Jones from its podcast directory. The timing of Facebook's announcement was unusual, with the company confirming the ban at 3am local time.
Put aside what you think of Alex Jones for a moment. If they can do this to him and not fear the repercussions, they can do it to anybody. This is about power, and these platforms together account for a massive share of content distribution in the U.S. Ultimately, this is just a particularly muscular and in your face example of what's known as Silicon Valley's cultural imperialism .
I know a lot of people think the answer is to get Congress to do something, as if those monumentally corrupt donor puppets have any interest in helping the public.
... ... ...
I'd also like to point out that Facebook's stock was up over 4% today, completely shrugging off any potential backlash from users. Executives assume its users are all addled junkies unwilling to give up convenience and their addiction no matter what the company does. Are they right?
Speaking of which, on the same day the move against Jones was announced we learn Facebook is in talks with mega banks to get your financial information.
From The Wall Street Journal :
Facebook Inc.wants your financial data.
The social media giant has asked large U.S. banks to share detailed financial information about their customers, including card transactions and checking account balances, as part of an effort to offer new services to users.
Facebook increasingly wants to be a platform where people buy and sell goods and services, besides connecting with friends. The company over the past year asked JPMorgan Chase & Co., Wells Fargo & Co., Citigroup Inc. and U.S. Bancorp to discuss potential offerings it could host for bank customers on Facebook Messenger, said people familiar with the matter.
Facebook executives don't actually care about anything besides their profits and power, so the only way you can take any individual action against the company is to delete your account. I haven't engaged with Facebook since 2012, so permanently deleting it wasn't a personal sacrifice, but I did it anyway earlier today.
... ... ...
Don't wait for other people to change things for you, stop whining and take some individual responsibility. If you agree that Facebook's primarily a nefarious narcissism-factory wasteland masquerading as a platform just delete it... before it deletes you.
* * *
If you liked this article and enjoy my work, consider becoming a monthly Patron , or visit the Support Page to show your appreciation for independent content creators.
Aug 03, 2018 | ronpaulinstitute.org
The Bizarre Facebook Path to Corporate Fascism Written by Glen Ford Friday August 3, 2018
"The Facebook intervention is a qualitative escalation of the McCarthyite offensive."
Facebook has assumed additional political police powers, disrupting a planned counter-demonstration against white supremacists, set for August 12th in Washington, on the grounds that it was initiated and inspired by "Russians" as part of a Kremlin campaign to "sow dissention" in the US. The Facebook intervention is a qualitative escalation of the McCarthyite offensive launched by the Democrat Party and elements of the national security state, and backed by most of the corporate media, initially to blame Hillary Clinton's 2016 defeat on "collusion" between Wikileaks, "the Russians" and the Trump campaign to steal and publicize embarrassing Clinton campaign emails.
After failing to produce one shred of hard evidence to support their conspiracy theory, the anti-Russia hysteria mongers switched gears, focusing on the alleged purchase of about $100,000 in Facebook ads by the Internet Research Agency (IRA), a St. Petersburg-based Russian company, over a multi-year period. The problem was, most of the ads had no direct connection to the presidential contest, or were posted after the election was over, and many had no political content, at all. The messages were all over the place, politically, with the alleged Russian operatives posing as Christian activists, pro- and anti-immigration activists, and supporters of the Black Lives Matter Movement. Special prosecutor Robert Mueller was forced to flip the script, indicting 13 Russians for promoting general "discord" and undermining "public confidence in democracy" in the United States – thus creating a political crime that has not previously been codified in the United States.
"Mueller was forced to flip the script."
In doubling down on an unraveling conspiracy tale, the Mueller probe empowered itself to tar and feather all controversial speech that can be associated with utterances by "Russians," even if the alleged "Russians" are, in fact, mimicking the normal speech of left- or right-wing Americans -- a descent, not into Orwell's world, but that of Kafka (Beyond the Law) and Heller (Catch-22).
Facebook this week announced that it had taken down 32 pages and accounts that had engaged in "coordinated and inauthentic behavior" in promoting the August 12 counter-demonstration against the same white supremacists that staged the fatal "Unite the Right" demonstrations in Charlottesville, Virginia, a year ago. Hundreds of anti-racists had indicated their intention to rally against "Unite the Right 2.0" under the banner of Shut It Down DC, which includes D.C. Antifascist Collective, Black Lives Matter D.C., Hoods4Justice, Resist This, and other local groups.
Facebook did not contend that these anti-racists' behavior was "inauthentic," but that the first ad for the event was purchased by a group calling itself "Resisters" that Facebook believes were behaving much like the Internet Research Agency. "At this point in our investigation, we do not have enough technical evidence to state definitively who is behind it," said Nathaniel Gleicher, Facebook's head of cybersecurity policy . "But we can say that these accounts engaged in some similar activity and have connected with known I.R.A accounts."
"The Mueller probe empowered itself to tar and feather all controversial speech that can be associated with utterances by 'Russians,' even if the alleged 'Russians' are, in fact, mimicking the normal speech of left- or right-wing Americans."
Chelsea Manning, whose prison sentence for sending secret documents to Wikileaks was commuted by President Obama, said the counter-protest was "organic and authentic"and that activists had begun organizing several months ago. "Folks from D.C. and Charlottesville have been talking about this since at least February," Manning told The New York Times.
"This was a legitimate Facebook event that was being organized by Washington, DC locals," says Dylan Petrohilos , of Resist This. Petrohilos was one of the defendants in the Trump inauguration "riot" prosecutions. He protested Facebook's disruption of legitimate free speech and assembly. "DC organizers had controlled the messaging on the no UTR fb page and now FB made it harder for grassroots people to organize," he tweeted. The organizers insist the August 12 counter-demonstration -- "No Unite the Right 2 – DC" -- is still a go, as is the white supremacist rally.
Whoever was first to buy a Facebook ad – the suspected Russian "Resisters," or Workers Against Racism, who told the Daily Beast they decided to host their own anti-"Unite the Right 2.0" event because they thought "Resisters" was an "inexperienced liberal organizer" – there was no doubt whatsoever that the white supremacists would be confronted by much larger numbers of counter-demonstrators, in Washington. Nobody in Russia needed to tell US anti-racists to shut the white supremacists down, or vice versa. The Russians didn't invent American white supremacy, or the native opposition to it. Even if Mueller, Facebook, the Democratic Party and the howling corporate media mob are to be believed, the "Russians" are simply mimicking US political rhetoric and sloganeering – and weakly, at that. The Workers Against Racism thought the "Resisters" weren't worth partnering with, but that the racist rally must be countered. The Shut It Down DC coalition didn't need the "Resisters" to crystallize their thinking on white supremacism.
"Chelsea Manning said the counter-protest was 'organic and authentic."
The Democratic Party and corporate media, speaking for most of the US ruling class – and actually bullying one of its top oligarchs, Mark Zuckerberg – is on its own bizarre and twisted road to fascism. (Donald Trump's proto-fascism is the old fashioned, all-American type that the white supremacists want to celebrate on August 12.) With former FBI Director Robert Mueller at the head of the pack, they have created a pseudo legal doctrine whereby "Russians" (or US spooks pretending to be Russians) can be indicted for launching a #MeToo campaign of mimicry, echoing the rhetoric and memes indigenous to US political struggles, while the genuine, "authentic" American political voices – the people who are being mimicked – are labeled co-conspirators in a foreign-based "plot," and their rights to speech and assembly are trashed.
That's truly crazy, but devilishly clever, too. If "Russian" mimics (or cloaked spooks) can reproduce the vocabulary and political program of US dissent, then all of us actual US lefties can be dismissed as "dupes of the Russians" or "co-conspirators" in the speech crimes of our mimics -- for sounding like ourselves.
Reprinted with permission from the Black Agenda Report .
Aug 01, 2018 | www.democracynow.org
...We speak with Siva Vaidhyanathan, author of "Antisocial Media: How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy." He is a professor of media studies and director of the Center for Media and Citizenship at the University of Virginia.AMY GOODMAN : Facebook has been at the center of a number of controversies in the United States and abroad. Earlier this year, Facebook removed more than 270 accounts it determined to be created by the Russia-controlled Internet Research Agency. Facebook made that move in early April, just days before founder and CEO Mark Zuckeberg was question on Capitol Hill about how the voter-profiling company Cambridge Analytica harvested data from more than 87 million Facebook users without their permission in efforts to sway voters to support President Donald Trump. Zuckerberg repeatedly apologized for his company's actions then.
MARK ZUCKERBERG : We didn't take a broad enough view of our responsibility, and that was a big mistake. And it was my mistake, and I'm sorry. I started Facebook, I run it, and I'm responsible for what happens here.
AMY GOODMAN : Today we spend the hour with a leading critic of Facebook, Siva Vaidhyanathan, author of Antisocial Media: How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy . He's professor of media studies and director of the Center for Media and Citizenship at the University of Virginia. We're speaking to him in Charlottesville.
Professor, welcome to Democracy Now!
SIVA VAIDHYANATHAN : Oh, thanks. It's good to be here.
AMY GOODMAN : Well, let's begin with this latest news. There are hearings today that the Senate Intelligence Committee is holding, and yesterday Facebook removed these -- well, a bunch of pages, saying they don't know if it's Russian trolls, but they think they are inauthentic. Talk about these pages, what they mean, what research is being done and your concerns.
... ... ...
SIVA VAIDHYANATHAN : Yeah. Look, Cambridge Analytica was a great story, right? It finally brought to public attention the fact that for more than five years Facebook had encouraged application developers to get maximal access to Facebook data, to personal data and activity, not just from the people who volunteered to be watched by these app developers, but all of their friends -- right? -- which nobody really understood except Facebook itself and the application developers. So, thousands of application developers got almost full access to millions of Facebook users for five years. This was basic Facebook policy. This line was lost in the storm over Cambridge Analytica.
...You know, Steve Bannon helped run the company for a while. It's paid for by Robert Mercer, you know, one of the more evil hedge fund managers in the United States. You know, it had worked for Cruz, for Ted Cruz's campaign, and then for the Brexit campaign and also for Donald Trump's campaign in 2016. So it's really easy to look at Cambridge Analytica and think of it as this dramatic story, this one-off. But the fact is, Cambridge Analytica is kind of a joke. It didn't actually accomplish anything. It pushed this weird psychometric model for voter behavior prediction, which no one believes works.
And the fact is, the Trump campaign, the Ted Cruz campaign, and, before that, the Duterte campaign in the Philippines, the Modi campaign in India, they all used Facebook itself to target voters, either to persuade them to vote or dissuade them from voting. Right? This was the basic campaign, because the Facebook advertising platform allows you to target people quite precisely, in groups as small as 20. You can base it on ethnicity and on gender, on interest, on education level, on ZIP code or other location markers. You can base it on people who are interested in certain hobbies, who read certain kinds of books, who have certain professional backgrounds. You can slice and dice an audience so precisely. It's the reason that Facebook makes as much money as it does, because if you're selling shoes, you would be a fool not to buy an ad on Facebook, right? And that's drawing all of this money away from commercially based media and journalism. At the same time, it's enriching Facebook. But political actors have figured out how to use this quite deftly.AMY GOODMAN : "Every Breath You Take" by The Police. This is Democracy Now! , democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report . We're spending the hour with professor Siva Vaidhyanathan, who is author of Antisocial Media: How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy . He's speaking to us from Charlottesville, from the University of Virginia, professor of media studies and head of the Center for Media and Citizenship at UVA . Your book, Antisocial Media: How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy .
I want to go back to the beginning of this interview, where we talked about Facebook taking down more than 30 pages, saying that they are not authentic. We immediately got responses from all over saying the protest against the Unite the Right rally in Washington, D.C., in August, around the anniversary of the attacks at your university, University of Virginia, are real. These protests against Unite the Right are real. So, this goes to a very important issue, Professor, that you now have Facebook, this corporation, deciding what we see and what we don't see. It's almost as if they run the telephone company and they're listening to what we say and deciding what to edit, even if some of the stuff is absolutely heinous that people are talking to each other about -- the idea of this multinational corporation becoming the publisher and seen as that and determining what gets out. So, yes, there's a protest against Unite the Right. That is very real. They've taken down one page, that might not have been real, organizing the protest against Unite the Right. And the Unite the Right rally is supposed to be happening. What, for example, would happen if there was a protest against Facebook, Siva?
SIVA VAIDHYANATHAN : Yeah, you can't use Facebook to protest against Facebook, by the way. You can't even use Facebook to advertise a book about Facebook, for actually one --
AMY GOODMAN : What do you mean?
SIVA VAIDHYANATHAN : Well, they will not allow a group or a page or an advertisement to contain the word "Facebook." And it's not just to insulate themselves from criticism. That is a nice bonus for them. But it's really because they don't want any sort of implication that the company itself is endorsing any group or page or product. So, the use of the word -- look, the only way Facebook operates is algorithmically, right? It has machines make very blunt decisions. So the very presence of the word "Facebook" will knock a group down or knock a page down. And so you can't use Facebook to criticize Facebook, not very effectively.
AMY GOODMAN : So what about your book, which has the word "Facebook" in it?
SIVA VAIDHYANATHAN : Right. I can't -- I can't buy ads on Facebook about it. But that's OK. I think I'll do OK.
... ... ...
But in addition, Facebook has the ability to get hijacked, because what it promotes mostly are items that generate strong emotions. What generates strong emotions? Well, content that is cute or lovely, like puppies and baby goats, but also content that is extreme, content that is angry, content that is hateful, content that feeds conspiracy theories. And this hateful, angry conspiracy theory collection doesn't just spread because people like it. In fact, it, more often than not, spreads because people have problems with it. If I were to post some wacky conspiracy theory on my Facebook page today, nine out of 10 of the comments that would follow it would be friends of mine arguing against me, telling me how stupid I was for posting this. The very act of commenting on that post amplifies its reach, puts it on more people's news feeds, makes it last longer, sit higher. Right? So the very act of arguing against the crazy amplifies the crazy. It's one of the reasons that Facebook is a terrible place to deliberate about the world. It's a really effective place if you want to motivate people toward all sorts of ends, like getting out to a rally. But it's terrible if you actually want to think and discuss and deliberate about the problems in the world. And what the world needs now more than anything are more opportunities to deliberate calmly and effectively and with real information. And Facebook is working completely against that goal.
by around 2002, Google figured out how to target ads quite effectively based on the search terms that you had used. By about 2007, Facebook was starting to build ads into its platform, as well. And because it had so much more rich information on our interests and our connections and our habits, and even, once we put Facebook on our mobile phones, our location -- it could trace us to whatever store we went into, whatever church or synagogue or mosque we went into; it could know everything about us -- at that point, targeting ads became incredibly efficient and effective. That's what drove the massive revenues for both Facebook and Google. That's why Facebook and Google have all the advertising money these days, right? It's why the traditional public sphere is so impoverished, why it's so hard to pay reporters a living wage these days, because Facebook and Google is taking all that money -- are taking all that money, because they developed something better than the display ad of a newspaper or magazine, frankly. But there was just no holding back on that. As a result, once Facebook goes big, once Twitter emerges around 2009, you start seeing --
... ... ...Right now, there are 220 million Americans who regularly use Facebook. That's pretty flat. But there are 250 million people in India who regularly use Facebook, so more than in the United States. And that's only a quarter of the population of India. So, not only is the future of Facebook in India, the present of Facebook is in India. So let's keep that in mind. This is a global phenomenon. The United States matters less and less every day.
Yet the United States Congress has inordinate power over Facebook. The fact that its headquarters is here, for one thing. The fact that the major stock markets of the world pay strong attention to what goes on in our country, right? So we have the ability, if we cared to, to break up Facebook. We would have to revive an older vision of antitrust, one that takes the overall health of the body politic seriously, not just the price to consumers seriously. But we could and should break up Facebook. We never should have -- excuse me -- allowed Facebook to purchase WhatsApp. We should never have allowed Facebook to purchase Instagram. Those are two of the potential competitors to Facebook. If those two companies existed separately from Facebook and the data were not shared among the user files with Facebook, there might be a chance that market forces could curb the excesses of Facebook. That didn't happen. We really should sever those parts. We should also sever the virtual reality project of Facebook, which is called Oculus Rift. Virtual reality has the potential to work its way into all sorts of areas of life, from pilot training to surgeon training to pornography. In all of these ways -- to shopping -- right? -- to tourism. In all of these ways, we should be very concerned that Facebook itself is likely to control all of the data about one of the more successful and leading virtual reality companies in the world. That's a problem. Again, we should spin that off. But we should also limit what Facebook can do with its data. We should have strong data protection laws in this country, in Canada, in Australia, in Brazil, in India, to allow users to know when their data is being used and misused and sold.
Those are necessary but, I'm afraid, insufficient legislative and regulatory interventions. Ultimately, we are going to have to put Facebook in its place and in a box. We are going to have to recognize, first of all, that Facebook brings real value to people around the world. Right? There are not 2.2 billion fools using Facebook. There are 2.2 billion people using Facebook because it brings something of value to their lives, often those puppy pictures or news of a cousin's kid graduating from high school, right? Those are important things. They are not to be dismissed. There are also places in the world where Facebook is the entire media system, or at least the entire internet, places like sub-Saharan Africa, places like Myanmar, places like Sri Lanka, and increasingly in India, Facebook is everything. And we can't dismiss that, as well. And so, we are -- AMY GOODMAN : Well, I mean, the government works with Facebook. For example, you talk about --
SIVA VAIDHYANATHAN : Absolutely.
AMY GOODMAN : -- Myanmar, Burma. It's more expensive to get internet on your phone if you're trying to access a site outside of Facebook.
SIVA VAIDHYANATHAN : That's right.
AMY GOODMAN : It's free to use Facebook services on your phone.
SIVA VAIDHYANATHAN : Right, Facebook -- use of Facebook does not count against your data cap in Myanmar and in about 40 other countries around the world, the poorest countries in the world. So, the poorest places in the world are becoming Facebook-dependent at a rapid rate. This was -- Facebook put this plan forward as a philanthropic arm. And one could look at it cynically and say, "Well, you were just trying to build Facebook customers." But the people who run Facebook are true believers that the more people use Facebook for more hours a day, the better humanity will be. I think we've shown otherwise. I know my book shows otherwise. And I think we've built -- we've allowed Facebook to build this terrible monster that is taking great advantage of the people who are most vulnerable. And it's one reason I think we should pay less attention to what's going on.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, but, Professor Vaidhyanathan, I think also, though, the importance of your book is that while you concentrate on Facebook, you make the point over and over again that it's not just Facebook. I think in the conclusion to your book -- I want to read a section where you talk about technopoly. And you say, "Between Google and Facebook we have witnessed a global concentration of wealth and power not seen since the British and Dutch East India Companies ruled vast territories, millions of people, and the most valuable trade routes." And then you go on to say, "Like the East India Companies, they excuse their zeal and umbrage around the world by appealing to the missionary spirit: they are, after all, making the world better, right? They did all this by inviting us in, tricking us into allowing them to make us their means to wealth and power, distilling our activities and identities into data, and launching a major ideological movement" -- what Neil Postman, the famous NYU critic, called technopoly. And then you go on to say, "'Technopoly is a state of culture. It is also a state of mind. It consists of the deification of technology, which means that the culture seeks its authorization in technology, finds its satisfactions in technology, and takes its orders from technology.'" You could say this about Uber, about Airbnb, about all these folks that are saying that data and technology will save the world.
SIVA VAIDHYANATHAN : That's right. It's a false religion. And what we really need is to rehumanize ourselves. That is the long, hard work. So, I can propose a few regulatory interventions, and they would make a difference, but not enough of a difference. Fundamentally, we have to break ourselves out of this habit of techno-fundamentalism -- trying to come up with a technological solution to make up for the damage done by the previous technology. It's a very bad habit. It doesn't get us anywhere. If we really want to limit the damage that Facebook has done, we have to invest our time and our money in institutions that help us think, that help us think clearly, that can certify truth, that can host debate -- right? -- institutions like journalism, institutions like universities, public libraries, schools, other forms of public forums, town halls. We need to put our time and our energy into face-to-face politics, so we can look our opponents in the eye and recognize them as humans, and perhaps achieve some sort of rapprochement or mutual understanding and respect. Without that, we have no hope. If we're engaging with people only through the smallest of screens, we have no ability to recognize the humanity in each other and no ability to think clearly. We cannot think collectively. We cannot think truthfully. We can't think. We need to build -- rebuild, if we ever had it, our ability to think. That's ultimately the takeaway of my book. I hope we can figure out better, richer ways to think. We're not getting rid of Facebook. We're going to be with it -- we're going to have it for a long time. We might even learn to use it better, and we might rein it in a little better. But, ultimately, the big job is to train ourselves to think better.
AMY GOODMAN : So, Siva, let me ask you about WeChat in China. I mean, WeChat is everything there. It's Yelp, PayPal, Google, Instagram, Facebook, all rolled into one. You write, "With almost a billion users, WeChat has infused itself into their lives in ways Facebook wishes it could."
... ... ...SIVA VAIDHYANATHAN : The other part of their long-term strategy is, Mark Zuckerberg wants to get into the Chinese market. That is the one place in the world where he can't do business effectively. He would love to take on WeChat directly. But here's the big difference. WeChat, like every other application or software platform in the People's Republic of China answers to the People's Republic of China. There is constant, full surveillance by the government. WeChat cannot operate without that. Facebook seems to be willing to negotiate on that point. If Facebook became more like WeChat, it's very likely that around the world it would have to cut very strong agreements with governments around the world that would allow for maybe not Chinese level of surveillance, but certainly a dangerous level of surveillance and licensing. And so, again, we might not sweat that in the United States or in Western Europe, where we still have some basic civil liberties -- at least most of us do -- but people in Turkey, people in Egypt, people in India should be very worried about that trend.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: What about the issue, that's been much publicized, of the role of Facebook and Twitter and other social media in protest movements, in dissident movements around the world, whether it's in Egypt during the Tahrir Square protests or other parts of the world?
SIVA VAIDHYANATHAN : I think one of the great tragedies of this story is that we were misled into thinking that social media played a direct and motivating role in the uprisings in 2011. In fact, almost nobody in Egypt used Twitter at the time. The handful of people who did were cosmopolitans who lived in Cairo. And what they did, they used Twitter to inform the rest of the world, especially journalists, what was going on in Egypt. That was an important function, but it wasn't used to organize protests. Neither was Facebook, really, for the simple reason that the government watches Facebook, right? The government watches Twitter. If you want to organize a protest out of the eyes of the government, the worst thing you can do is use Facebook or Twitter in that effort, right? In addition, when we think about the Arab Spring, the alleged Arab Spring, we often focus on --
... ... ...AMY GOODMAN : The Guardian reports today, quote, "A trove of documents released by the city of Memphis late last week appear to show that its police department has been systematically using fake social media profiles to surveil local Black Lives Matter activists, and that it kept dossiers and detailed power point presentations on dozens of Memphis-area activists along with lists of their known associates." The report reveals a fake Memphis Police Department Facebook profile named "Bob Smith" was used to join private groups and pose as an activist. We have just 30 seconds, Siva.
SIVA VAIDHYANATHAN : Yeah. Look, any police department, any state security service anywhere in the world that doesn't infiltrate protest groups or, you know, activist groups that way is foolish, right? It's so easy. Facebook makes surveillance so easy.
My friends who do activism, especially human rights activism, in parts of the world that are authoritarian, the first thing they tell people is get off of Facebook. Use other services to coordinate your activities. Right? Use analog services and technologies. Right? Facebook is the worst possible way to stay out of the gaze of the state. It's great for motivating people to get into the street, but don't be surprised if there are a couple guys with crew cuts in the crowd with you.
Jun 27, 2018 | www.wsws.org
The New York Times and Washington Post this week published reports of a private meeting last month between eight major technology and social media corporations and the US intelligence agencies, to discuss their censorship operations in the lead-up to the November 2018 mid-term elections.
The meeting was convened at Facebook's Menlo Park, California, headquarters on May 23, and was attended by representatives from Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Snap, Twitter and Oath, owner of Yahoo! and a subsidiary of the telecommunications giant Verizon, along with agents from the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security.
The Post described the meeting, organized at the request of Facebook, as a "new overture by the technology industry to develop closer ties to law enforcement." Both articles were based on anonymous statements by individuals who attended. One attendee told the Post that the conversation was a "back-and-forth, with both sides talking about how they were thinking about the problem and how we were looking for opportunities to work together."
The meeting is yet another testament to the increasing integration of the technology giants with the US military/intelligence apparatus. These companies, which provide a growing share of the technical infrastructure for the repressive apparatus of the state, increasingly see the censorship of left-wing, anti-war, and progressive viewpoints as an integral part of their business strategy.
... ... ...
May 23, 2018 | failedevolution.blogspot.gr
Facebook is hoping that a new alliance with the Atlantic Council -- a leading geopolitical strategy think-tank seen as a de facto PR agency for the U.S. government and NATO military alliance – will not only solve its "fake news" and "disinformation" controversy, but will also help the social media monolith play "a positive role" in ensuring democracy on a global level.
The new partnership will effectively ensure that Atlantic Council will serve as Facebook's "eyes and ears," according to a company press statement. With its leadership comprised of retired military officers, former policymakers, and top figures from the U.S. National Security State and Western business elites, the Atlantic Council's role policing the social network should be viewed as a virtual takeover of Facebook by the imperialist state and the council's extensive list of ultra-wealthy and corporate donors.
The partnership is only the latest in a steady stream of announced plans by the Menlo Park, California-based company to address controversy surrounding its role in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The company has been mired in scandal stemming from the allegations of "election interference" carried out through the social network – usually pinned on the Russian government and ranging from the use of independent media to the theft of Facebook user data by political consultancy firm Cambridge Analytica.
The announcement should sound alarm bells when one considers the Atlantic Council's list of sponsors – including, but not limited to, war-profiteering defense contractors; agencies aligned with Washington and the Pentagon; Gulf Arab tyrants; major transnational corporations; and such well-loved Western philanthropic brands as Carnegie, Koch, Rockefeller, and Soros. Even the name of the group itself is meant to evoke the North Atlantic Council, the highest political decision-making body of North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Apr 01, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Lambert here: Readers will notice that Auerback seems to assume that Cambridge Analytica's shenanigans with Facebook data shifted votes in 2016 (as do the links to which he cites)*. His post summarizes the political and analytical state of play, but may be usefully read in conjunction with this 2017 post at NC by Marina Bart, who cautioned :
There is no question that modern social media facilitates highly segmented marketing. There is no question that political campaigns can benefit from this. Figuring out who might be receptive to your candidate and their policies, where they vote, and motivating them to go to the polls is fundamental campaign work. But that is not at all the same thing as manipulating people into voting against their interests, which is presumably what is feared (and possibly secretly hoped for) by the fretful Democrats. There is no evidence Cambridge Analytica did any psychological manipulations for Trump.
I'm not saying it's impossible for Big Data highly segmented psychological manipulation to ever work. But it isn't happening now; there's no evidence it will work in the near future; there are many, many obstacles to overcome; and there are two very basic reasons why it cannot be the secret weapon I suspect the Democrats long for.
The most basic one is that voting is not the same as buying stuff . There is no direct connection between casting a vote and getting anything in return, not even the momentary pleasure of buying a candy bar.
(In other words, the current Cambridge Analytical scare is based on a category error.) Of course, from a Wall Street "beauty contest" perspective, what Facebook can actually do may matter less than what people think it can do. From my own perspective, I don't want Facebook's filthy data-gathering proboscis nuzzling my personal affairs at all , regardless of any effect it may have, and that goes for Google, too. Whether I'm an outlier in my revulsion remains to be seen.
NOTE * Indeed, were evidence for this assumption to exist, one would assume it would already have been produced. If it has been, I've missed it, and I do try to keep track.
By Marshall Auerback, a market analyst and commentator. Originally published at Alternet .
Cambridge Analytica's systematic harvesting of Facebook user preferences to create detailed models of voter emotions appears to have played a significant role in the election of Donald Trump and the victory of the "Brexiters" on the referendum on whether the United Kingdom should leave the European Union or not. There is shock and anxiety at the revelations about how a few right-wing ideologues were able to exploit Facebook's database and then use it to justify populist campaigns fronted by publicity hounds of dubious moral and financial principles (Donald Trump, Steve Bannon and Nigel Farage immediately spring to mind).
Whether the Facebook fiasco conclusively proves either Russian involvement in the 2016 election (or the UK's Brexit referendum), or simply highlights the violation of campaign finance laws, is yet to be determined. But what is certainly beyond dispute from the apparently unauthorized use of Facebook's database of some 50 million users is that longstanding Madison Avenue advertising techniques worked equally well when applied to majority voting instead of employee practices or consumer spending. One possible outcome is that centralized repositories like Facebook -- or Google, or Amazon -- could become a ripe target for regulation and/or anti-trust action. Another possibility is that the voluntary participation on which Facebook is built will collapse spontaneously via consumer rejection.
That course of action is currently being advocated by WhatsApp co-founder Brian Acton, who is spearheading a #DeleteFacebook campaign .
In one sense, there is nothing new in what Facebook and Cambridge Analytica have done. Way back in 1957, author Vance Packard's The Hidden Persuaders described how :
"Large-scale efforts are being made, often with impressive success, to channel our unthinking habits, our purchasing decisions, and our thought processes by the use of insights gleaned from psychiatry and the social sciences. Typically these efforts take place beneath our level of awareness, so that the appeals which move us are often, in a sense, 'hidden.'"
But in a world in which we have all become reliant on the internet for our information, our searches and declared preferences are constantly recorded. Therefore an uncanny amount about us can be learned in a manner that is far more centralized and prone to manipulation than traditional forms of advertising. A wave of shrinkage in traditional advertising firms has correspondingly occurred as the robotic, targeted advertising has become the new norm, largely because it is both cheaper and more effective.
Facebook in particular is a social media way of harnessing interpersonal linkages through the net. Its model must be using those links and the information they generate to create value for advertisers. Any user of Facebook (or Amazon) can easily see how fast browsers insert ads related to one's most recent searches. So it becomes manifestly clear that these companies are tracking us for common advertising purposes.
Politics has always looked into the underlying motivations of voters to manage them. But using the data as documented by the Guardian , this went to a new level of political detail in 2016 that fueled the faster cycle of hard-hitting Trump campaigning. Facebook, Google, Amazon, Twitter, etc., have all become huge aggregators of this information. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg's recent apologies notwithstanding , the companies are either being naïve in proclaiming shock that their data can be misused or, more likely, have been so obsessed with building market share and watching their company market caps explode into the hundreds of billions of dollars that they willfully ignored the scope for abuse. Either way, the information seems to have reached a threshold of importance where governments will step in and disrupt the existing mode, especially now that the full power of this database has been recognized and exploited by a successful political candidate, whether via regulation or antitrust measures. Otherwise, the demands will rise for Facebook to give the data to all, because it cannot guarantee that it has been erased everywhere, which has disturbing implications for our privacy (as well as threatening to destroy Facebook's business model, the success of which is predicated on the exclusive use of the data aggregated from the user base).
However much someone like Brian Acton, who was made a billionaire courtesy of Facebook's purchase of his company, might like others to embrace his #DeleteFacebook campaign, that appears problematic, given how successfully the use of Facebook's model operated in the political context. But there is growing international political momentum to strip the " social network " and its targeted advertising model of much of its abilities to record and use customer data. Former President Barack Obama hinted at this at a recent speech at MIT :
"I do think the large platforms -- Google and Facebook being the most obvious, Twitter and others as well, are part of that ecosystem -- have to have a conversation about their business model that recognizes they are a public good as well as a commercial enterprise. They're not just an invisible platform, they're shaping our culture in powerful ways."
Obama did not explicitly state what he had in mind for these companies, but he did suggest that at a minimum, "the government should have 'rules of the road' to create a level playing field." Even if users find they can't do without their daily Facebook fix, Google search, or Amazon shopping spree, the former president is right. A price will be paid as these companies' activities are increasingly scrutinized.
There are defenses that have been mounted in favor of an unregulated market for Big Data, notably by People Analytics, an organization run by Alex Pentland and his colleagues at MIT's Media Lab. Pentland feels the very centralized nature of the aggregated data is what makes these companies such excellent research targets:
"With the advent of big data and machine learning, researchers actually have enough data and sufficient mathematical tools to build predictive mathematical models. If you talk to other people and see what they are doing, you can improve your own performance, and as you talk to more and more people, you continue to do better and better."
What is not to like? Better decision-making, higher productivity, more efficient communication networks: It looks like a win-win all around. Of course, it was under the guise of research that Cambridge Analytica allegedly got the Facebook data in the first place. It can be used as cover for less benign purposes.
Going further, Pentland cleverly invokes a "New Deal on Data" that allows for the "rebalancing of the ownership of data in favor of the individual whose data is collected. People would have the same rights they now have over their physical bodies and their money."
In theory, this allows the individual discretion as to how much he/she will share with corporations and government regulators. Pentland goes on to suggest that, "the economy will be healthier if the relationship between companies and consumers is more respectful, more balanced. I think that's much more sustainable and will prevent disasters."
Pentland's optimism sounds somewhat naïve in the wake of Edward Snowden's revelations, as well as the current Facebook controversy. Of course, anything that further legitimizes this intrusion on our privacy will be welcomed by these entities. How much do we, the owners of our own personal data, actually control it? As far as the government goes, not much, Snowden's revelations (or those of WikiLeaks) illustrated. And surely the current Facebook and Cambridge Analytica imbroglio undercuts this benign picture that Pentland describes of a happy, informed consumer who autonomously shares his data with various companies, with a view toward building a more "balanced" relationship.
On the contrary, the Facebook fiasco highlights that there exists a thoroughly unequal partnership between the aggregators of information and the information owners, making abuse almost inevitable. Indeed, it is highly doubtful that most consumers and users are even aware of the extent to which their habits, thoughts, and overall private space are monitored by these companies (to say nothing of the more obvious government and law enforcement agencies, even if we're not terrorists).
In general, the notion of a level playing field of information or data that the market can freely and efficiently price has been debunked successfully by Nobel Laureates George Akerlof and Joseph Stiglitz. Both have challenged the " efficient market hypothesis ," which holds that market prices or odds reflect all known information, mitigating the need for intrusive government intervention/regulation. If information asymmetry exists, the obvious implication is that there is a need for some form of overriding regulation to rectify this imbalance. This would also seem to apply to Pentland's New Deal on Data.
Edward Snowden has made us question whether the data and corresponding privacy can be adequately safeguarded from more scrutiny by governments. The more relevant question from the point of view of, say, Silicon Valley and its high tech moguls is whether governments will move more aggressively to control the aggregators themselves, and whether the revelations of their abuses will provoke a backlash, which will impact their companies' growth and profitability.
Already, as Reuters reported, " Nordea, the Nordic region's biggest bank, will not let its sustainable funds buy more Facebook shares for the time being." The European Union has fined Facebook €110m "for 'incorrect or misleading' information regarding data sharing between Facebook and WhatsApp" (even though Facebook acquired the latter). And the EU has also proposed that "companies with significant digital revenues in Europe will pay a 3 percent tax on their turnover on various online services in the European Union," legislation that will cover Facebook (as well as Amazon and Google). Although the tax doesn't actually address the issue of the database abuse itself, the Cambridge Analytica scandal has dissipated valuable political capital for these companies, which will make it harder for them to stop these attacks on their business model and underlying profitability.
Indeed, the focus on taxing turnover, as opposed to profits, is telling, because sales records are far more difficult to doctor and conceal via accounting subterfuge than profits. In effect, this is tantamount to the EU stating to these tech giants, "Don't even think about making a transfer payment to Ireland and leaving yourself with an operating loss in our jurisdiction so you can pay no tax."
As the Brexit referendum illustrates, the Facebook and Cambridge Analytica scandal itself goes well beyond the U.S. Consequently, we can expect an attack on all fronts -- the U.S., the EU, and likely Asia as well. At this point it is too early to judge if this will have any impact on the ongoing Mueller investigation, but the economic implications already seem evident. The U.S. equity boom has been partly in reaction to deregulation in banking and elsewhere. The tech industry has largely escaped any kind of regulatory or antitrust scrutiny and has benefited accordingly. As Edward Harrison of the site Credit Writedowns has observed :
"Some of the best performing stocks in the US are the large Internet-centric technology stocks like Facebook. There is even an acronym, FANG, to describe Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Google. Add Apple and, together, these five stocks account for one quarter of the Nasdaq's total market capitalization. They are huge. And Facebook's data breach represents a threat to them."
Could it be that public indignation at the Facebook profile harvesting scandal will lead to new regulation that could impede the value of some tech-based advertising models? Will it lead to a consumer backlash that slows the growth of the companies themselves? Certainly, it is easier to attack a wealthy and powerful company, if and when it becomes Public Enemy #1, even though many of these politicos will find themselves attacking the instruments of their own political success (or fundraising sources). Facebook or Google would no doubt argue that their platforms are just a facilitation of the communities inherent in the internet and that they have benefited by exploiting first mover advantage . But a centralized, monopolistic exploitation of these interpersonal links is inviting public intervention, especially as the technology can also survive on a distributed, competitive basis. In the eyes of many, these companies are unlikely to escape the opprobrium of helping to allow the Trump disaster to descend upon us. Overseas, they could well be scapegoated if the British economy falters as a result of leaving the European Union. On a broader scale, this scandal may well destroy any last vestiges of "techno-optimism," seeing how it has highlighted the misuses of technology and the human damage it can continue to inflict on us far more profoundly than ever before.
Apr 01, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org
Maybe it did expand my audience. I have no idea. About the only proven use I found was being able to get on Tinder to get laid, as you cannot have a Tinder account without a Facebook account. Thereafter I called it Fuckbook.
Apr 01, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
Facebook In Turmoil: Employees In Uproar Over Executive's Leaked Memo
by Tyler Durden Sat, 03/31/2018 - 08:50 858 SHARES
Facebook's problems are just getting worse, and now investors can add worker morale to the (bucket) list of problems as the New York Times reports that employees furious over a leaked 2016 memo from a top executive seeking to justify the company's relentless growth and "questionable" data harvesting - even if it led to terrorists attacks organized on the platform.
VP Andrew "Boz" Bosworth - one of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg's most trusted executives, wrote that connecting people is the greater good even if it " costs someone a life by exposing someone to bullies.
"Maybe someone dies in a terrorist attack coordinated on our tools."
On Friday, the fallout from Bosworth's leaked memo - following several weeks of outrage over the company's data harvesting practices, has Facebook employees in an uproar , according to The Times .
According to two Facebook employees, workers have been calling on internal message boards for a hunt to find those who leak to the media . Some have questioned whether Facebook has been transparent enough with its users and with journalists, said the employees, who asked not to be identified for fear of retaliation. Many are also concerned over what might leak next and are deleting old comments or messages that might come across as controversial or newsworthy , they said. - NYT
One former Facebook employee, Alex Muffett, wrote on Twitter that Bosworth's memo was a "significant" part of his decision to leave the company.
"Between overwork and leadership direction evidenced thusly, I could never stay," wrote Muffett.
"There are some amazing engineers working at Facebook, folks who care deeply about user privacy, security, and how people will use the code that they write," Mr. Muffett said later in a message. "Alas this episode may not help" to achieve more transparent internal product discussion, he said.
Buzzfeed article suppressed?
Following Buzzfeed's Thursday's publication of the "growth at any cost" leak, BuzzFeed reporter Ryan Mac suggested Facebook was censoring the article - tweeting "Interesting that only about 14k views (about 2% of total) for our story have come through Facebook referrals. Facebook's users should be aware of this, so feel free to share it on Facebook."
When Vox 's Matthew Yglesias chimed in to corroborate Mac's observation, Facebook head of news feed Adam Mosseri chimed in to say that the social media giant " 100% do not take any action on stories for being critical of us. "
Mark Zuckerberg responded to Bosworth's letter in a statement essentially disavowing the Boz, while also noting that Facebook changed their entire corporate focus to connect people and "bring them together"...
Boz is a talented leader who says many provocative things. This was one that most people at Facebook including myself disagreed with strongly. We've never believed the ends justify the means .
We recognize that connecting people isn't enough by itself. We also need to work to bring people closer together. We changed our whole mission and company focus to reflect this last year .
Meanwhile, Facebook is rapidly becoming radioactive, inside and out.
The question is when will investors - and especially hedge funds, for whom FB was the second most popular stock as of Dec. 31 - agree, and do what Mark Zuckerberg has been aggressively doing in recent weeks : dump it.0
DillyDilly Sat, 03/31/2018 - 08:52 PermalinkCognitive Dissonance -> Leakanthrophy Sat, 03/31/2018 - 09:00 Permalink
What a waste of fucking lives.Jumanji1959 -> johngaltfla Sat, 03/31/2018 - 09:26 Permalink
This is not a coordinated and concerted effort by Facebook execs to 'grow' the company at any and all costs because stock options must be vested 'in the money' and obscene amounts of 'compensation' are their god given right.
Nope, this is the work of a lone wolf exec VP who was drunk on power and out of control.
<Well, it works for the CIA to explain away their latest domestic terrorism operation or Presidential assassination attempt.>gregga777 -> Jumanji1959 Sat, 03/31/2018 - 09:42 Permalink
Goebbels would be proud of Zuckerbergglenlloyd -> ThanksChump Sat, 03/31/2018 - 11:16 Permalink
Goebbels would be proud of Zuckerberg
Press Statement for Immediate Release:
Today Mark Zuckerberg announced the official name change of FaceBook to GoëbbelsBook.
"Today marks the official change of our corporate name from FaceBook to GoëbbelsBook in honor of the German NSDAP (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) Reich Minister of Propaganda (1933-1945) Dr. Joseph Goëbbels (29 October 1897 – 1 May 1945). Dr. Goëbbels revolutionary and visionary dream was that of the total surveillance state. We have successfully implemented his concept of the total surveillance state."
"When a client downloads the GoëbbelsBook application it vacuums up everything from their computer and mobile devices. It gobbles up everything they write, all their contacts, their "likes"; in short every action they perform. The application also digitizes all telephone conversations for upload. The application then uploads everything to our corporate servers. We then upload all user data to the "Five Eyes" Gestapo (Geheime Staatspolizei) agencies that are our true original investors and beneficial owners."
"It is truly a proud day for me and all of my servants here at GoëbbelsBook that we have implemented the revolutionary total surveillance state vision of Dr. Joseph Goëbbels. I'm sure that he would be justifiably proud of our accomplishment."Ex-Oligarch -> ThanksChump Sat, 03/31/2018 - 14:05 Permalink
It's a little more complex than just Gramma giving up some data that she volunteers via a form. It's sucking in everything that a user does or says and selling that...everything. Same as Google.
In many cases you will find people who weren't aware that FB was selling user data, it's not really clear, unless you read the TOS fine print it's not clear. Even in the fine print what they do is obscured by the way they write it.
If the announcement of what they do with the data was in big bold letters at the top of FB every time you logged in the participation would be different.
This is one reason that although I've got a FB account I've never provided anything more than the de minimus information to have that account, and I don't spend much if any time on it. It's been weeks since I've logged in to FB.pigpen -> Jumanji1959 Sat, 03/31/2018 - 21:51 Permalink
You may be enjoying the mockery of FB users, but your line of argument ignores reality.
FB users indeed knew that the company was "selling something": advertising. Advertising in the form of "sponsored posts," newsfeed videos, solicitations to "like" an advertiser's page, notifications that someone in your network had liked an advertiser's page, and on and on and on. Every user viewed such advertising while using the service.
And indeed, selling targeted advertising is the dominant business model for providers of free content, messaging, email, webhosting, and a host of other internet services. It is exactly what a reasonable person would expect FB to be doing, based on its public disclosures and statements to the business community, and consistent with privacy laws. Even educated users would not expect the company to be selling its user data to third parties, let alone to government three-letter agencies. No one would expect the phone app to illegally log or record phone and message data for communications outside the app.Cognitive Dissonance -> City_Of_Champyinz Sat, 03/31/2018 - 09:34 Permalink
Jumanji, I live in heart of silicon valley and the goobook employees are so self important and associate working for the goobook surveillance tracking digtal advertising monopolies as a virtuous thing.
Let's call goobook what they are a surveillance tracking company that doesn't share any of the profits from your data with the owner: you.
My solution to these corporate pricks is to cut off their oxygen: digtal advertising and refuse to let them monetize me and others promoting using adblocking on mobile.
My solution is for everybody to immediately download brave browser or equivalent adblocker solution (depending on your tech knowledge).
Brave blocks advertising malware and tracking by DEFAULT on any device and operating system rendering digital advertising model useless.
Whoever controls the browser controls the money.
I use YouTube daily but run it out of brave browser. Zero ads and you can listen with screen off or while browsing other content.
We can destroy the value of digtal advertising by mass adoption of brave browser.
What is digtal advertising worth if ads can't be sent, viewed or tracked?
Let's take down the goobook surveillance tracking censorship monopolies. Install brave or equivalent mobile adblocker immediately.
PigpenThirteenthFloor -> Cognitive Dissonance Sat, 03/31/2018 - 10:28 Permalink
I created a fake FB account, then 'deleted' it when FB demanded I prove who I wasn't.
Does anyone wonder why FB only wants 'real' accounts? Data mining is so much more profitable when you can assure the purchaser the 'data' are grade A number one bleeders/spenders.OverTheHedge -> JoeSoMD Sat, 03/31/2018 - 11:38 Permalink
Facebook = Dillusional Narcissism
Problem is one day you may in fact be targeted for having no 'digital footprint', by the F's running the place. Read "The Circle".snblitz -> Cognitive Dissonance Sat, 03/31/2018 - 15:15 Permalink
Which ties in nicely with the US demanding social media account details with visa applications. You haven't said whether your work is us government based, but it would be pleasingly ironic if it were.
I'm still confused by that, actually: allegedly the NSA has all data, from everywhere, so why ask for the visa applicant's data? Is it too hard to connect physical and digital people, or are they just seeing if you will admit to your online indiscretions?chumbawamba -> KJWqonfo7 Sat, 03/31/2018 - 10:27 Permalink
14 day waiting period on facebook account deletes.
Some years ago I created a facebook account and then deleted it. Deleting it was not easy. When I did the final delete, it stated that all my data would be deleted, and would not be recoverable ever. I was also told I would have to **not** log into my account for 14 days after which everything would be gone. If I did log in during that period the account delete would not occur.
It has been some years and I still live in fear that if I was to "check" if my account still exists by attempting to log into it I will get a "Welcome back" message.
I suppose there are worse things. The account could be active and "owned" by someone else.nmewn -> Cognitive Dissonance Sat, 03/31/2018 - 09:09 Permalink
The CIA put way too much time, money and effort into Facebook to just let it fade away. Hell no, they will double down and figure out a way to keep the concern going, if under a different guise.
-chumblez.Cognitive Dissonance -> nmewn Sat, 03/31/2018 - 09:29 Permalink
But but but...they are listening! They even reformatted so their victims can moar easily delete private information themselves instead of having to dig down through twenty two screens to find it!
And Fuckerberg has a mansion. In Hawaii. With a wall. Because he cares!Philthy_Stacker -> Cognitive Dissonance Sat, 03/31/2018 - 09:51 Permalink
They even reformatted so their victims can moar easily delete private information themselves.....
The funniest part of your comment is the fact people will actually believe their information was 'deleted' because they push a button that said doing so would delete the information.
Riiiiiight. And I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale that you can get for a steal.GunnerySgtHartman -> DillyDilly Sat, 03/31/2018 - 09:01 Permalink
"people will actually believe their information was 'deleted' "
Well, aside from birth and school records, most data will become 'stale' and worthless to advertisers and agencies. I suspect that your 'old' data will eventually become 'archived' in a storage array somewhere, essentially, statistically more worthless as time goes by. Perhaps, adding to a historical perspective on some future Documentary, about the collapse of Facebook.
Info on your birth, school, medical, jobs, driving record ... the authorities already have all that. Facebook is essentially worthless, other than as a phone book with pictures.JoeSoMD -> GunnerySgtHartman Sat, 03/31/2018 - 11:40 Permalink
It's amazing that FB employees were THIS NAIVE about what was going on in that company, thinking it was just about "connecting people." Anyone on the street with half a brain could see what was going on. Grow up and see the world for what it is, people.the_river_fish -> DillyDilly Sat, 03/31/2018 - 11:33 Permalink
I think it is more "being ignorant". To me, being naive implies being "an innocent". These people are hard core coders, computer scientists, network engineers, etc. What they do is figure out how to do outrageously complex technical things, and they are very successful at it. Like most scientists and engineers however, they never stop to ask "should we be doing these things". They stand on the shoulders of the scientist and engineers who came before them and continue to progress the state of their art, but never consider the ethics. I see it all the time at work. Can we develop this new thing? Sure. Should we develop this new thing? That's not my problem - management wants this new thing. They are no different than the guards at a concentration camp herding people to the ovens. I was only following orders.dark fiber Sat, 03/31/2018 - 09:02 Permalink
Alphabet (the parent company of Google) spent the most as a company on Lobbying. Facebook's spend on lobbying increased 5500% since 2009. They spent most lobbying on changes to data privacy.
https://thistimeitisdifferent.com/lobbying-on-data-privacynotfeelinthebern Sat, 03/31/2018 - 09:07 Permalink
Have Zuckerberg and the rest of the asseclowns over there realized how fuccked they really are? It is only a matter of time before class action and individual lawsuits are filed not only against Facebook (fuck that) but them personally, for intentionally and willfully creating a data mining operation disguised as a social network. They will get sued for every penny they have and will be lucky if they don't end up doing time.tedstr Sat, 03/31/2018 - 09:19 Permalink
The people who use this tripe are addicts, and like all addicts need rehab. They couldn't say how many articles are in the US Constitution yet practically know what Oprah eats for breakfast - and it ain't a Weight Watchers diet!Byrond Sat, 03/31/2018 - 09:39 Permalink
I got into the dotcom world in 97 got out in '11. Worked for a bunch of big and small dotcoms. They are all so badly run its hard to describe. rampant greed zero morality.. The VCs just want their 100:1 return. VCs are idiots. some are just stupid many are just illegal accounting fraud capitalizing expenses accelerating revenue recognition over stating audience. People forget that Fb has already had a bunch of exposed numbers "mistakes". Hope it goes to zero.JTPatroit Sat, 03/31/2018 - 09:48 Permalink
From an evolutionary standpoint, humans are extemely adapted to hiding feelings, thoughts, plans, motivations, and intentions. This has enabled our survival for millenia. Our ears don't move toward what or who we're listening to, and we don't have tails or bristling fur or feathers that would display our emotions. Facebook causes us to post all this stuff, then takes ownership and uses it to make a profit any way they can. Social media is not something that we are adapted to, and we're getting stomped on by the companies that engineer it.Nesbiteme Sat, 03/31/2018 - 09:50 Permalink
To me, what is really sad about this whole story is that there is nobody at Facebook - now or previously - who doesn't know that their company makes its money by harvesting data and selling it to anyone with a few bucks in their hand. I believe these employees are all lying when they deny this plain fact.
I believe the same to be true of Google, but of course, Google at least has never denied it, like Facebook is trying to do now that someone in the MSM has bothered to report about it.Smerf Sat, 03/31/2018 - 09:54 Permalink
Anyone here ever work with chickens...the henhouse/chicken analogy is often used with the facebook...when you walk into the henhouse sometimes the hens they aren't expecting visitors and they get all fussy and show their agitation through clucking and squawking and fussing about...but then after a few moments they go back to what they were doing as if nothing ever happened. That about what is going on here. Facebook users and employees will go back to work for their owners in a few more days and it will have been all forgotten.SirBarksAlot Sat, 03/31/2018 - 10:11 Permalink
Since most users of Facebook are gossiping women and deeply closeted homosexuals, I don't see this having a material impact on user growth. It may even suck more of them in.MusicIsYou Sat, 03/31/2018 - 10:13 Permalink
According to Thomas Paine, all the Facebook, Amazon, Google and Tesla are products of the DOD and are losing their hidden government support. That is the real reason that people like Zuckerberg and Soros are divesting.
https://youtu.be/AvKNnuSp2GwLast of the Mi Sat, 03/31/2018 - 10:52 Permalink
People will forget about any Facebook scandal after another scandal surfaces elsewhere in 3, 2, 1 and....... There goes the school of ADHD zombie fish-head people onto another hook, the scandal of the next week. The next scandal will hit the top of the pond and sink, and the fish-head school of people-fish will swim over to it and stare at the scandal to see if it moves. People are grotesquely simple minded.Nuclear Winter Sat, 03/31/2018 - 10:54 Permalink
fb will not recover from massive spying vs people will once again log on to say something snarky, see another picture of their neighbor's cat and above all else get a "like". OMG I'm important!
Soros has billions to funnel through the resistance that is fb for the furtherance of his global agenda. They may be down, but certainly not out.Koba the Dread Sat, 03/31/2018 - 18:59 Permalink
So now the FB employees finally see what the bloodsucking Vampire Zuckerberg and Frankenstein Bosworth really are: the enemy of the people. Time for a mass revolt, pitchforks and torches to burn down the platform.Trogdor Sat, 03/31/2018 - 20:13 Permalink
The Facebook Wall photograph is Photoshoped. While everyone else has written in freehand in chalk, the "Maybe someone dies!?". "Why We Spy So Much?" and "WTF?" posts are set in perfect computer type.
Facebook is a monster of deceit. Why does this article need to lie with Photoshopped photographs? If Facebook thinks we're rubes and yokels, so does this article.
Perhaps they're right.
"We've never believed the ends justify the means ." ~ Zuckerfucker
The Liberal Credo is "THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS" I can't tell you how many Liberals I've asked this very question and they will flat out tell you that if you have to throw babies into a branch chipper to get what you want, YOU DO IT . Lefties/Communists have always believed in mass murder to get what they want - so - spying on a few million people certainly doesn't give the pause.
Apr 01, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org... ... ...
Users with at least half a brain have long known that Facebook exploits their privacy and was probably from the start a vehicle for full-blown surveillance by our spy agencies. I certainly suspected the latter. In 2009, I wrote up a pitch for an investigative piece about Google, Facebook and their connections to the CIA. I published a piece in Counterpunch about the Google angle, but was never able to report out fully what I suspected about Facebook. In the pitch, I wrote:
If personal data could be collected in more concentrated, focused form, with the additional advantage of efficiently collating social networks, complete with personal photos, habits, activities and itineraries freely provided in a centralized system by the users themselves well, that would be Facebook. The intelligence services' hand in Facebook is not direct, but publicly available records suggest that venture capital was pumped into Facebook from investment firms whose board members cross-pollinate with a company called In-Q-Tel.
Founded in 1999 to research and invest in new digital technologies focused on intelligence gathering, In-Q-Tel was part of the push for the privatization of national security operations that would become endemic under the Bush Administration. Some $25 million in seed money during Google's start-up in 1999 arrived in part from the equity firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, which works with In-Q-Tel to develop spy technology. In-Q-Tel-funded companies produced the eye-in-the-sky image database that would become Google Earth. In mid-2005, In-Q-Tel's former director of technology assessment, Rob Painter, joined Google as "senior federal manager," further cementing Google's bond with the intelligence community.
Like Google, Facebook is ambiguous in its privacy policies as to how it will share information with third parties. A former CIA officer, speaking anonymously, confirmed the CIA's interest in Facebook as an intelligence and communications tool, noting that the agency's use of Facebook for operations is "classified." The former CIA officer only went so far as to suggest the CIA may be using the site for communications. "It's a perfect place to hide communications," says the former CIA officer. "You don't need secret, expensive satellite systems anymore when you can hide in plain sight with millions of idiots sending photos and inane messages to each other." When pressed on the subject, the source reiterated: "How it's employed by [the CIA] is classified, and you shouldn't write about it." The Facebook angle for the proposed piece will require further reporting. What's widely known is that the CIA has been using Facebook since 2006 as a recruiting tool for the clandestine services, which marks the first time the CIA has employed online social networking for the hiring of personnel.
Ah, but denial is a powerful drug, one that produces amnesia, and I soon forgot my own reporting and marched as a guinea pig into the Facebook surveillance system. We now know exactly how Facebook shares information with third parties.
Deleting my account, I join an exodus that requires no explanation given the Cambridge Analytica disclosures. Hopefully this is the start of a movement that will drive the company's stock price down where we'll find greasy Mark Zuckerberg begging for a quarter on the corner. Perhaps sooner, someone skilled with demolitions and with access inside the company can blow up the Facebook servers, and we can be done with this menace altogether. More articles by: Christopher Ketcham
Christopher Ketcham is a freelance writer. You can write him at email@example.com or see more of his work at christopherketcham.com .
Apr 01, 2018 | www.theguardian.com
Trump is after Amazon, Congress is after Facebook, and Apple and Google have their problems too. Should the world's top tech firms be worried?
rump is going after Amazon; Congress is after Facebook; Google is too big, and Apple is short of new products. Is it any surprise that sentiment toward the tech industry giants is turning sour? The consequences of such a readjustment, however, may be dire.
Trump lashes out at Amazon and sends stocks tumbling
The past two weeks have been difficult for the tech sector by every measure. Tech stocks have largely driven the year's stock market decline, the largest quarterly drop since 2015.
Facebook saw more than $50bn shaved off its value after the Observer revealed that Cambridge Analytica had harvested millions of people's user data for political profiling. Now users are deleting accounts, and regulators may seek to limit how the company monetizes data, threatening Facebook's business model.
On Monday, the Federal Trade Commission confirmed it was investigating the company's data practices. Additionally, Facebook said it would send a top executive to London to appear in front of UK lawmakers, but it would not send the chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, who is increasingly seen as isolated and aloof.
Shares of Facebook have declined more than 17% from the close on Friday 16 March to the close on Thursday before the Easter break.
Amazon, meanwhile, long the target of President Trump's ire, saw more than $30bn, or 5%, shaved off its $693bn market capitalization after it was reported that the president was "obsessed" with the company and that he "wondered aloud if there may be any way to go after Amazon with antitrust or competition law".
Shares of Apple, and Google's parent company Alphabet, are also down, dropping on concerns that tech firms now face tighter regulation across the board.
For Apple, there's an additional concern that following poor sales of its $1,000 iPhone X. For Google, there's the prospect not only of tighter regulation on how it sells user date to advertisers, but also the fear of losing an important Android software patent case with the Oracle.
Big tech's critics may be forgiven a moment of schadenfreude. But for shareholders and pension plans, the tarnishing of tech could have serious consequences.
Apple, Amazon and Alphabet make up 10% of the S&P 500 with a combined market capitalization market cap of $2.3tn. Add Microsoft and Facebook, with a combined market value of $1.1tn, and the big five make up 15% of the index.
Overall, technology makes up 25% of the S&P. If tech pops, the thinking goes, so pops the market.
"We're one week into a sell-off after a multi-year run-up," says Eric Kuby of North Star Investment Management. "The big picture is that over the past five years a group of mega cap tech stocks like Nvidia, Netflix, Facebook have gone up anywhere from 260% to 1,800%."
Confess -> Nedward Marbletoe , 1 Apr 2018 16:12The post office is a service for citizens. It operates at a loss. Being able to send a letter across the country in two days for fifty cents is a service our government provides. Amazon is abusing that service. It's whole business model requires government support.Byron Delaney , 1 Apr 2018 15:59Amazon's spending power is garnered simply from its massively overalued stock price. If that falls, down goes Amazon. Facebook is entirely dependent on the postive opinion of active users. If users stop using, down goes Facebook's stock price, and so goes the company. It's extremely fragile. Apple has a short product cycle. If people lose interest in its newest versions, its stock price can tank in one year or so. Google and Microsoft seem quite solid, but are likely overvalued. (Tesla will most likwly go bankrupt, along with many others.) If these stocks continue to lose value, rwtirement funds will get scary, and we could enter recession again almost immediately. Since companies such as Amazon have already degraded the eatablished infrastructure of the economy, there may be no actual recovery. We will need to change drastically in some way. It seems that thw wheels are already turning, and this is where we are going now - with Trump as our leader.lennbob , 1 Apr 2018 15:58'Deutsche Bank analyst Lloyd Walmsley said: "We do not think attacking Amazon will be popular."'PardelLux , 1 Apr 2018 15:54
Lloyd Walmsley hasn't spent much time in Seattle, apparently. The activities of Amazon and Google (but especially Amazon) have all contributed to traffic problems, rising rents and property prices, and gentrification (among other things) that are all making Seattle a less affordable, less attractive place to live. That's why Amazon is looking to establish a 'second headquarters' in another city: they've upset too many people here to be able to expand further in this area without at least encountering significant resistance. People here used to refer to Microsoft as 'the evil empire'; now we use it to refer to Amazon. And when it comes to their original business, books, I and most people I know actively avoid buying from Amazon, choosing instead to shop at the area's many independent book stores.Dear Guardian,Alexander Dunnett , 1 Apr 2018 15:42
why do you still sport the FB, Twitter, Google+, Instagramm, Pinterest etc. buttons below every single article? Why do you have to do their dirty work? I don't do that on my webpages, you don't need to do neither. Please stop it.Not being a Trump supporter, however there is a lot of sense in some of the comments coming from Trump,. Whether he carries through with them , is another subject.Neovercingetorix , 1 Apr 2018 15:20
His comment on Amazon:- " Unlike others, they pay little or no taxes to state or local governments, use our postal system as their delivery boy (causing tremendous loss to the US) and putting many thousands of retailers out of business."
Who can argue against that? Furthermore, the retailers would have paid some tax!
Talk about elephants in the room. What about the elephants who were let out of the room to run amuck ? Should it not have been the case of being wise before the event , rather than after the event?A quasi-battle of the billionaires. With Bezos, there's the immediate political element in Bezos' ownership of the clearly anti-Trump Washington Post, which has gone so far as to become lax in editorial oversight (eg, misspelling and even occasional incomplete articles published in an obvious rush to be first to trash POTUS), but there are other issues. Amazon's impact on physical retail is well-documented, and not so long ago (ie, before Trump "attacked" Amazon"), it was sometimes lamented by those on the American left, and Trump is correct in that critique, provided one believes it is valid in the first place. Amazon does have a lot of data on its customers, including immense expenditure information on huge numbers of people. What kinds of constraints are there in place to protect this data, aside from lawyer-enriching class action suits? Beyond that, there's also online defense procurement, worth hundreds of billions in revenue to Amazon in the years to come, that was included in the modified NDAA last year. Maybe that is on Trump's mind, maybe not, but it should probably be on everyone's mind. Maybe the Sherman Antitrust Act needs to be reinvigorated. It would seem that even Trump's foes should be willing to admit that he gets some things right, but that now seems unacceptable. I mean, look at the almost knee-jerk defense of NAFTA, which way back when used to be criticized by Democrats and unions, but now must be lionized.Byron Delaney , 1 Apr 2018 14:46If Amazon can get cheaper shipping than anyone else and enable manufactuers to sell direct, they can sell more than anyone else as long as consumers only buy according to total price. This means two things. One, all retailers as well as distributors may be put out of business. Two, the success of Amazon may rely almost entirely on shipping costs. American consumers also will need to forego the shopping experience, but if they may do so if they're sarisfied with remaining in their residences, workplaces, and cars most of the time. This is the case in many places. People visit Starbucks drive thrus and eat and drink in their cars. If Amazon owns the food stores such as Whole Foods and Starbucks, it's a done deal. Except for one thing. If this happens, the economy will collapse. That may have already happened. Bezos is no rocket scientist.
Mar 29, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
- Facebook's dirty tricks have been exposed, they will never completely regain the trust of users.
- Alternatives are set to cannibalize the social media model, pioneered by Facebook.
- Costs of security features, auditing information, and loss of ad revenue will make Facebook less profitable.
Finally, Facebook ( FB ) has been exposed for the fraud that it is. There has never been such an inflated market cap based on nothingness, just hype. Steve Jobs successfully hyped up Apple ( AAPL ) but unlike Fakebook, Apple actually makes products, and they have a huge following. Here we will elaborate on several key points that we've been saying for years, but now maybe the market is listening:
- Facebook ( FB ) has a weak underlying business model. Users do not like to see advertisements therefore management will be driven to measures such as grey hat (or even black hat) methods to obtain data and use data in ways in conflict with users.
- Facebook ( FB ) is ultimately and primarily a tool of the intelligence agencies (primarily but not exclusively the CIA) and furthers a larger agenda as part of the DOD's "Information Awareness" program, more than it is a hot business model.
- There are thousands of social media networks , in fact Ning offers users a platform to create their own social network. The only thing unique about Facebook ( FB ) is that it is the most used and trusted network, but that all is hanging on the thin thread of users trust, which has now completely evaporated.
- Mark Zuckerberg is an unethical tricky leader that cannot change , he is detached from reality, has no vision, no understanding of what his customers want, and perhaps most importantly; stole Facebook ( FB ) from Winkelvoss .
- Facebook became spammy in 2010 , the amount of bot manipulation is highly under-reported. Fake accounts are bought and sold in a black market, software is sold that can create fake accounts by the hundreds, thousands.
Based on the above, we believe the real value of Facebook ( FB ) is about $10 - $20 per share. Let's use the 'toplist' format as promoted by Facebook ( FB ) itself:
"Top Reasons Facebook ( FB ) is going down fast"
- Users are abandoning their accounts, deleting them, and it has become 'cool' to delete your Fakebook account. #DeleteFacebook
- Mark Zuckerberg originally referred to his users as "Dumb Fucks" this meme is now being circulated.
- Cambridge Analytica is not unique. This is the underlying model of Facebook's business model (if you can call it a 'model').
- Facebook's IPO disaster was a sign of things to come.
- Lawsuits are just the beginning . People are angry. Cook County is suing for 'fraud' - this is a public government suing Facebook for SERIOUS violations. Fraud isn't something you can just get over. It takes years to make a reputation and minutes to lose it.
- According to Edward Snowden, Facebook is a surveillance company.
- Once the genie is out of the bottle, hard to put back. Perhaps some users didn't think this was going on and others didn't care. But now there's a movement to control how Facebook spies on you.
So if this trend continues - what should investors do? Sell , that's for starters. Contact an attorney who knows Securities if you are a shareholder. That's the good news. Finally, unless you like being tracked in your every move, delete your Facebook ( FB ) account. Because that's the only real remedy. You can't block Zuck:
Remember one thing, Facebook ( FB ) users - you use FB with your consent. This author deleted FB years ago, as have millions of others. If you really like the idea of social network there are hundreds of others. Or set one up yourself for sharing family photos with Grandma. JomSocial can turn any Joomla site into a social media site.
What do the FTC, German government, Cook County Illinois and many others have in common? They are all looking into the abuses of Facebook ( FB ).
Lawsuits are nothing new, one could say that Facebook ( FB ) itself was born out of a lawsuit (with Winkelvoss).
The point here is investors that this is the beginning of a crap storm that has been brewing for years but it didn't metastasize until now.
Facebook is going to zero. If you're long get out now before it drops further. There's nothing supporting the stock except hopers and hot air.
One last thing, Fake News started on Facebook ( FB ) see articles here , here , and here . Since the Trump election there has been a backlash on 'Fake News' sites, which Facebook is #1 . It's a platform for Fake News!
News existed before Fakebook and will continue to exist. Facebook is to the internet was the Laser Disc was to the home movie industry. It's outdated, it's bloated, it's hype - there's nothing there. Move on, drones. Nothing to see here.
Get more Alpha in your portfolio from Alpha Z Advisors . Order Online @ ubuy.me
Mar 29, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
Smi1ey, Wed, 03/28/2018 - 23:42 Permalink
He's not your dad.
Buck Shot Wed, 03/28/2018 - 23:19 Permalink
As long as there are attention whores, there will be some type of facebook. I tried it for a while until my page was hijacked and someone put a picture of some black girl naked with a big booty under a waterfall as my profile photo. No shit, this really happened. I went from 13 friends to hundreds of friend requests overnight.
People were emailing my wife and asking her if we split up or something. Now I am glad I quit that shit. To some people it is like crack. My neighbor used to post pictures of himself pulling worms out of his garden or when he was in yoga class. I wanted to tell him that no one really gives a fuck.
Mar 28, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
In response to the Facebook data harvesting scandal, Mozilla has launched an extension for its Firefox Browser which helps you segregate your web activity from Facebook's prying eyes by isolating your identity into a separate "container." This makes it far more difficult for Facebook to track your activity on other websites using third-party cookies.
You can get the extension here .
Upon installation, the extension deletes your Facebook cookies and logs you out of Facebook. The next time you visit the social media giant, it will open in a special blue browser "container" tab - which you can use to safely log in to Facebook and use it like you normally would. If you then click on a link that takes you outside of Facebook, it will load outside of the container.
Should you click on any Facebook Share buttons on other browser tabs it will load them within the Facebook container. You should know that when you're using these buttons information will be sent to Facebook about the website that you shared from .
If you use your Facebook credentials to create an account or log in using your Facebook credentials, it may not work properly and you may not be able to login. Also, because you're logged into Facebook in the container tab, embedded Facebook comments and Like buttons in tabs outside the Facebook container tab will not work. This prevents Facebook from associating information about your activity on websites outside of Facebook to your Facebook identity. So it may look different than what you are used to seeing. - Mozilla.org
Think of it as a condom for Facebook.
Mozilla notes that it "does not collect data from your use of the Facebook Container extension," adding "We only know the number of times the extension is installed or removed."
One Reddit user asks "why not just make every tab an isolated container? "There should be NO REASON for one tab to know or read what another tab (aka cookies) are doing from another domain," states /u/Pro2U
Lo and behold, the Mozilla programmer who created the extension popped into the thread and answered the question:
What you describe is actually possible in Firefox. It's called "First Party Isolation": https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/FirstPartyIsolation
When we studied various privacy protections, FPI had a higher amount of website breakage reported by users: https://blog.mozilla.org/data/2018/01/26/improving-privacy-without-breaking-the-web/ -/u/groovecoder
So there you have it - if you don't want Facebook harvesting most of your data and tracking you around the web, strap on the Firefox extension and go to town.
boostedhorse Wed, 03/28/2018 - 14:14 PermalinkTemporalist -> boostedhorse Wed, 03/28/2018 - 14:17 Permalink
Firefox is finally fast enough to use as a main browser.Buckaroo Banzai -> Temporalist Wed, 03/28/2018 - 14:20 Permalink
I've been switching between Brave and FF and they are similarly fast because they don't get ad overload.Consuelo -> Buckaroo Banzai Wed, 03/28/2018 - 14:31 Permalink
Condoms fail. Best way to not catch STDs is to not fuck disease-ridden skanks.macholatte -> Ignatius Wed, 03/28/2018 - 14:56 Permalink
Well, if given the choice between McDougal and Stormy I'd probably go with the former - just a tad less skanky, don't you think...?
In Firefox Options - Privacy section you can setup to delete cookies and clear history at every browser exit. Same with Internet explorer. Not sure about Chrome.
You can also accept or deny third party cookies.
Ghostery is a must, especially for ZH
C Cleaner is a nice utility for getting rid of excess crap.
Mar 27, 2018 | www.zerohedge.comAuthored by Mark Jeftovich via EasyDNS.com,
In 1994, Wired magazine ran a short story entitled "Hack the spew" . This was back when Wired was actually cutting edge and not the insufferable Silicon Valley stroke job it became after Conde Naste acquired it. In it our antihero "Stark" finds himself inexplicably recruited as a kind of data scout, looking for viable consumer trends emerging from the fully immersive, all encompassing data field known as "The Spew".
"When a schmo buys something on the I-way it goes into his Profile, and if it happens to be something that he recently saw advertised there, we call that interesting, and when he uses the I-way to phone his friends and family, we Profile Auditors can navigate his social web out to a gazillion fractal iterations, the friends of his friends of his friends of his friends, what they buy and what they watch and if there's a correlation."
The Spew of course, was the near future analogy of where the internet was headed, and when I went looking to link to it for this post, the piece turned out to be written by none other than Neal Stephenson. That means I read "Hack The Spew" and it made an impression on me before I even knew who Stephenson was or perhaps was on his way to becoming. Few would argue that Stephenson has a gift for seeing the general ambience of our oncoming future. Cryptonomicon uncannily anticipated the impetus toward crypto-currencies; the current systemic dysfunction of national sovereignty worldwide was foretold in Snow Crash; so it follows that all this will likely culminate in something that resembles The Diamond Age .
Today, "The Spew" is not equivalent to the Internet itself, but it is more accurately analogous to say the social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, especially when combined with the twin monopolies of Google and Amazon, collectively are: The Spew.
It is like a global garbage pile of digital flotsam and jetsam, over which peasants scurry around and scour, looking for some morsel here, a crumb there, which can be monetized. If a trend or a trait is detected, even better. Those can be aggregated, syndicated, federated, even rehypothecated and at scale that can yield staggering financial payoffs and perhaps, even steer the course the history.
At least that's the narrative since the Cambridge Analytica scandal blew up in Facebook's face. After a long string of successive privacy fails (a.k.a a pattern of abuse?) this time feels different, as if the chickens are finally coming home to roost for Facebook.Cambridge Analytica is not uniqueEver heard of Kareem Serageldin? Probably not.
To date, he is the only banker to have been sent to prison in connection with the 2008–2009 Global Financial Crisis for his role in issuing fraudulent mortgage-backed securities (at least outside of Iceland ). To be sure, he was a fall guy, a token sacrifice to demonstrate contrition for what was a systemic, institutionalized effort to inflate a bubble whose implosion nearly crashed the entire global financial system.
In this case while Facebook attempted to throw water on this crisis by ceremonially banishing Cambridge Analytica from its system, the longstanding pattern of abuse remains, and is perhaps now, finally, awareness of that is reaching critical mass with the public:
- Facebook scraped your call data from Android phones for years (iPhone's are also vulnerable to privacy intrusions, see below).
- Facebook enables features such as "racial profiling" to advertisers
- Election rigging? Facebook approached major Australian political parties to micro target voters in 2016 election (the Liberals turned them down, Labour took them up)
- And while there were key differences in the way data was used , (not to mention more informed consent) the 2012 Obama re-election campaign used the same data mining features and accessed the same data as the Cambridge Analytica app
- In fact it may be veritably baked into their ecosystem to such a degree that it is almost impossible to develop and create an app on Facebook that doesn't harvest your data
Mark Zuckerberg has issued yet another "Mea Culpa" on CNN, and Facebook will take out full page ads in newspapers to apologize to the public. Yet, by now, "Groveling Zuckerberg apologies" are just part of the Facebook playbook, as Liz Gannes observed back in 2011, after Facebook had just settled with the US Federal Trade Commission over still more privacy violations:
"At this point, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg's pattern on privacy is clear. Launch new stuff that pushes the boundaries of what people consider comfortable. Apologize and assure users that they control their information, but rarely pull back entirely, and usually reintroduce similar features at a later date when people seem more ready for it."
It becomes clear, as Futurist (and easyDNS member) Jesse Hirsh made this point on Steve Pakin's "The Agenda" over the weekend: "Facebook ships with all privacy enhanced settings disabled" -- further, my personal findings are that they use obfuscation to make it harder to disable data sharing settings. You have to jump through hoops to do it.
https://players.brightcove.net/18140038001/HJR5gvfVf_default/index.html?videoId=5757277106001Should you #deleteFacebook?
WhatsApp founder Brian Acton, who became a billionaire when Facebook bought his company hasn't let that dissuade him from telling the world what he thinks of all this:
Should you? Should easyDNS? Here's my take on it:If you are a business: keep your page but don't be reliant on it
There is a difference between a business who uses Facebook as an antennae to provide additional ways to stay in touch with customers and those whose business model is completely dependent on Facebook. We started our Facebook page when we were pulled into the Wikileaks Crisis as a way to stay in touch with our customers while that entire fiasco played out. We maintain it today for the same reason, and people do frequently contact us through that page looking for support.
But some businesses are completely reliant on Facebook to survive. I subscribe to James Schramko's Superfast Business Podcast . A recent episode had the founder of Dogtington Pos t on it, a site I frequented myself in my early days of being a dog owner (our family Husky).
You have to credit the guy with dominating his niche but I couldn't help wondering what would happen to his business if something substantial changed at Facebook, or if some of his readers would feel "used" if they understood some of the myriad tactics some of these sites routinely use, via Facebook, to drive their own affiliate revenues.
It brings to mind 2 things:
- My late friend and one of the original easyDNS customers Atul Chitnis who was among the first to observe "if you're not paying for the product, you are the product"
- My own maxim, which I introduced in the Guerrilla Capitalism Overview that there are two kinds of companies, those that feed on customer ignorance compared to those who prosper via customer savvy . I think it is obvious to all, at least now, that Facebook needs customer ignorance to survive.
(Or as Zuck eloquently observed it back in his dormroom days)YMMV on your personal pages
I read a long time ago "don't put anything on the internet that you wouldn't want to read in the newspapers the next day", and that has served me well as a guide over the years.
My basic assumption is that everything I post to Facebook, including "private" messages are wide open, being harvested, data mined, aggregated, used to target and retarget ads to me, build a profile and otherwise compile a comprehensive dossier, even stuff I've "deleted". (If you've ever watched "Terms and Conditions May Apply" you'll know that Facebook actually keeps the stuff you "delete").
So I never say anything on Facebook or put anything on there that is remotely confidential or proprietary. It's strictly a water cooler. I like it because it enabled me to reconnect with various groups of my friends and peers over the years, from the kids I grew up and went to high school with in Galt, Ontario to the misfits from the London underground music scene in college, to the tech entrepreneurs from the mid-90's on.
Would I use it to send anything to anybody that I found myself hoping that it's never going to leak or be used against me? Uh, no. That would be terribly naive.
So to that end, I'll probably keep my personal Facebook page, even though I sometimes catch myself spending too much time arguing stupid pointless crap (like politics) with people I'd otherwise never associate with. But that's a self-discipline issue, not a data soveriengty issue (although it is now also common knowledg e that Facebook deliberately codes the platform itself to be as addictive as possible)
All that saidAt least #deleteFacebook from your mobile devices
Facebook harvests your contact lists from your mobile devices (don't believe me, go here )
There are people in that list that I do not know. There are phone numbers from people who work for my competitors in there. My daughter's (age 11) cell phone number is in there.
You can "delete" all this here : (but as you know Facebook never actually deletes anything).
Then when you go to "delete" all your contacts you get a message
"We won't be able to tell you when your friends start using Messenger if you delete all your uploaded contact info."
They say that like it's a bad thing. But there is also this curious sentence:
"If you have Continuous Uploading turned on in the Messenger app, your contact info will be uploaded again the next time the app syncs with Facebook servers."
I had deleted the Facebook mobile app from my phone a long time ago. I kept messenger installed because sometimes customers would contact easyDNS or Zoneedit via our Facebook pages for support.
But Writing this I wanted to turn off "continuous uploading" in the app. Despite this Facebook help article not explaining how to do it, while this third party article from 2016 did.
It turned out I had already disabled continuous uploading but I was surprised to find that the messenger app had defaulted permission to access my phone's microphone.
After this exercise I simply deleted the Messenger app from my phone as well.Personal Data Sovereignty is an idea who's time has come
I think it would be safe to assume, that barring some widespread public pushback (such as the one happening right now), this is The New Normal.
People who may have been complacently oblivious to the fact that their social network was pimping them as mere data points are realizing that they don't like it as they have their faces rubbed in one data breach and privacy violation after another.
Given the outrages of Equifax, Facebook et al, we may have arrived at the crossroads and we may only get this choice once.
Do we push back and say "NO", I own my own data, I control who gets it and what happens with it. ?
Or, do we calm down after a few days, or weeks and then it's business as usual. Next year Zuck will apologize for some other new breach of trust ahead of his 2020 presidential bid, while us "shmoes" go ahead and vote for him.
SILVERGEDDON -> cossack55 Tue, 03/27/2018 - 19:03 PermalinkJimbeau Tue, 03/27/2018 - 18:59 Permalink
Don't delete it - just post a bunch of shit house rat bastard crazy stuff on it that makes no sense.
If that don't fuck up their algos and fuck over their validity as a user data seller, try harder.
Doesn't the entity we fear most already have access to all our data? Who is it that we think we are hiding anything from? Just don't be stupid and put any new sensitive info out there, anywhere, if you don't have to... but worrying about the info the the govt already has on you? What would be the point?
Mar 27, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org
Many people who hate and fear Donald Trump feel that only political black magic or some form of trickery can explain his election as US President. They convince themselves that we are the victims of a dark conspiracy rather than that the world we live in is changing, and changing for the worse.
Cambridge Analytica has now joined Russia at the top of a list of conspirators who may have helped Trump defeat Hillary Clinton in 2016. This is satisfactory for Democrats as it shows that they ought to have won, and delegitimises Trump's mandate.
In the Russian and Cambridge Analytica scandals, dodgy characters abound who claim to have a direct line to Putin or Trump, or to have secret information about political opponents or a unique method of swaying the voting intentions of millions of Americans. The most doubtful evidence is treated as credible.
The dossier by the former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, about Trump's romps in Moscow, struck me when I first read it as hilarious but entirely unbelievable. The US media thought the same when this document was first being hawked around Washington before the election, and refused to publish it. It was only after Trump was elected that that they and the US security agencies claimed to find it in any way credible.
Much of what Cambridge Analytica claimed to be able to do for its clients has an exaggerated ring to it. As with the Steele dossier, several of the Cambridge Analytica documents are unintentionally funny, such as a letter from Aleksandr Kogan, the Russian-American academic researcher, suggesting that finding out if people used crossbows or believed in paganism would be useful traits on which to focus.
We are told that Facebook profiles of more than 50 million users have been "harvested" (a good menacing word in this context, suggesting that the poor old users are being chopped off at the ankles), and that information so garnered could be fed into the Trump campaign to put him over the top on election day. In reality, information gathered from such a large number of people is too generalised or too obvious to be of much use.
What is lacking in these scandals is much real evidence that Russian "meddling" or Cambridge Analytica "harvesting" – supposing all these tales are true – really did much to determine the outcome of the US election. Keep in mind that many very astute and experienced American politicians, backed by billions of dollars, regularly try and fail to decide who will hold political office in the US.
It simply is not very likely that the Kremlin – having shown extraordinary foresight in seeing that Trump stood a chance when nobody else did – was able to exercise significant influence on the US polls. Likewise, for all its bombastic sales pitch, Cambridge Analytica was really a very small player in the e-campaign.
The Russian "meddling" story (again, note the careful choice of words, because "meddling" avoids any claim that the Russian actions had any impact) and the Cambridge Analytica saga are essentially conspiracy theories. They may damage those targeted such as Trump, but they also do harm to his opponents because it means that they do not look deeply enough into the real reasons for their defeat in 2016, or do enough to prevent it happening again.
Since Clinton lost the election by less than 1 per cent of the vote in the crucial swing states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, almost anything that happened in the campaign can be portrayed as decisive. But there are plenty of common-sense reasons for her defeat which are now being submerged and forgotten, as the Democrats and a largely sympathetic media look to Russian plots and such like to show that Trump won the election unfairly.
It is worth looking again at Hillary Clinton's run-for-office in 2016 to take a more rational view of why she unexpectedly lost. A good place to start is Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign , by the journalists Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes, which was published a year ago and is based on interviews with senior campaign staffers.
Ironically, the Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook based his approach on a similar sort of analysis of vast quantities of data about voters that Cambridge Analytica claimed it could use to great effect.
Mook's conviction that this data was a sure guide to where to invest the Democrats' best efforts had disastrous consequences, even though Clinton outspent Trump by 2 to 1. For instance, she did not campaign in Wisconsin after winning the nomination, because her election team thought she was bound to win there. She put too little effort into campaigning in Michigan, though her weakness there was underlined there in March when she lost the primary to Bernie Sanders.
Traditional tools of electioneering such as polls and door-to-door canvassing were discounted by Mook, who was absorbed by his own analytical model of how the election was going. In major swing states, the book says that "he declined to use pollsters to track voter preferences in the final three weeks of the campaign".
Clinton carried a lot of political baggage because she had been demonised by the Republicans for 25 years. She had bad lluck, such the decision of the FBI director, James Comey, to send a letter to Congress about her emails two weeks before the election – but Trump somehow managed to survive even worse disasters, such as boasting of how he groped women.
Opponents of Trump tend to underestimate him because they are convinced that his faults are so evident that he will implode when the electorate find him out. Somehow they never do, or at least not those parts of the electorate which votes for him.
The very scandals that Trump's critics believe will sink him have enabled him dominate the news agenda in a way no American politician has ever done before. The New York Times and CNN may detest him, but they devote an extraordinary proportion of their news output to covering his every action.
The accusation that the Kremlin and companies like Cambridge Analytica put Trump in the White House may do him damage. But I suspect that the damage will mostly be among people who never liked him and would never vote for him.
Perhaps the one thing would have lost Trump the election is if his campaign had truly relied on Cambridge Analytica's data about the political proclivities of pagan crossbow enthusiasts.
Mar 27, 2018 | tech.slashdot.org
To corporate giants like Facebook, leaks to rivals or the media are a cardinal sin. That notion was clear in a new Wired story about Facebook's rocky time over the last two years. The story talks about how Facebook was able to find two leakers who told a Gizmodo reporter about its news operations. But one source for the Wired story highlighted just how concerned employees are about how their company goes after leakers. According to the story, the source, a current Facebook employee, asked a Wired reporter to turn off his phone so Facebook wouldn't be able to use location tracking and see that the two were close to each other for the meeting .
The Wired's 11,000-word wide-ranging piece , for which it spoke with more than 50 current and former Facebook employees, gives us an inside look at how the company has been struggling to curb spread of fake news; battling internal discrimination among employees; and becoming furious when anything leaks to the media. Another excerpt from the story:
The day after Fearnow (a contractor who leaked information to a Gizmodo reporter) took that second screenshot was a Friday. When he woke up after sleeping in, he noticed that he had about 30 meeting notifications from Facebook on his phone. When he replied to say it was his day off, he recalls, he was nonetheless asked to be available in 10 minutes. Soon he was on a video-conference with three Facebook employees, including Sonya Ahuja, the company's head of investigations. According to his recounting of the meeting, she asked him if he had been in touch with Nunez (the Gizmodo reporter, who eventually published this and this ).
He denied that he had been. Then she told him that she had their messages on Gchat, which Fearnow had assumed weren't accessible to Facebook. He was fired. "Please shut your laptop and don't reopen it," she instructed him.
Mar 27, 2018 | yro.slashdot.org
(reuters.com) did not adequately secure the informed consent of its users . From a report: The verdict, from a Berlin regional court, comes as Big Tech faces increasing scrutiny in Germany over its handling of sensitive personal data that enables it to micro-target online advertising. The Federation of German Consumer Organisations (vzvb) said that Facebook's default settings and some of its terms of service were in breach of consumer law, and that the court had found parts of the consent to data usage to be invalid. "Facebook hides default settings that are not privacy-friendly in its privacy center and does not provide sufficient information about it when users register," said Heiko Duenkel, litigation policy officer at the vzvb. "This does not meet the requirement for informed consent."
Mar 27, 2018 | tech.slashdot.org
(recode.net) BeauHD on Monday February 12, 2018 @09:20PM from the shifting-demographics dept. According to new estimates by eMarketer, Facebook users in the 12- to 17-year-old demographic declined by 9.9 percent in 2017 , or about 1.4 million total users. That's almost three times more than the digital measurement firm expected. There were roughly 12.1 million U.S. Facebook users in the 12- to 17-year-old demographic by the end of the year. Recode reports:
There are likely multiple reasons for the decline. Facebook has been losing its "cool" factor for years, and young people have more options than ever for staying in touch with friends and family. Facebook also serves as a digital record keeper -- but many young people don't seem to care about saving their life online, at least not publicly.
That explains why Snapchat and Instagram, which offer features for sharing photos and videos that disappear, are growing in popularity among this demographic. Overall, eMarketer found Facebook lost about 2.8 million U.S. users under 25 last year.
The research firm released Facebook usage estimates for 2018 on Monday, and expects that Facebook will lose about 2.1 million users in the U.S. under the age of 25 this year.
Mar 27, 2018 | tech.slashdot.org
(techcrunch.com) Onavo Protect, the VPN client from the data-security app maker acquired by Facebook back in 2013, has now popped up in the Facebook app itself, under the banner "Protect" in the navigation menu . Clicking through on "Protect" will redirect Facebook users to the "Onavo Protect -- VPN Security" app's listing on the App Store. We're currently seeing this option on iOS only, which may indicate it's more of a test than a full rollout here in the U.S. Marketing Onavo within Facebook itself could lead to a boost in users for the VPN app, which promises to warn users of malicious websites and keep information secure as you browse. But Facebook didn't buy Onavo for its security protections. Instead, Onavo's VPN allow Facebook to monitor user activity across apps, giving Facebook a big advantage in terms of spotting new trends across the larger mobile ecosystem. For example, Facebook gets an early heads up about apps that are becoming breakout hits; it can tell which are seeing slowing user growth; it sees which apps' new features appear to be resonating with their users, and much more. Further reading: Do Not, I Repeat, Do Not Download Onavo, Facebook's Vampiric VPN Service (Gizmodo).
Mar 27, 2018 | yro.slashdot.org
(theverge.com) BeauHD on Friday March 16, 2018 @11:30PM from the violation-of-terms dept. An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Facebook said late Friday that it had suspended Strategic Communication Laboratories (SCL), along with its political data analytics firm, Cambridge Analytica, for violating its policies around data collection and retention. The companies, which ran data operations for Donald Trump's 2016 presidential election campaign , are widely credited with helping Trump more effectively target voters on Facebook than his rival, Hillary Clinton. While the exact nature of their role remains somewhat mysterious, Facebook's disclosure suggests that the company improperly obtained user data that could have given it an unfair advantage in reaching voters . Facebook said it cannot determine whether or how the data in question could have been used in conjunction with election ad campaigns.
In a blog post, Facebook deputy general counsel Paul Grewal laid out how SCL came into possession of the user data. In 2015, Aleksandr Kogan, a psychology professor at the University of Cambridge, created an app named "thisisyourdigitallife" that promised to predict aspects of users' personalities. About 270,000 people downloaded it and logged in through Facebook, giving Kogan access to information about their city of residence, Facebook content they had liked, and information about their friends. Kogan passed the data to SCL and a man named Christopher Wylie from a data harvesting firm known as Eunoia Technologies, in violation of Facebook rules that prevent app developers from giving away or selling users' personal information. Facebook learned of the violation that year and removed his app from Facebook. It also asked Kogan and his associates to certify that they had destroyed the improperly collected data. Everyone said that they did. The suspension is not permanent, a Facebook spokesman said. But the suspended users would need to take unspecified steps to certify that they would comply with Facebook's terms of service.
Mar 27, 2018 | tech.slashdot.org
(theguardian.com) umafuckit shared this article from The Guardian: The data analytics firm that worked with Donald Trump's election team and the winning Brexit campaign harvested millions of Facebook profiles of U.S. voters , in one of the tech giant's biggest ever data breaches, and used them to build a powerful software program to predict and influence choices at the ballot box... Christopher Wylie, who worked with a Cambridge University academic to obtain the data, told the Observer : "We exploited Facebook to harvest millions of people's profiles . And built models to exploit what we knew about them and target their inner demons. That was the basis the entire company was built on."
Documents seen by the Observer , and confirmed by a Facebook statement, show that by late 2015 the company had found out that information had been harvested on an unprecedented scale . However, at the time it failed to alert users and took only limited steps to recover and secure the private information of more than 50 million individuals... On Friday, four days after the Observer sought comment for this story, but more than two years after the data breach was first reported, Facebook announced that it was suspending Cambridge Analytica and Kogan from the platform, pending further information over misuse of data. Separately, Facebook's external lawyers warned the Observer on Friday it was making "false and defamatory" allegations, and reserved Facebook's legal position...
The evidence Wylie supplied to U.K. and U.S. authorities includes a letter from Facebook's own lawyers sent to him in August 2016, asking him to destroy any data he held that had been collected by GSR, the company set up by Kogan to harvest the profiles... Facebook did not pursue a response when the letter initially went unanswered for weeks because Wylie was travelling, nor did it follow up with forensic checks on his computers or storage, he said. "That to me was the most astonishing thing. They waited two years and did absolutely nothing to check that the data was deleted. All they asked me to do was tick a box on a form and post it back."
Wylie worked with Aleksandr Kogan, the creator of the "thisisyourdigitallife" app, "who has previously unreported links to a Russian university and took Russian grants for research," according to the article. Kogan "had a licence from Facebook to collect profile data, but it was for research purposes only. So when he hoovered up information for the commercial venture, he was violating the company's terms...
"At the time, more than 50 million profiles represented around a third of active North American Facebook users, and nearly a quarter of potential U.S. voters."
Mar 27, 2018 | tech.slashdot.org
(theguardian.com) They had records of a screenshot he'd taken, links he had clicked or hovered over, and they strongly indicated they had accessed chats between him and the journalist, dating back to before he joined the company. "It's horrifying how much they know," he told the Guardian, on the condition of anonymity... "You get on their bad side and all of a sudden you are face to face with Mark Zuckerberg's secret police "... One European Facebook content moderator signed a contract, seen by the Guardian, which granted the company the right to monitor and record his social media activities, including his personal Facebook account, as well as emails, phone calls and internet use. He also agreed to random personal searches of his belongings including bags, briefcases and car while on company premises. Refusal to allow such searches would be treated as gross misconduct...
Some employees switch their phones off or hide them out of fear that their location is being tracked. One current Facebook employee who recently spoke to Wired asked the reporter to turn off his phone so the company would have a harder time tracking if it had been near the phones of anyone from Facebook. Two security researchers confirmed that this would be technically simple for Facebook to do if both people had the Facebook app on their phone and location services switched on. Even if location services aren't switched on, Facebook can infer someone's location from wifi access points.
The article cites a 2012 report that Microsoft read a French blogger's Hotmail account to identify a former employee who had leaked trade secrets . And it also reports that tech companies hire external agencies to surveil their employees. "One such firm, Pinkerton, counts Google and Facebook among its clients." Though Facebook and Google both deny this, "Among other services, Pinkerton offers to send investigators to coffee shops or restaurants near a company's campus to eavesdrop on employees' conversations...
Al Gidari, consulting director of privacy at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society, says that these tools "are common, widespread, intrusive and legal."
Mar 27, 2018 | yro.slashdot.org
(sfgate.com) BeauHD on Friday March 23, 2018 @08:50PM from the rough-week dept. Facebook has had a terrible week. Since it was revealed that political data firm Cambridge Analytica obtained information about 50 million Facebook users , the social media company has been in damage control mode, apologizing for its mistakes and conducting forensic audits to determine exactly what happened. SFGate reports today that Facebook " has been hit with four lawsuits in federal court in San Francisco and San Jose thus far this week." From the report: One lawsuit was filed by a Facebook user who claims the Menlo Park company acted with "absolute disregard" for her personal information after allegedly representing that it wouldn't disclose the data without permission or notice. That lawsuit, filed by Lauren Price of Maryland in San Jose on Tuesday, seeks to be a class action on behalf of up to 50 million people whose data was allegedly collected from Facebook by London-based Cambridge Analytica. The lawsuit says that during the 2016 election, Price was "frequently targeted with political ads while using Facebook." It seeks financial restitution for claims of unfair business practices and negligence. Both Facebook and Cambridge Analytica are named as defendants. Cambridge Analytica also announced today that the company will undergo an independent third-party audit to determine whether it still holds any data covertly obtained from Facebook users. "We take the disturbing recent allegations of unethical practices in our non-U.S. political business very seriously," CEO Alexander Tayler writes . "The Board has launched a full and independent investigation into SCL Elections' past practices, and its findings will be shared publicly."
UPDATE: Eighteen enforcement officers have entered the Cambridge Analytica headquarters in London's West End to search the premises after the data watchdog was granted a warrant to examine its records, reports The Guardian.
Mar 27, 2018 | tech.slashdot.org
(medium.com) Onavo Protect , a newly released VPN service from Facebook : I found that Onavo Protect uses a Packet Tunnel Provider app extension, which should consistently run for as long as the VPN is connected, in order to periodically send the following data to Facebook (graph.facebook.com) as the user goes about their day:
When user's mobile device screen is turned on and turned off.
Total daily Wi-Fi data usage in bytes (Even when VPN is turned off).
Total daily cellular data usage in bytes (Even when VPN is turned off).
Periodic beacon containing an "uptime" to indicate how long the VPN has been connected.
Mar 27, 2018 | slashdot.org
(theguardian.com) but behind the cartoonish facade is a ruthless code of secrecy . From a report: They rely on a combination of Kool-Aid, digital and physical surveillance, legal threats and restricted stock units to prevent and detect intellectual property theft and other criminal activity. However, those same tools are also used to catch employees and contractors who talk publicly, even if it's about their working conditions, misconduct or cultural challenges within the company. While Apple's culture of secrecy, which includes making employees sign project-specific NDAs and covering unlaunched products with black cloths, has been widely reported, companies such as Google and Facebook have long put the emphasis on internal transparency.
Zuckerberg hosts weekly meetings where he shares details of unreleased new products and strategies in front of thousands of employees. Even junior staff members and contractors can see what other teams are working on by looking at one of many of the groups on the company's internal version of Facebook. "When you first get to Facebook you are shocked at the level of transparency. You are trusted with a lot of stuff you don't need access to," said Evans, adding that during his induction he was warned not to look at ex-partners' Facebook accounts.
Mar 27, 2018 | tech.slashdot.org
(businessinsider.com) reported this week , speaks volumes of Facebook's core beliefs. Sample this except from Business Insider : Facebook executives waded into a firestorm of criticism on Saturday, after news reports revealed that a data firm with ties to the Trump campaign harvested private information from millions of Facebook users. Several executives took to Twitter to insist that the data leak was not technically a "breach." But critics were outraged by the response and accused the company of playing semantics and missing the point. Washington Post reporter Hamza Shaban: Facebook insists that the Cambridge Analytica debacle wasn't a data breach, but a "violation" by a third party app that abused user data. This offloading of responsibility says a lot about Facebook's approach to our privacy. Observer reporter Carole Cadwalladr, who broke the news about Cambridge Analytica: Yesterday Facebook threatened to sue us. Today we publish this. Meet the whistleblower blowing the lid off Facebook and Cambridge Analytica. [...] Facebook's chief strategy officer wading in. So, tell us @alexstamos (who expressed his displeasure with the use of "breach" in media reports) why didn't you inform users of this "non-breach" after The Guardian first reported the story in December 2015? Zeynep Tufekci: If your business is building a massive surveillance machinery, the data will eventually be used and misused. Hacked, breached, leaked, pilfered, conned, "targeted", "engaged", "profiled", sold.. There is no informed consent because it's not possible to reasonably inform or consent. [...] Facebook's defense that Cambridge Analytica harvesting of FB user data from millions is not technically a "breach" is a more profound and damning statement of what's wrong with Facebook's business model than a "breach." MIT Professor Dean Eckles: Definitely fascinating that Joseph Chancellor, who contributed to collection and contract-violating retention (?) of Facebook user data, now works for Facebook. Amir Efrati, a reporter at the Information: May seem like a small thing to non-reporters but Facebook loses credibility by issuing a Friday night press release to "front-run" publications that were set to publish negative articles about its platform. If you want us to become more suspicious, mission accomplished. Further reading: Facebook's latest privacy debacle stirs up more regulatory interest from lawmakers (TechCrunch).
Mar 27, 2018 | yro.slashdot.org
(arstechnica.com) BeauHD on Sunday March 25, 2018 @10:34AM from the book-of-secrets dept. An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: This past week, a New Zealand man was looking through the data Facebook had collected from him in an archive he had pulled down from the social networking site. While scanning the information Facebook had stored about his contacts, Dylan McKay discovered something distressing: Facebook also had about two years worth of phone call metadata from his Android phone , including names, phone numbers, and the length of each call made or received. This experience has been shared by a number of other Facebook users who spoke with Ars, as well as independently by us -- my own Facebook data archive, I found, contained call-log data for a certain Android device I used in 2015 and 2016, along with SMS and MMS message metadata. In response to an email inquiry about this data gathering by Ars, a Facebook spokesperson replied, "The most important part of apps and services that help you make connections is to make it easy to find the people you want to connect with. So, the first time you sign in on your phone to a messaging or social app, it's a widely used practice to begin by uploading your phone contacts." The spokesperson pointed out that contact uploading is optional and installation of the application explicitly requests permission to access contacts. And users can delete contact data from their profiles using a tool accessible via Web browser.
If you granted permission to read contacts during Facebook's installation on Android a few versions ago -- specifically before Android 4.1 (Jelly Bean) -- that permission also granted Facebook access to call and message logs by default. The permission structure was changed in the Android API in version 16. But Android applications could bypass this change if they were written to earlier versions of the API, so Facebook API could continue to gain access to call and SMS data by specifying an earlier Android SDK version. Google deprecated version 4.0 of the Android API in October 2017 -- the point at which the latest call metadata in Facebook user's data was found. Apple iOS has never allowed silent access to call data. You are able to have Facebook delete the data it collects from you, "but it's not clear if this deletes just contacts or if it also purges call and SMS metadata," reports Ars. Generally speaking, if you're concerned about privacy, you shouldn't share your contacts and call-log data with any mobile application.
Mar 26, 2018 | www.veteranstoday.comNow we know they not only kept files on 50 million Americans through Facebook, using the data there to profile fears and emotions, targeting and manipulating millions but when Google added their incredible mass of data, billions of illegally read emails and more, the American people became little more than pawns.
Again we reiterate, Russia didn't do it. It was the tech companies, all working as is now being made public, for Israeli intelligence and the mob. From the Daily Beast, March 20, 2018 by Jamie Ross:
"Facebook has been plunged into crisis over the allegations that Cambridge Analytica misused data from more than 50 million people to help elect Donald Trump. Nearly $40 billion was wiped off Facebook's market value Monday, an emergency meeting is due to be held Tuesday morning, and CEO Mark Zuckerberg has been criticized for remaining silent during what some analysts are describing as a threat to the company's existence.
Zuckerberg has been summoned to the British parliament to give evidence about the how it handles people's personal data. The head of a British inquiry into 'fake news,' Damian Collins, has accused Facebook of previously 'misleading' a parliament committee, adding: 'It is now time to hear from a senior Facebook executive with the sufficient authority to give an accurate account of this catastrophic failure of process.'"
What is being left out is more telling, that Zuckerberg, CEO and founder of Facebook, has long openly worked for Israeli intelligence and that evidence now exists that Israel not only ran the program to rig the American election, as many believe it did in both 2000 and 2004, leading to the destruction of Iraq, but that it did so again in 2016.
Few note the real policies of former Secretary of State Kerry and President Obama, the even handedness in the Middle East and their use of leverage against Israel. Obama never accepted wild claims made against Syria as Trump has and never attacked Damscus.
Evidence of Israel's role in gas attacks in Syria was overwhelming even though Russia was blocked from presenting same to the United Nations time and time again.
But then we hypothesize, what are we speaking of when we talk of Israel? This is where so many back off as anyone who questions Israel is smeared as an "anti-Semite" though the Likudist extremists who run that nation are mostly former Russian gangsters and enemies of Russia's current leadership.
The reason for what appears to be Israeli animosity toward Russia in reality originated when Putin cleaned out the oligarchs that looted Russia for two decades, plunging that nation into poverty and then fleeing to Tel Aviv or New York with endless billions of ill gotten gains. This is real history, not the history written down in books or reported in fake news.
More on happenings in London as reported by Jamie Ross:
"As anger grew toward Cambridge Analytica on Monday after Britain's Channel 4 broadcast a report showing company executives boasting about their extreme propaganda strategies, including filming opponents in compromising situations with Ukrainian sex workers, authorities in the U.K. and the U.S. also questioned whether Facebook mishandled the alleged breach and it's now facing damaging investigations that will further tarnish its brand.
Britain's information commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, confirmed she was applying to the courts for a warrant to search Cambridge Analytica's London offices and said Tuesday morning that she has been left frustrated by the company's reluctance to cooperate with her investigation.
[ Editor's Note : There appears to have been the classic "fix" in at the British Court by delaying for days the seizure of Cambridge's computer files, giving the needed time to remove any incriminating evidence Jim W. Dean ]
Fears have also been raised that the investigation may have been compromised by the presence of cybersecurity consultants from Stroz Friedberg -- the company hired by Facebook to audit Cambridge Analytica on its behalf -- who were in the London offices on Monday evening, until they were asked to leave by the information commissioner.
Asked if there was a risk of Cambridge Analytica or Facebook destroying evidence, Denham said on Sky News: "As this point we're not satisfied with the cooperation we're getting from Cambridge Analytica, so the next step is for us to apply to the court and to do an audit to get some answers as to whether data was misused and shared inappropriately."
British Parliament Culture Committee Chairman Damian Collins said:
'This is a matter for the authorities. Facebook sent in data analysts and lawyers who they appointed. What they intended to do there, who knows? The concern would have been, were they removing information or evidence which could have been vital to the investigation? It's right they stood down but it's astonishing they were there in the first place.'"
The issue now is one of accepting what is happening for all to see rather than absorbing the fake narrative sold the world. For those unaware, it isn't just millions of Americans but government officials as well, who form their opinions and prejudices against nations, races of people, religions and even ideas themselves.
The are imprinted via fictional television shows like Homeland , whose writers and producers are in actuality as complicit in psychological warfare as those who run Cambridge Analytical, Google or Facebook, the groups now under the public microscope.
As for Mueller and his investigation, it is pure theatre. As for Trump, more theatre as well, a buffoon long shown to be a mob asset, now wielding nukes and threatening the world, holding it hostage to his bad brain chemistry and his criminal handlers.
Gordon Duff is a Marine combat veteran of the Vietnam War that has worked on veterans and POW issues for decades and consulted with governments challenged by security issues. He's a senior editor and chairman of the board of Veterans Today, especially for the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook."
Mar 23, 2018 | www.counterpunch.orgIn the days and weeks following the 2016 presidential elections, reports surfaced about how a small British political consulting firm, Cambridge Analytica, might have played a pivotal role in Donald Trump's surprise victory. The company claimed to have formulated algorithms to influence American voters using individually targeted political advertisements. It reportedly generated personality profiles of millions of individual citizens by collecting up to 5000 data points on each person. Then Cambridge Analytica used these "psychographic" tools to send voters carefully crafted online messages about candidates or hot-button political issues.
Although political consultants have long used "microtargeting" techniques for zeroing in on particular ethnic, religious, age, or income groups, Cambridge Analytica's approach is unusual: The company relies upon individuals' personal data that is harvested from social media apps like Facebook. In the US, such activities are entirely legal. Some described Cambridge Analytica's tools as " mind-reading software " and a " weaponized AI [artificial intelligence] propaganda machine ." However, corporate media outlets such as CNN and the Wall Street Journal often portrayed the company in glowing terms.
Cambridge Analytica is once again in the headlines–but under somewhat different circumstances. Late last week, whistleblower Christopher Wylie went public , explaining how he played an instrumental role in collecting millions of Facebook profiles for Cambridge Analytica. This revelation is significant because until investigative journalist Carole Cadwalladr published her exposé in The Guardian , Cambridge Analytica's then-CEO Alexander Nix had adamantly denied using Facebook data. And although Facebook officials knew that Cambridge Analytica had previously gathered data on millions of users, they did not prohibit the company from advertising until last Friday, as the scandal erupted. To make matters worse, the UK's Channel 4 released undercover footage early this week in which Cambridge Analytica executives boast about using dirty tricks–bribes, entrapment, and "beautiful girls" to mention a few.
The case of Cambridge Analytica brings into focus a brave new world of electoral politics in an algorithmic age–an era in which social media companies like Facebook and Twitter make money by selling ads, but also by selling users' data outright to third parties. Relatively few countries have laws that prevent such practices–and it turns out that the US does not have a comprehensive federal statute protecting individuals' data privacy. This story is significant not only because it demonstrates what can happen when an unorthodox company takes advantage of a lax regulatory environment, but also because it reveals how Internet companies like Facebook have played fast and loose with the personal data of literally billions of users.
From Public Relations to Psychological Warfare
In order to make sense of Cambridge Analytica it is helpful to understand its parent company, SCL Group, which was originally created as the PR firm Strategic Communications Laboratory. It was founded in the early 1990s by Nigel Oakes , a flamboyant UK businessman. By the late 1990s, the company was engaged almost exclusively in political projects. For example, SCL was hired to help burnish the image of Indonesian president Abdurrahman Wahid–but Oakes and SCL employees had to shut down their operations center when SCL's cover was blown by the Wall Street Journal .
In July 2005, SCL underwent a dramatic transformation. It very publicly rebranded itself as a psychological warfare company by taking part in the UK's largest military trade show. SCL's exhibit included a mock operations center featuring dramatic crisis scenarios–a smallpox outbreak in London, a bloody insurgency in a fictitious South Asian country–which were then resolved with the help of the company's psyops techniques. Oakes told a reporter : "We used to be in the business of mindbending for political purposes, but now we are in the business of saving lives." The company's efforts paid off. Over the next ten years, SCL won contracts with the US Defense Department's Combatant Commands, NATO, and Sandia National Labs.
Over the past few years SCL–now known as SCL Group –has transformed itself yet again. It no longer defines itself as a psyops specialist, nor as a political consultancy–now, it calls itself a data analytics company specializing in "behavioral change" programs.
Along the way it created Cambridge Analytica, a subsidiary firm which differs from SCL Group in that it focuses primarily on political campaigns. Its largest investors include billionaire Robert Mercer, co-CEO of hedge fund Renaissance Technologies, who is best known for his advocacy of far-right political causes and his financial support of Breitbart News. Steve Bannon briefly sat on Cambridge Analytica's board of directors.
Cambridge Analytica first received significant media attention in November 2015, shortly after the firm was hired by Republican presidential nominee Ted Cruz's campaign. Although Cruz ultimately failed, Cambridge Analytica's CEO, Alexander Nix, claimed that Cruz's popularity grew largely due to the company's skillful use of aggregated voter data and personality profiling methods.
In August 2016, the Trump campaign hired Cambridge Analytica as part of a desperate effort to challenge Hillary Clinton's formidable campaign machine. Just a few months later, reports revealed that Cambridge Analytica had also played a role in the UK's successful pro-Brexit "Leave.EU" campaign.
Hacking the Citizenry
Cambridge Analytica relies upon "psychographic" techniques that measure the Big Five personality traits borrowed from social psychology: openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness and neuroticism.
In the US, Cambridge Analytica developed psychological profiles of millions of Americans by hiring a company called Global Science Research (GSR) to plant free personality quizzes. Users were lured by the prospect of obtaining free personality scores, while Cambridge Analytica collected data–and access to users' Facebook profiles. Last week, The Guardian reported that Cambridge Analytica collected data from more than 300,000 Facebook users in this way. By agreeing to the terms and conditions of the app, those users also agreed to grant GSR (and by extension, Cambridge Analytica) access to the profiles of their Facebook "friends"–totalling approximately 50 million people.
Psychographics uses algorithms to scour voters' Facebook "likes," retweets and other social media data which are aggregated with commercially available information: land registries, automotive data, shopping preferences, club memberships, magazine subscriptions, and religious affiliation. When combined with public records, electoral rolls, and additional information purchased from data brokers such as Acxiom and Experian, Cambridge Analytica has raw material for shaping personality profiles. Digital footprints can be transformed into real people. This is the essence of psychographics: Using software algorithms to scour individual voters' Facebook "likes," retweets and other bits of data gleaned from social media and then combine them with commercially available personal information. Data mining is relatively easy in the US, since it has relatively weak privacy laws compared to South Korea, Singapore, and many EU countries.
In a 2016 presentation , Nix described how such information might be used to influence voter opinions on gun ownership and gun rights. Individual people can be addressed differently according to their personality profiles: "For a highly neurotic and conscientious audinece, the threat of a burglary–and the insurance policy of a gun. . .Conversely, for a closed and agreeable audience: people who care about tradition, and habits, and family."
Despite the ominous sounding nature of psychographics, it is not at all clear that Cambridge Analytica played a decisive role in the 2016 US presidential election. Some charge that the company and its former CEO Alexander Nix, exaggerated Cambridge Analytica's effect on the election's outcome. In February 2017, investigative journalist Kendall Taggart wrote an exposé claiming that more than a dozen former employees of Cambridge Analytica, Trump campaign staffers, and executives at Republican consulting firms denied that psychographics was used at all by the Trump campaign. Taggart concluded: "Rather than a sinister breakthrough in political technology, the Cambridge Analytica story appears to be part of the traditional contest among consultants on a winning political campaign to get their share of the credit–and win future clients." Not a single critic was willing to be identified in the report, apparently fearing retaliation from Robert Mercer and his daughter Rebekah, who is also an investor in the firm.
By no means has Cambridge Analytica limited its work to the US. In fact, it has conducted "influence operations" in several countries around the world.
For example, Cambridge Analytica played a major role in last year's presidential elections in Kenya, which pitted incumbent Uhuru Kenyatta of the right-wing Jubilee Party against Raila Odinga of the opposition Orange Democratic Movement. The Jubilee Party hired Cambridge Analytica in May 2017. Although the company claims to have limited its activities to data collection, earlier this week Mark Turnbull, a managing director for Cambridge Analytica, told undercover reporters a different story . He admitted that the firm secretly managed Kenyatta's entire campaign: "We have rebranded the party twice, written the manifesto, done research, analysis, messaging. I think we wrote all the speeches and we staged the whole thing–so just about every element of this candidate," said Turnbull.
Given the most recent revelations about Cambridge Analytica's planting of fake news stories , it seems likely that the company created persuasive personalized ads based on Kenyans' social media data. Fake Whatsapp and Twitter posts exploded days before the Kenyan elections. It is worth remembering that SCL Group has employed disinformation campaigns for military clients for 25 years, and it seems that Cambridge Analytica has continued this pattern of deception.
The August elections were fraught with accusations of vote tampering, the inclusion of dead people as registered voters, and the murder of Chris Msando , the election commission's technology manager, days before the election. When the dust settled, up to 67 people died in post-election violence–and Kenyatta ultimately emerged victorious. Weeks later, the Kenyan Supreme Court annulled the elections, but when new elections were scheduled for October, Odinga declared that he would boycott.
Given Kenya's recent history of electoral fraud, it is unlikely that Cambridge had much impact on the results. Anthropologist Paul Goldsmith , who has lived in Kenya for 40 years, notes that elections still tend to follow the principle of "who counts the votes," not "who influences the voters."
But the significance of Cambridge Analytica's efforts extends beyond their contribution to electoral outcomes. Kenya is no technological backwater. The world's first mobile money service was launched there in 2007, allowing users to transfer cash and make payments by phone. Homegrown tech firms are creating a "Silicon Savannah" near Nairobi. Two-thirds of Kenya's 48 million people have Internet access. Ten million use Whatsapp; six million use Facebook; two million use Twitter. As Kenyans spend more time in the virtual world, their personal data will become even more widely available since Kenya has no data protection laws.
Goldsmith summarizes the situation nicely:
Cambridge Analytica doesn't need to deliver votes so much as to create the perception that they can produce results. . .Kenya provides an ideal entry point into [Africa]. . .Embedding themselves with ruling elites presents a pivot for exploiting emergent commercial opportunities. . .with an eye on the region's resources and its growing numbers of persuadable youth.
Recent reports reveal that Cambridge Analytica has ongoing operations in Mexico and Brazil (which have general elections scheduled this July and October, respectively). India (which has general elections in about a year) has also been courted by the company, and it is easy to understand why: the country has 400 million smartphone users with more than 250 million on either Facebook or Whatsapp. India's elections are also a potential gold mine. More than half a billion people vote in parliamentary elections, and the expenditures are astonishing: Political parties spent $5 billion in 2014, compared to $6.5 billion in last year's US elections. India also has a massive mandatory ID program based on biometric and demographic data, the largest of its kind in the world.
Cambridge Analytica's global strategy appears focused on expanding its market share in promising markets. Although many people might describe Kenya, Mexico, Brazil, and India as developing countries, each in fact has a rapidly growing high-tech infrastructure, relatively high levels of Internet penetration, and large numbers of social media users. They all have weak or nonexistent Internet privacy laws. Though nominally democratic, each country is politically volatile and has experienced episodic outbursts of extreme political, sectarian, or criminal violence. Finally, these countries have relatively young populations, reflecting perhaps a long-term strategy to normalize a form of political communication that will reap long-term benefits in politically sensitive regions.
The capacity for saturating global voters with charged political messages is growing across much of the world, since the cost of buying Facebook ads, Twitterbots and trolls, bots for Whatsapp and other apps is cheap–and since more people than ever are spending time on social media. Such systems can be managed efficiently by remote control. Unlike the CIA's psyops efforts in the mid-20th century, which required extensive on-the-ground efforts–dropping leaflets from airplanes, bribing local journalists, broadcasting propaganda on megaphones mounted on cars–the new techniques can be deployed from a distance, with minimal cost. Cambridge Analytica relies upon small ground teams to do business with political parties, and partnerships with local business intelligence firms to scope out the competition or provide marketing advice, but most of the work is done from London and New York.
Weaponizing Big Data?
From its beginnings, Cambridge Analytica has declared itself to be a "data-driven" group of analytics experts practicing an improved form of political microtargeting, but there are indications that the firm has broader ambitions.
In March 2017, reports emerged that top executives from SCL Group met with Pentagon officials, including Hriar Cabayan, head of a branch which conducts DoD research and cultural analysis. A decade ago, Cabayan played an instrumental role in launching the precursor to the Human Terrain System , a US Army counterinsurgency effort which embedded anthropologists and other social scientists with US combat brigades in Iraq and Afghanistan.
A few months later, in August 2017, the Associated Press reported that retired US Army General Michael Flynn, who briefly served as National Security Director in the Trump administration, had signed a work agreement with Cambridge Analytica in late 2016, though it is unclear whether he actually did any work for the firm. Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russian operatives in late 2017, when he was working with Trump's transition team. Given his spot in the media limelight, it is easy to forget that he once headed US intelligence operations in Afghanistan, advocating for a big data approach to counterinsurgency that would, among other things, include data collected by Human Terrain Teams.
The connections between Cambridge Analytica/SCL Group and the Pentagon's champions of data-driven counterinsurgency and cyberwarfare may be entirely coincidental, but they do raise several questions: As Cambridge Analytica embarks on its global ventures, is it undertaking projects that are in fact more sinister than its benign-sounding mission of "behavioral change"? And are the company's recent projects in Kenya, India, Mexico, and Brazil simply examples of global market expansion, or are these countries serving as laboratories to test new methods of propaganda dissemination and political polarization for eventual deployment here at home?
Here the lines between military and civilian applications become blurred, not only because ARPANET–the Internet's immediate precursor–was developed by the Pentagon's Advanced Research Projects Agency, but also because the technology can be used for surveillance on a scale that authoritarian regimes of the 20th century could only have dreamed about. As Yasha Levine convincingly argues in his book Surveillance Valley: The Secret Military History of the Internet , the Internet was originally conceived as a counterinsurgency surveillance program.
Neutralizing Facebook's Surveillance Machine
It appears that many people are finally taking note of the digital elephant in the room: Facebook's role in enabling Cambridge Analytica and other propagandists, publicists, and mind-benders to carry out their work–legally and discreetly. As recently noted by Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai in the online journal Motherboard , Cambridge Analytica's data harvesting practices weren't security breaches, they were "par for the course. . .It was a feature, not a bug. Facebook still collects -- and then sells -- massive amounts of data on its users." In other words, every Facebook post or tweet, every g-mail message sent or received, renders citizens vulnerable to forms of digital data collection that can be bought and sold to the highest bidder. The information can be used for all kinds of purposes in an unregulated market: monitoring users' emotional states, manipulating their attitiudes, or disseminating tailor-made propaganda designed to polarize people.
It is telling that Facebook stubbornly refuses to call Cambridge Analytica's actions a "data breach." As Zeynep Tufekci, author of the book Twitter And Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest puts it, the company's defensive posture reveals much about the social costs of social media. She recently wrote :
"If your business is building a massive surveillance machinery, the data will eventually be used and misused. Hacked, breached, leaked, pilfered, conned, targeted, engaged, profiled, sold. There is no informed consent because it's not possible to reasonably inform or consent."
Cambridge Analytica is significant to the extent that it illuminates new technological controlling processes under construction. In a supercharged media environment in which Facebook, Twitter, and WhatsApp (owned by Facebook) have become the primary means by which literally billions of people consume news, mass producing propaganda has never been easier. With so many people posting so much information about the intimate details of their lives on the Web, coordinated attempts at mass persuasion will almost certainly become more widespread in the future.
In the meantime, there are concrete measures that we can take to rein in Facebook, Amazon, Google, Twitter, and other technology giants. Some of the most lucid suggestions have been articulated by Roger McNamee, a venture capitalist and early Facebook investor. He recommends a multi-pronged approach : demanding that the social media companies' CEOs testify before congressional and parliamentary committees in open sessions; imposing strict regulations on how Internet platforms are used and commercialized; requiring social media companies to report who is sponsoring political and issues-based advertisements; mandating transparency about algorithms ("users deserve to know why they see what they see in their news feeds and search results," says McNamee); requiring social media apps to offer an "opt out" to users; banning digital "bots" that impersonate humans; and creating rules that allow consumers (not corporations) to own their own data.
In a world of diminishing privacy, our vulnerabilities are easily magnified. Experimental psychologists specializing in what they euphemistically call "behavior design" have largely ignored ethics and morality in order to help Silicon Valley companies create digital devices, apps, and other technologies that are literally irresistible to their users. As the fallout from Cambridge Analytica's activities descends upon the American political landscape, we should take advantage of the opportunity to impose meaningful controls on Facebook, Google, Twitter, and other firms that have run roughshod over democratic norms–and notions of individual privacy–in the relentless pursuit of profit. Join the debate on Facebook More articles by: Roberto J. González
Roberto J. González is chair of the anthropology department at San José State University. He has written several books including American Counterinsurgency: Human Science and the Human Terrain and Militarizing Culture: Essays on the Warfare State . He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org .
Mar 25, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
Tonight at 7pm ET/PT, 60 Minutes will air a controversial interview with Stephanie Clifford, aka Stormy Daniels, the adult-film star who says she had an affair with Donald Trump. Daniels will talk to Anderson Cooper about the relationship she says she had with Trump in 2006 and 2007, unveiling details that bring her story up to the present. It will be the first - and so far only - television interview in which she speaks about the alleged relationship.
The 60 Minutes interview will include an examination of the potential legal and political ramifications of the $130,000 payment that Trump's attorney Michael Cohen says he made to Daniels using his own funds. Daniels accepted the money in return for signing a confidentiality agreement, although she recently violated the CA, claiming Trump never signed it.
The president has denied having an affair with Daniels, while Trump's legal team - in this case led by Charles Harder who won a $140MM verdict for Hulk Hogan against Gawker - is seeking to move the case to federal court and claims that Stormy is liable for up to $20 million in damages. This in turn prompted Daniels to launch a crowdfunding campaign to fund her lawsuit against Trump, which at last check had raised over $290K .
Cooper conducted the interview earlier this month, shortly after Cohen obtained a temporary restraining order against Daniels. Meanwhile, Daniels is seeking a ruling that the confidentiality agreement between her and the president is invalid, in part because Mr. Trump never signed it. The president's attorneys are seeking to move the case to federal court and claim Daniels is liable for more than $20 million in damages for violations of the agreement.
On Thursday, the lawyer representing Daniels fired off a tweet with a picture of what appeared to be a compact disc in a safe - hinting that he has video or photographic evidence of Clifford's affair with President Trump.
"If 'a picture is worth a thousand words,' how many words is this worth?????" tweeted lawyer Michael Avenatti.
Avenatti has been a frequent guest on cable news as he promotes Stormy's upcoming 60 minutes tell-all about her alleged affair with President Trump. When CBS Evening News' Julianna Goldman asked Avenatti if he had photos, texts or videos of her alleged relationship with Trump, he replied "No comment," adding that Clifford just "wants to set the record straight." (which you can read more about in her upcoming book, we're sure).
Previewing today's 60 Minutes segment, Avenatti purposefully built up the suspense, tweeting that, among other things, "tonight is not the end – it's the beginning"
And while it is highly unlikely that the Stormy Daniels scandal will escalate into anything of Clinton-Lewinsky proportions, not to mention that Trump has enough other headaches on his hands, here according to The Hill , are seven things to watch for in tonight's interview:
1. Will she give details about the nondisclosure agreement?
Daniels has never spoken publicly about the nondisclosure agreement that purportedly bars her from speaking about her alleged affair with Trump. But a lawsuit filed by Daniels earlier this month confirmed the existence of such a document, arguing that it is invalid because it was never co-signed by Trump himself.
Whether Daniels will discuss the details of the agreement in the "60 Minutes" interview remains to be seen. Her lawsuit seeking to void the contract is still pending, and NDAs often prohibit signatories from speaking about the agreements.
Daniels has hinted that is true of her NDA. During an interview with late-night host Jimmy Kimmel in January, Kimmel pointed out that Daniels would likely be barred from discussing the agreement if it, in fact, existed. "You're so smart, Jimmy," was her cagey response.
2. Will she talk openly about the alleged affair?
Daniels has implied she was paid $130,000 by Trump's personal attorney Michael Cohen weeks before the 2016 presidential election to keep quiet about the alleged affair. Speaking openly about her claims would certainly violate the terms of the disputed NDA, and could subject Daniels to legal penalties.
In court papers filed earlier this month, Trump's lawyers said that Daniels could face up to $20 million in damages for violating the terms of the agreement. One question that remains is whether Daniels could toss out the NDA completely in her "60 Minutes" interview, and provide details about her alleged relationship with the president. The last time she spoke about it was 2011, when she gave an interview to In Touch magazine that wasn't published until this year.
3. Will she mention possible video or photographic evidence?
Avenatti has repeatedly hinted that video or photographic evidence of Daniels's alleged affair with Trump exists. The March 6 lawsuit filed by Daniels to void the nondisclosure agreement with Trump refers to "certain still images and/or text messages which were authored by or relate to" the president. While the NDA reportedly required her to turn over such material and get rid of her own copies, Avenatti has suggested that Daniels may have retained it.
Avenatti hinted this week that he may be in possession of such material, tweeting a cryptic photo of a compact disc inside of what appeared to be a safe. "If 'a picture is worth a thousand words,' how many words is this worth?????" he wrote on Twitter.
4. Will she address whether she was physically threatened?
Avenatti prompted questions earlier this month when he said that Daniels had been threatened with physical harm in connection with the alleged affair with Trump. Asked on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" whether Daniels had been physically threatened, Avenatti bluntly replied, "yes." Exactly who may have threatened Daniels or what the nature of those threats may have been is unclear, and Avenatti has declined to discuss the matter in greater detail. Daniels herself has not addressed any potential physical threats that she may have gotten, leaving open whether she will discuss the topic in the "60 Minutes" interview.
5. Will she discuss whether Trump knew about the $130K payment?
Cohen himself has acknowledged making the payment to Daniels, but has insisted that the money came from his personal funds and that Trump was never made aware of the transaction. White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders has said she does not believe Trump knew about the payment. But Avenatti has argued otherwise, saying the fact that Cohen used a Trump Organization email address backs up his claim that the real estate mogul was aware of the transaction. In an interview on "Morning Joe" last week, Avenatti also suggested that he had more evidence that Trump knew about the payment. Asked by Willie Geist if his "belief that the president directed this payment is based on more than a hunch," Avenatti simply replied, "yes," but declined to provide any evidence.
6. Why does she want to talk about the affair now?
Daniels's lawsuit claims she expressed interest in discussing the alleged affair publicly in 2016 after The Washington Post published a 2005 "Access Hollywood" tape in which Trump could be heard boasting about groping and kissing women without their permission. It was at this point that Cohen and Trump "aggressively sought to silence Ms. Clifford," according to the lawsuit, which claims that the $130,000 payment and nondisclosure agreement soon followed. But for more than a year after that, Daniels was silent about the alleged affair, and it was only in recent months that the accusations resurfaced. One thing to watch for is whether Daniels addresses her motives in the "60 Minutes" interview, or answers questions about what she hopes will happen next.
7. What happens next?
There may be hints of what Daniels's next steps are in the interview. A planned court hearing for Daniels's lawsuit is still months away. However, whatever Daniels reveals in the interview may force the hand of Trump's own legal team. After news broke that CBS intended to air the "60 Minutes" segment with Daniels, speculation swirled that Trump's lawyers would take legal action seeking to block the broadcast. Such legal action would have been unlikely to proceed, because courts rarely allow such prior restraint of speech, particularly regarding the news media.
But Trump's legal team has already signaled they're willing to fight Daniels on her claims. They reportedly asked for a temporary restraining order against her last month and have asked to transfer the lawsuit from California state court to a federal court in Los Angeles. But how Trump and his lawyers respond to the interview after it airs will be closely watched. Tags Law Crime News Agencies Internet Service Providers Glasses, Spectacles & Contact lenses
Comments Vote up! 7 Vote down! 0
Moustache Rides Sun, 03/25/2018 - 16:02 Permalinkwee-weed up -> Moustache Rides Sun, 03/25/2018 - 16:03 Permalink
Oh, I can't wait to tune into this. Give me a frackin' break.IridiumRebel -> Bes Sun, 03/25/2018 - 16:28 Permalink
Can you EVER imagine the MSM doing this to Slick Willy? Fukin' hypocrites!warsev -> IridiumRebel Sun, 03/25/2018 - 16:23 Permalink
It's 24/7 on the CuntStreamMedia.....like they're gonna find out tonight for the first time?
They probably know already. IT WAS 12 YEARS AGO......serotonindumptruck -> Mustafa Kemal Sun, 03/25/2018 - 16:29 Permalink
What I wonder is just how low CBS can go. Can you imagine the CBS of twenty or thirty years ago wading in the sewer like this?didthatreallyhappen Sun, 03/25/2018 - 16:04 Permalink
Initially, this ridiculous scandal was mildly amusing.
Now, it has become a tedious circus sideshow that serves to distract the masses from much more important issues.
The disgusting fact that Trump chose to throw his dick into this cum-dumpster skank is bad enough, but now that her lawyer apparently has a Trump dick-pic or some other pornographic evidence, he intends to exploit and extort as much publicity and money that he can in an effort to embarrass the POTUS.
Is it any wonder that the USA has become the laughing stock of the world?silverer -> didthatreallyhappen Sun, 03/25/2018 - 16:12 Permalink
bill clinton raped women and the left didn't care. They care now about Trump's mistress?Robert Trip Sun, 03/25/2018 - 16:06 Permalink
Bill squirted in the White House. Trump squirted on his own time.
"Adult film star?"
Interviewed by "I love to suck cocks" Anderson Cooper on 60 Minutes.
They are fit for each other.
Mar 24, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.comYves here. Not new to anyone who has been paying attention, but a useful recap with some good observations at the end, despite deploying the cringe-making trope of businesses having DNA. That legitimates the notion that corporations are people.
By Ivan Manokha, a departmental lecturer in the Oxford Department of International Development. He is currently working on power and obedience in the late-modern political economy, particularly in the context of the development of new technologies of surveillance. Originally published at openDemocracy
The current social mobilization against Facebook resembles the actions of activists who, in opposition to neoliberal globalization, smash a McDonald's window during a demonstration.
On March 17, The Observer of London and The New York Times announced that Cambridge Analytica, the London-based political and corporate consulting group, had harvested private data from the Facebook profiles of more than 50 million users without their consent. The data was collected through a Facebook-based quiz app called thisisyourdigitallife, created by Aleksandr Kogan, a University of Cambridge psychologist who had requested and gained access to information from 270,000 Facebook members after they had agreed to use the app to undergo a personality test, for which they were paid through Kogan's company, Global Science Research.
But as Christopher Wylie, a twenty-eight-year-old Canadian coder and data scientist and a former employee of Cambridge Analytica, stated in a video interview , the app could also collect all kinds of personal data from users, such as the content that they consulted, the information that they liked, and even the messages that they posted.
In addition, the app provided access to information on the profiles of the friends of each of those users who agreed to take the test, which enabled the collection of data from more than 50 million.
All this data was then shared by Kogan with Cambridge Analytica, which was working with Donald Trump's election team and which allegedly used this data to target US voters with personalised political messages during the presidential campaign. As Wylie, told The Observer, "we built models to exploit what we knew about them and target their inner demons."
Following these revelations the Internet has been engulfed in outrage and government officials have been quick to react. On March 19, Antonio Tajani President of the European Parliament Antonio Tajani, stated in a twitter message that misuse of Facebook user data "is an unacceptable violation of our citizens' privacy rights" and promised an EU investigation. On March 22, Wylie communicated in a tweet that he accepted an invitation to testify before the US House Intelligence Committee, the US House Judiciary Committee and UK Parliament Digital Committee. On the same day Israel's Justice Ministry informed Facebook that it was opening an investigation into possible violations of Israelis' personal information by Facebook.
While such widespread condemnation of Facebook and Cambridge Analytica is totally justified, what remains largely absent from the discussion are broader questions about the role of data collection, processing and monetization that have become central in the current phase of capitalism, which may be described as 'platform capitalism', as suggested by the Canadian writer and academic Nick Srnicek in his recent book .
Over the last decade the growth of platforms has been spectacular: today, the top 4 enterprises in Forbes's list of most valuable brands are platforms, as are eleven of the top twenty. Most recent IPOs and acquisitions have involved platforms, as have most of the major successful startups. The list includes Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, eBay, Instagram, YouTube, Twitch, Snapchat, WhatsApp, Waze, Uber, Lyft, Handy, Airbnb, Pinterest, Square, Social Finance, Kickstarter, etc. Although most platforms are US-based, they are a really global phenomenon and in fact are now playing an even more important role in developing countries which did not have developed commercial infrastructures at the time of the rise of the Internet and seized the opportunity that it presented to structure their industries around it. Thus, in China, for example, many of the most valuable enterprises are platforms such as Tencent (owner of the WeChat and QQ messaging platforms) and Baidu (China's search engine); Alibaba controls 80 percent of China's e-commerce market through its Taobao and Tmall platforms, with its Alipay platform being the largest payments platform in China.
The importance of platforms is also attested by the range of sectors in which they are now dominant and the number of users (often numbered in millions and, in some cases, even billions) regularly connecting to their various cloud-based services. Thus, to name the key industries, platforms are now central in Internet search (Google, Yahoo, Bing); social networking (Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram, Snapchat); Internet auctions and retail (eBay, Taobao, Amazon, Alibaba); on-line financial and human resource functions (Workday, Upwork, Elance, TaskRabbit), urban transportation (Uber, Lyft, Zipcar, BlaBlaCar), tourism (Kayak, Trivago, Airbnb), mobile payment (Square Order, PayPal, Apple Pay, Google Wallet); and software development (Apple's App Store, Google Play Store, Windows App store). Platform-based solutions are also currently being adopted in more traditional sectors, such as industrial production (GE, Siemens), agriculture (John Deere, Monsanto) and even clean energy (Sungevity, SolarCity, EnerNOC).
User Profiling -- Good-Bye to Privacy
These platforms differ significantly in terms of the services that they offer: some, like eBay or Taobao simply allow exchange of products between buyers and sellers; others, like Uber or TaskRabbit, allow independent service providers to find customers; yet others, like Apple or Google allow developers to create and market apps.
However, what is common to all these platforms is the central role played by data, and not just continuous data collection, but its ever more refined analysis in order to create detailed user profiles and rankings in order to better match customers and suppliers or increase efficiency.
All this is done in order to use data to create value in some way another (to monetize it by selling to advertisers or other firms, to increase sales, or to increase productivity). Data has become 'the new oil' of global economy, a new commodity to be bought and sold at a massive scale, and with this development, as a former Harvard Business School professor Shoshana Zuboff has argued , global capitalism has become 'surveillance capitalism'.
What this means is that platform economy is a model of value creation which is completely dependant on continuous privacy invasions and, what is alarming is that we are gradually becoming used to this.
Most of the time platform providers keep track of our purchases, travels, interest, likes, etc. and use this data for targeted advertising to which we have become accustomed. We are equally not that surprised when we find out that, for example, robotic vacuum cleaners collect data about types of furniture that we have and share it with the likes of Amazon so that they can send us advertisements for pieces of furniture that we do not yet possess.
There is little public outcry when we discover that Google's ads are racially biased as, for instance, a Harvard professor Latanya Sweeney found by accident performing a search. We are equally hardly astonished that companies such as Lenddo buy access to people's social media and browsing history in exchange for a credit score. And, at least in the US, people are becoming accustomed to the use of algorithms, developed by private contractors, by the justice system to take decisions on sentencing, which often result in equally unfair and racially biased decisions .
The outrage provoked by the Cambridge Analytica is targeting only the tip of the iceberg. The problem is infinitely larger as there are countless equally significant instances of privacy invasions and data collection performed by corporations, but they have become normalized and do not lead to much public outcry.
Today surveillance is the DNA of the platform economy; its model is simply based on the possibility of continuous privacy invasions using whatever means possible. In most cases users agree, by signing the terms and conditions of service providers, so that their data may be collected, analyzed and even shared with third parties (although it is hardly possible to see this as express consent given the size and complexity of these agreements -- for instance, it took 8 hours and 59 minutes for an actor hired by the consumer group Choice to read Amazon Kindle's terms and conditions). In other instances, as in the case of Kogan's app, the extent of the data collected exceeds what was stated in the agreement.
But what is important is to understand that to prevent such scandals in the future it is not enough to force Facebook to better monitor the use of users' data in order to prevent such leaks as in the case of Cambridge Analytica. The current social mobilization against Facebook resembles the actions of activists who, in opposition to neoliberal globalization, smash a McDonald's window during a demonstration.
What we need is a total redefinition of the right to privacy (which was codified as a universal human right in 1948, long before the Internet), to guarantee its respect, both offline and online.
What we need is a body of international law that will provide regulations and oversight for the collection and use of data.
What is required is an explicit and concise formulation of terms and conditions which, in a few sentences, will specify how users' data will be used.
It is important to seize the opportunity presented by the Cambridge Analytica scandal to push for these more fundamental changes.
Arizona Slim , , March 24, 2018 at 7:38 amSteve H. , , March 24, 2018 at 8:05 am
I am grateful for my spidey sense. Thanks, spidey sense, for ringing the alarm bells whenever I saw one of those personality tests on Facebook. I never took one.Annieb , , March 24, 2018 at 2:02 pm
First they came for
The most efficient strategy is to be non-viable . They may come for you eventually, but someone else gets to be the canary, and you haven't wasted energy in the meantime. TOR users didn't get that figured out.ChrisPacific , , March 25, 2018 at 4:07 pm
Never took the personality test either, but now I now that all of my friends who did unknowingly gave up my personal information too. I read an article somewhere about this over a year ago so it's really old news. Sent the link to a few people who didn't care. But now that they all know that Cambridge Analytical used FB data in support of the Trump campaign it's all over the mainstream and people are upset.HotFlash , , March 24, 2018 at 3:13 pm
You can disable that (i.e., prevent friends from sharing your info with third parties) in the privacy options. But the controls are not easy to find and everything is enabled by default.Octopii , , March 24, 2018 at 8:06 am
I haven't FB'd in years and certainly never took any such test, but if any of my friends, real or FB, did, and my info was shared, can I sue? If not, why not?Samuel Conner , , March 24, 2018 at 8:16 am
Everyone thought I was paranoid as I discouraged them from moving backups to the cloud, using trackers, signing up for grocery store clubs, using real names and addresses for online anything, etc. They thought I was overreacting when I said we need European-style privacy laws in this country. People at work thought my questions about privacy for our new location-based IoT plans were not team-based thinking.
And it turns out after all this that they still think I'm extreme. I guess it will have to get worse.Collins , , March 24, 2018 at 9:14 am
In a first for me, there are surface-mount resistors in the advert at the top of today's NC links page. That is way out of the ordinary; what I usually see are books or bicycle parts; things I have recently purchased or searched.
But a couple of days ago I had a SKYPE conversation with a sibling about a PC I was scavenging for parts, and surface mount resistors (unscavengable) came up. I suspect I have been observed without my consent and am not too happy about it. As marketing, it's a bust; in the conversation I explicitly expressed no interest in such components as I can't install them. I suppose I should be glad for this indication of something I wasn't aware was happening.Samuel Conner , , March 24, 2018 at 10:15 am
Had you used your computer keyboard previously to search for 'surface mount resistors', or was the trail linking you & resistors entirely verbal?Abi , , March 25, 2018 at 3:24 pm
No keyboard search. I never so much as think about surface mount components; the inquiry was raised by my sibling and I responded. Maybe its coincidental, but it seems quite odd.
I decided to click through to the site to generate a few pennies for NC and at least feel like I was punishing someone for snooping on me.ChiGal in Carolina , , March 25, 2018 at 10:12 am
Its been happening to me a lot recently on my Instagram, I don't like pictures or anything, but whenever I have a conversation with someone on my phone, I start seeing ads of what I spoke aboutEureka Springs , , March 24, 2018 at 8:44 am
I thought it came out a while ago that Skype captures and retains all the dialogue and video of convos using it.Pelham , , March 24, 2018 at 9:13 am
What we need is a total redefinition of the right to privacy (which was codified as a universal human right in 1948, long before the Internet), to guarantee its respect, both offline and online.
Are we, readers of this post, or citizens of the USA supposed to think there is anything binding in declarations? Or anything from the UN if at all inconvenient for that matter?
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Platforms like facebook allow individuals to 'spy' on each other and people love it. When I was a kid i always marveled at how some households would leave a police scanner on 24/7. With the net we have this writ large with baby, puppy and tv dinner photos. Not to forget it's a narcissist paradise. I have friends who I've tried to gently over time inject tidbits of info like this article provides for many years and they still just refuse to try and get it. If they looked over their shoulder and saw how many people/entities are literally following them everywhere they go, they would become rabid gun owners (don't tread on me!) overnight, but the invisible hand/eye registers not at all.albert , , March 24, 2018 at 6:27 pm
A side note: If Facebook and other social media were to assume ANY degree of responsibility for content appearing on their platforms, they would be acknowledging their legal liability for ALL content.
Hence they would be legally responsible just as newspapers are. And major newspapers have on-staff lawyers and editors exquisitely attuned to the possibility of libelous content so they can avoid ruinous lawsuits.
If the law were applied as it should be, Facebook and its brethren wouldn't last five minutes before being sued into oblivion.PlutoniumKun , , March 24, 2018 at 9:52 am
" being sued into oblivion ." If only.
Non-liability is a product of the computer age. I remember having to agree with Microsofts policy to absolve them of -any- liability when using their software. If they had their druthers, -no- company would be liable for -anything-. It's called a 'perfect world'.
Companies that host 'social media' should not have to bear any responsibility for their users content. Newspapers employ writers and fact checkers. They are set up to monitor their staff for accuracy (Okay, in theory). So you can sue them and even their journalist employees. Being liable (and not sued) allows them to brag about how truthful they are. Reputations are a valuable commodity these days.
In the case of 'social media' providers, liability falls on the authors of their own comments, which is only fair, in my view. However, I would argue that those 'providers' should -not- be considered 'media' like newspapers, and their members should not be considered 'journalists'.
Also, those providers are private companies, and are free to edit, censor, or delete anything on their site. And of course it's automated. Some conservative Facebook members were complaining about being banned. Apparently, there a certain things you can't say on Facebook.
AFAIC, the bottom line is this: Many folks tend to believe everything they read online. They need to learn the skill of critical thinking. And realize that the Internet can be a vast wasteland; a digital garbage dump.
Why are our leaders so concerned with election meddling? Isn't our propaganda better than the Russians? We certainly pay a lot for it.
. .. . .. -- .saurabh , , March 24, 2018 at 11:43 am
It seems even Elon Musk is now rebelling against Facebook.
Musk Takes Down the Tesla and SpaceX Facebook Pages.
Today, Musk also made fun of Sonos for not being as committed as he was to the anti-Facebook cause after the connected-speaker maker said it would pull ads from the platform -- but only for a week.
"Wow, a whole week. Risky " Musk tweeted.Jim Thomson , , March 25, 2018 at 9:39 am
Musk, like Trump, knows he does not need to advertise because a fawning press will dutifully report on everything he does and says, no matter how dumb.Daniel Mongan , , March 24, 2018 at 10:14 am
This is rich.
I can't resist: It takes a con to know a con.
(not the most insightful comment)JimTan , , March 24, 2018 at 11:12 am
A thoughtful post, thanks for that. May I recommend you take a look at "All You Can Pay" (NationBooks 2015) for a more thorough treatment of the subject, together with a proposal on how to re-balance the equation. Full disclosure, I am a co-author.JCC , , March 24, 2018 at 11:29 am
People are starting to download copies of their Facebook data to get an understanding of how much information is being collected from them.oh , , March 24, 2018 at 1:44 pm
A reminder: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRT9On7qie8
I saw this video back in 2007. It was originally put together by a Sarah Lawrence student who was working on her paper on social media. The ties of all the original investors to IN-Q-Tel scared me off and I decided to stay away from Facebook.
But it isn't just FB. Amazon, Twitter, Google, LinkedIn, Apple, Microsoft and many others do the same, and we are all caught up in it whether we agree to participate or not.
Anyone watch the NCAA Finals and see all the ads from Google about being "The Official Cloud of the NCAA"? They were flat out bragging, more or less, about surveillance of players. for the NCAA.
Platform Capitalism is a mild description, it is manipulation based on Surveillance Capitalism, pure and simple. The Macro pattern of Corporate Power subsuming the State across every area is fascinating to watch, but a little scary.HotFlash , , March 24, 2018 at 3:27 pm
Caveat Emptor: If you watch YouTube, they'll only add to the information that they already have on you!Craig H. , , March 24, 2018 at 12:21 pm
Just substitute "hook" for 'you" in the URL, you get the same video, no ads, and they claim not to track you. YMMVEd , , March 24, 2018 at 2:50 pm
Privacy no longer a social norm, says Facebook founder; Guardian; 10 January 2010
The Right to Privacy; Warren & Brandeis; Harvard Law Review; 15 December 1890
It was amusing that the top Google hit for the Brandeis article was JSTOR which requires us to surrender personal detail to access their site. To hell with that.
The part I like about the Brandeis privacy story is the motivation was some Manhattan rich dicks thought the gossip writers snooping around their wedding party should mind their own business. (Apparently whether this is actually true or just some story made up by somebody being catty at Brandeis has been the topic of gigabytes of internet flame wars but I can't ever recall seeing any of those.)Craig H. , , March 24, 2018 at 3:42 pm
" Two young psychologists are central to the Cambridge Analytica story. One is Michal Kosinski, who devised an app with a Cambridge University colleague, David Stillwell, that measures personality traits by analyzing Facebook "likes." It was then used in collaboration with the World Well-Being Project, a group at the University of Pennsylvania's Positive Psychology Center that specializes in the use of big data to measure health and happiness in order to improve well-being. The other is Aleksandr Kogan, who also works in the field of positive psychology and has written papers on happiness, kindness, and love (according to his résumé, an early paper was called "Down the Rabbit Hole: A Unified Theory of Love"). He ran the Prosociality and Well-being Laboratory, under the auspices of Cambridge University's Well-Being Institute.
Despite its prominence in research on well-being, Kosinski's work, Cadwalladr points out, drew a great deal of interest from British and American intelligence agencies and defense contractors, including overtures from the private company running an intelligence project nicknamed "Operation KitKat" because a correlation had been found between anti-Israeli sentiments and liking Nikes and KitKats. Several of Kosinski's co-authored papers list the US government's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, as a funding source. His résumé boasts of meetings with senior figures at two of the world's largest defense contractors, Boeing and Microsoft, both companies that have sponsored his research. He ran a workshop on digital footprints and psychological assessment for the Singaporean Ministry of Defense.
For his part, Aleksandr Kogan established a company, Global Science Research, that contracted with SCL, using Facebook data to map personality traits for its work in elections (Kosinski claims that Kogan essentially reverse-engineered the app that he and Stillwell had developed). Kogan's app harvested data on Facebook users who agreed to take a personality test for the purposes of academic research (though it was, in fact, to be used by SCL for non-academic ends). But according to Wylie, the app also collected data on their entire -- and nonconsenting -- network of friends. Once Cambridge Analytica and SCL had won contracts with the State Department and were pitching to the Pentagon, Wylie became alarmed that this illegally-obtained data had ended up at the heart of government, along with the contractors who might abuse it.
This apparently bizarre intersection of research on topics like love and kindness with defense and intelligence interests is not, in fact, particularly unusual. It is typical of the kind of dual-use research that has shaped the field of social psychology in the US since World War II.
Much of the classic, foundational research on personality, conformity, obedience, group polarization, and other such determinants of social dynamics -- while ostensibly civilian -- was funded during the cold war by the military and the CIA. The cold war was an ideological battle, so, naturally, research on techniques for controlling belief was considered a national security priority. This psychological research laid the groundwork for propaganda wars and for experiments in individual "mind control."
The pioneering figures from this era -- for example, Gordon Allport on personality and Solomon Asch on belief conformity -- are still cited in NATO psy-ops literature to this day .."
This is an issue which has frustrated me greatly. In spite of the fact that the country's leading psychologist (at the very least one of them -- ex-APA president Seligman) has been documented taking consulting fees from Guantanamo and Black Sites goon squads, my social science pals refuse to recognize any corruption at the core of their so-called replicated quantitative research.
I have asked more than five people to point at the best critical work on the Big 5 Personality theory and they all have told me some variant of "it is the only way to get consistent numbers". Not one has ever retreated one step or been receptive to the suggestion that this might indicate some fallacy in trying to assign numbers to these properties.
They eat their own dog food all the way and they seem to be suffering from a terrible malnutrition. At least the anthropologists have Price . (Most of that book can be read for free in installments at Counterpunch.)
Mar 25, 2018 | www.eurasiafuture.com"CA was able to provide the campaign with predictive analytics based on more than 5,000 data points on every voter in the United States. From there, CA's team of political consultants and psychologists guided the campaign on what to say and how to say it to specific groups of voters."
This is a vocal acknowledgement from Trump's data guru that he was able to change the behaviour of American voters in favour of a Trump victory in the presidential election, but unfortunately, the American deep state blamed Russia for hacking American democracy – a claim which is totally baseless and untrue. In a total disingenuous move, American mainstream media tried to link-up CA with WikiLeaks. While CA did contact Wikileaks, Julian Assange is on the record as rebuffing CA's advances.
American warmongers within the deep state worked for a Hillary Clinton victory through their control of American mainstream media, but they nevertheless failed to elect her. As a result, Clinton's team blamed her loss on Russia, in order to accelerate hostility towards Moscow and to apply pressure on President Trump so that he could not establish friendly relations with Russia. They have succeeded in this regard as Trump surrendered to the war hungry deep state. That being said, the fight within the deep state between FBI and CIA also helped Trump to use the situation in his favour, as the FBI investigated Clinton after emails leaks scandal.
The CIA blamed Russia for hacking Hillary Clinton's DNC emails and allegedly passing them to Wikileaks. The purpose of this blame was to influence the FBI investigation against her. To a degree they succeeded. While she did not go to jail, she ended up losing the election. US intelligence agencies propagated a myth that Wikileaks worked for Russia, but it is a fact that Russia has no links with Wikileaks.
... ... ...Recently Russian President Vladimir Putin held up a mirror to western global manipulator elite and addressed their baseless 'blame campaign' against Russia. Speaking with NBC news anchor Megyn Kelly, Putin said, "We're holding discussions with our American friends and partners, people who represent the government, by the way, and when they claim that some Russians interfered in the US elections, we tell them and we did so fairly recently at a very level, 'But you are constantly interfering in our political life'. Can you imagine, they don't even deny it, you know what they told us last time? They said, 'Yes, we do interfere but we are entitled to do it because we are spreading democracy and you're not, and you can't do it'. Does this seem like a civilized and modern approach to international affairs? At the level of the Russian government and the level of Russian President, there has never been any interference in the internal political process of the United States."
President Putin further explained, "Not long ago President Trump said something, he said that if Russia goal was to sow chaos it has succeeded, but that's not the result, that's the result of your political system; the internal struggle, the disorder, and division. Russia has nothing to do with it. Whatsoever we have nothing to do with it all. Get your own affairs in order first and the way the question's been framed as I mentioned –that you can interfere anywhere you want because you bring democracy but we can't –that's what causes conflicts. You have to show your partners respect and they will respect you."
President Putin's statement clearly indicates that it is the USA who is behind the effort to hack democracy and bring about regime changes throughout the world with the aim to install puppet regimes in targeted states. Cambridge Analytica and its mother company SCL are working for the strategic interests of the USA and its western partner NATO in order to achieve these regime change ambitions. Hence, this is the reason that Facebook after the publication of my previous article, suspended the CA/SCL group from its social media network by saying, "Protecting people's information is at the heart of everything we do, and we require the same from people who operate apps on Facebook. In 2015, we learned that a psychology professor at the University of Cambridge named Dr. Aleksandr Kogan lied to us and violated our Platform Policies by passing data from an app that was using Facebook Login to SCL/Cambridge Analytica, a firm that does political, government and military work around the globe. He also passed that data to Christopher Wylie of Eunoia Technologies, Inc."
Mar 25, 2018 | www.eurasiafuture.com
Manipulating democracy -- brainwashing the public for a large fee
Cambridge Analytica, the data harvesting firm that worked for the Trump campaign, is in the midst of a scandal that should make everyone who cares about a clean political process demand major investigations of anyone who has procured the services of the company, major prosecutions of those who have violated laws across multiple nations and a wholesale revitalisation of electoral laws to prevent politicians from ever again procuring the services of unethical companies like Cambridge Analytica.
Days ago, whistleblower Christopher Wylie went public about his time working for Cambridge Analytica and specifically about how the firm illegally obtained the public and private data, including the private messages of 50 million Facebook users. He also exposed how Cambridge Analytica used this data to run highly scientific social manipulation campaigns in order to effectively brainwash the public in various countries to support a certain political candidate or faction.
Cambridge Analytica's dubious methods were used to meddle in the US election after the Trump campaign paid Cambridge Analytica substantial sums of money for their services. The firm also meddled in the last two Kenyan Presidential elections, elections in Nigeria, elections in Czech Republic, elections in Argentina, elections in India, the Brexit campaign, UK Premier Theresa May's recently election and now stands accused of working with the disgraced former Pakistani Premier Nawaz Sharif in an attempt to reverse his judicial ban on holding public office, while helping his PML-N party win the forthcoming general election.
Beyond the scandalous use of personal data from Facebook users and the illegal access to people's private messages, Cambridge Analytica has now been exposed as a company that, by the hidden-camera admission of its CEO Alexander Nix, engages in nefarious, illegal and outrageous activities across the globe.
The UK Broadcaster Channel 4 just released a video of Cambridge Analytica's CEO and Managing DIrector Mark Turnbull in a conversation with an undercover reporter posing as a Sri Lankan businessman interested in meddling in domestic elections. During the conversation Nix boasted of Cambridge Analytica's history of using entrapment, bribery and intimidation against the political opponents of its wealthy clients. Furthermore, Nix boasted about his firm's ability to procure Ukrainian prostitutes as a means to entrap adversaries while also procuring the services of "Israeli spies" as part of dirty smear operations.
The activities that Nix boasted of using in the past and then offered to a prospective client are illegal in virtually every country in the world. But for Nix and his world of ultra-rich clients, acting as though one is above the law is the rule rather than the exception. Thus far, Cambridge Analaytica has been able to escape justice throughout the world both for its election meddling, data harvesting, data theft and attempts to slander politicians through calculated bribery and entrapment schemes.
One person who refused to be tempted by Cambridge Analytica was Julian Assange. Alexander Nix personally wrote to Julian Assange asking for direct access to information possessed by Wikileaks and Assange refused. This is a clear example of journalistic ethics and personal integrity on the part of Assange. Justice must be done
Cambridge Analytica stands accused of doing everything and more that the Russian state was accused of doing in respect of meddling in the 2016 US Presidential election. While meetings and conversations that Trump campaign officials, including Steve Bannon had with Cambridge Analyatica big wigs were not recorded, any information as to what was said during these exchanges should be thoroughly investigated by law enforcement and eventually made public for the sake of restoring transparency to politics.
Just as the Hillary Clinton campaign openly conspired to deprive Bernie Sanders of the Democratic Party's nomination, so too did Donald Trump's campaign pay Cambridge Analytica to conspire against the American voters using a calculated psychological manipulation campaign that was made possible through the use of unethically obtained and stolen data.
While Facebook claims it was itself misled and consequently victimised by Cambridge Analytica and has subsequently banned the firm from its platform, many, including Edward Snowden have alleged that Facebook knew full well what Cambridge Analytica was doing with the data retrieved from its Facebook apps. Already, the markets have reacted to the news and the verdict is not favourble in terms of the public perception of Facebook as an ethical company. Facebook's share prices are down over 7% on the S&P 500. This represents the biggest tumble in the price of Facebook share prices since 2014. Moreover, the plunge has knocked Facebook out of the coveted big five companies atop the S&P 500. Furthermore, Alex Stamos, Facebook's security director has announced that he will soon leave the company.
The Trump myth and Russia myth exposed
Donald Trump has frequently boasted of his expert campaigning skills as being the reason he won an election that few thought he could have ever won. While Trump was a far more charismatic and exciting platform speaker than his rival Hillary Clinton, it seems that for the Trump campaign, Trump ultimately needed to rely on the expensive and nefarious services of Cambridge Analytica in order to manipulate the minds of American voters and ultimately trick them into voting for him. It is impossible to say whether Trump would have still won his election without Cambridge Analaytica's services, but the fact they were used, should immediately raise the issue of Trump's suitability for office.
Ultimately, the Trump campaign did conspire to meddle in the election, only it was not with Russia or Russians with whom the campaign conspired, it was with the British firm Cambridge Analytica. Thus one sees that both the narrative about Trump the electoral "genius" and the narrative about Trump the Kremlin puppet are both false. The entire time, the issue of Trump campaign election meddling was one between a group of American millionaires and billionaires and a sleaze infested British firm.
Worse than Watergate
In 1972, US President Richard Nixon conspired to cover-up a beak-in at the offices of his political opponents at the Watergate Complex. The scandal ultimately led to Nixon's resignation in 1974. What the Trump campaign did with Cambridge Analytica is far more scandalous than the Watergate break-in and cover-up. Where Nixon's cronies broke into offices to steal information from the Democratic party, Trump's paid cyber-thugs at Cambridge Analytica broke in to the private data of 50 million people, the vast majority of whom were US citizens.
Richard Nixon, like Donald Trump, was ultimately driven by a love of power throughout his life. Just as Trump considered running for President for decades, so too did Nixon try to run in 1960 and lost to John Fitzgerald Kennedy, while he also failed to become governor of California in 1962 election. By 1968 he finally got into the White House at the height of the Vietnam War. When time came for his re-election, Nixon's team weren't going to take any chances and hence the Watergate break-in was orchestrated to dig up dirt on Nixon's opponent. As it turned out Nixon won the 1972 by a comfortable margin, meaning that the Watergate break-in was probably largely in vain.
Likewise, Trump may well have won in 2016 even without Cambridge Analytica, but in his quest for power, Trump has resorted to dealing with a company whose practices have done far more damage to the American people than the Watergate break-in.
New laws are needed
While existing laws will likely be sufficient to bring the fiends at Cambridge Analytica to justice, while also determining the role that Trump campaign officials, up to and including Trump played in the scandal, new laws must be enshrined across the globe in order to put the likes of Cambridge Analytica out of business for good.
The following proposals must be debated widely and ideally implemented at the soonest possible date:
-- A total ban on all forms of data mining/harvesting for political purposes.
-- A total ban on the use of algorithms and artificial intelligence in any political campaign or for any political purpose.
-- A mandatory seizing of the assets of any company involved in data mining/harvesting for political purposes, after which point such a company would be forcibly shut down permanently.
-- A mandatory seizing of the assets of any company involved in the use of artificial intelligence or algorithms in the course of a public political campaign.
-- A total ban on the use of internet based platforms, including social media by political candidates and their direct associates for anything that could reasonably be classified as a misinformation and/or manipulation scheme.
-- A total ban on politicians using third party data firms or advertising firms during elections. All such advertising and analysis must be devised by advisers employed directly by or volunteering for an individual candidate or his or her party political organisation.
-- A total ban on any individual working for a political campaign, who derives at least half of his or her income from employment, ownership and/or shares in a company whose primary purpose is to deliver news and analysis.
-- A total ban on anyone paid by a political candidate to promote his or her election from an ownership or major share holding role in any company whose primary purpose is to deliver news and analysis until 2 years after the said election.
If all of these laws were implemented along with thorough campaign finance reform initiatives, only then can anything remotely resembling fair elections take place.
The elites eat their own
While many of the media outlets who have helped to publish the revelations of whistleblower Christopher Wylie continue to defame Russia without any evidence about Russian linkage to the 2016 US election (or any other western vote for that matter), these outlets are nevertheless exposing the true meddling scandal surrounding the Trump campaign which has the effect of destroying the Russia narrative.
In this sense, a divided elite are turning against themselves. While the billionaire property tycoon Donald Trump can hardly be described as anything but a privileged figure who moved in elite public circles for most of his life, his personal style, rhetoric and attitude towards fellow elites has served to alienate Trump from many. Thus, there is a desire on the part of the mainstream media to expose a scandal surrounding Trump in a manner that would be unthinkable in respect of exposing a cause less popular among western elites, for example the brutal treatment of Palestine by the Zionist regime.
In this sense, Trump's own unwillingness or lack of desire to endear himself to fellow elites and instead present himself as a 'man of the people', might be his penultimate undoing. His rich former friends are now his rich present day enemies and many ordinary voters will be completely aghast at his involvement with Cambridge Analytica, just as many Republicans who voted for Nixon, became converts to the anti-Nixon movement once the misdeeds and dishonesty of Richard Nixon were made public. Many might well leave the 'Trump train' and get on board the 'political ethics express'.
This scandal ultimately has nothing to do with one's opinion on Trump or his policies, let alone any of the other politicians who have hired Cambridge Analytica. The issue is that a company engaged in the most nefarious, dangerous, sleazy and wicked behaviour in the world, is profiting from their destruction of political institutions that ought to be based on open policy debates rather than public manipulation, brainwashing and artificial intelligence.
The issue is also one of privacy. 50 million people have been exploited by an unethical company and what's more is that the money from the Trump campaign helped to empower this unethical company. This is therefore as unfair to non-voters as it is to voters. Cambridge Analytica must be shut down and all companies like it must restrict the scope of their operations or else face the same consequence.
Mar 25, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
veritas semper -> Four chan Sun, 03/25/2018 - 14:05 Permalink
Look at this great interview with Adam Garrie. This is a must watch video.
This scandal is HUUUGE
He discusses Cambridge Analytica involvement in basically all elections, involvement of Facebook and its Sugar daddy, UK ,US gov. How they tried to co-opt Mr.Assange and he said FO.
How UK tries to cover it up . There is a whistleblower and soon more ,it seems
Mar 25, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.orgPeter AU 1 , Mar 25, 2018 1:23:38 PM | 4James 1Peter AU 1 , Mar 25, 2018 2:31:01 PM | 10
I ran onto something about that when researching SCL/Cambridge Analytica
The Mercer/Cambridge Analytica US wing of SCL put a lot of funding into the leave campaign which was undeclared. Like a political campaign, donations above a threshold have to be declared.
Threshold for declaring donations I think was around 3 to 7000 and CA put in over 300 000.james 6
I have been researching SCL the last few days now. It is starting to look as though, rather than being political mercenary's working for whoever pays, they seem to back nationalist leaning groups or individuals. They have a political or geo-political agenda but not sure what at the moment. Always anti Russia. Involved in operations in most of the ex soviet countries to create a hatred of ethnic Russians and I think will work with non nationalist types who are very anti Russia.
Mar 25, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
by Tyler Durden Sun, 03/25/2018 - 13:00 371 SHARES
Julian Assange fired off a tweet Friday afternoon reminding people of the time Mark Zuckerberg called his users "Dumb fucks" because they trusted him with their private information.
Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
Zuck: Just ask.
Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
Zuck: People just submitted it.
Zuck: I don't know why.
Zuck: They "trust me"
Zuck: Dumb fucks.
The exchange, originally published by Business Insider 's editor-in-chief Nicholas Carlson in 2010, was an early instant messenger conversation then 19-year-old Zuckerberg had with a college friend shortly after he launched "The Facebook" in his dorm room.
And this does appear to reflect Mark's own views of privacy, which seem to be that people shouldn't care about it as much as they do -- an attitude that very much reflects the attitude of his generation.
After all, here's what early Facebook engineering boss, Harvard alum, and Zuckerberg confidant Charlie Cheever said in David Kirkpatrick's brilliantly-reported upcoming book The Facebook Effect.
"I feel Mark doesn't believe in privacy that much, or at least believes in privacy as a stepping stone. Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong."
Kirkpatrick had this to say about Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg in his book:
"Mark really does believe very much in transparency and the vision of an open society and open world, and so he wants to push people that way . I think he also understands that the way to get there is to give people granular control and comfort . He hopes you'll get more open, and he's kind of happy to help you get there. So for him, it's more of a means to an end . For me, I'm not as sure."
Zuckerberg reportedly hacked into people's email using their TheFacebook passwords...
At one point early on on Facebook history, Zuckerberg - nervous about an upcoming report in the Harvard Crimson , used "TheFacebook" login data of Crimson staff to crack into their Harvard email accounts to see if the paper was going to include a claim that he had stolen an idea for a TheFacebook feature called "Visualize Your Buddy."
Tim and Elisabeth decided to drop John's claims from the story. But, this time, they decided to go ahead and publish a story on ConnectU's claims against Facebook.
Mark Zuckerberg was not content to wait until the morning to find out if the Crimson would include John's accusations in its story.
Instead, he decided to access the email accounts of Crimson editors and review their emails. How did he do this? Here's how Mark described his hack to a friend:
Mark used his site, TheFacebook.com, to look up members of the site who identified themselves as members of the Crimson . Then he examined a log of failed logins to see if any of the Crimson members had ever entered an incorrect password into TheFacebook.com. If the cases in which they had entered failed logins, Mark tried to use them to access the Crimson members' Harvard email accounts. He successfully accessed two of them.
In other words, Mark appears to have used private login data from TheFacebook to hack into the separate email accounts of some TheFacebook users.
In one account he accessed, Mark saw an email from Crimson writer Tim McGinn to Cameron, Tyler, and Divya. Another email Mark read was this one, from Crimson managing editor Elisabeth Theodore to Tim McGinn:
From: Elisabeth Susan Theodore
To: Timothy John McGinn
Subject: Re: Follow-up
OK, he did seem very sleazy. And I thought that some of his answers to the questions were not very direct or open. I also thought that his reaction to the website was very very weird . But, even if it's true so what? It's an [redacted] thing to do but it's not illegal, right? - Business Insider
Lo and behold, Mark's cavalier attitude towards Facebook user data is costing him billions at a time he's actively shedding shares as part of a $12 billion liquidation which started last September .
Mar 23, 2018 | www.strategic-culture.org
Now, at last, a real "election influence" scandal -- and, laughably, it's got nothing to do with Russia. The protagonists are none other than the "all-American" US social media giant Facebook and a British data consultancy firm with the academic-sounding name Cambridge Analytica.
Facebook's chief executive Mark Zuckerberg is being called upon by British and European parliamentarians to explain his company's role in a data-mining scandal in which up to 50 million users of the social media platform appear to have had their private information exploited for electioneering purposes.
Exploited, that is, without their consent or knowledge. Facebook is being investigated by US federal authorities for alleged breach of privacy and, possibly, electoral laws. Meanwhile, Cambridge Analytica looks less an academic outfit and more like a cheap marketing scam.
Zuckerberg has professed "shock" that his company may have unwittingly been involved in betraying the privacy of its users. Some two billion people worldwide are estimated to use the social media networking site to share personal data, photos, family news and so on, with "friends".
Now it transpires that at least one firm, London-based Cambridge Analytica, ran a profitable business by harvesting the publicly available data on Facebook for electioneering purposes for which it was contracted to do. The harvested information was then used to help target election campaigning.
Cambridge Analytica was reportedly contracted by the Trump campaign for the 2016 presidential election. It was also used during the Brexit referendum campaign in 2016 when Britons voted to leave the European Union.
This week the British news outlet Channel 4 broadcast a stunning investigation in which chief executives at Cambridge Analytica were filmed secretly boasting about how their firm helped win the US presidential election for Donald Trump.
More criminally, the data company boss, Alexander Nix, also revealed that they were prepared to gather information which could be used for blackmailing and bribing politicians, including with the use of online sex traps.
The repercussions from the scandal have been torrid. Following the Channel 4 broadcast, Cambridge Analytica has suspended its chief executive pending further investigation. British authorities have sought a warrant to search the company's computer servers.
Moreover, Zuckerberg's Facebook has seen $50 billion wiped of its stock value in a matter of days. What is at issue is the loss of confidence among its ordinary citizen-users about how their personal data is vulnerable to third party exploitation without their consent.
Cambridge Analytica is just the tip of an iceberg. The issue has raised concerns that other third parties, including criminal identity-theft gangs, are also mining Facebook as a mammoth marketing resource. A resource that is free to exploit because of the way that ordinary users willingly publish their personal profiles.
The open, seemingly innocent nature of Facebook connecting millions of people -- a "place where friends meet" as its advertising jingle goes -- could turn out to be an ethical nightmare over privacy abuse.
Other social media companies like Amazon, Google, WhatsApp and Twitter are reportedly apprehensive about the consequences of widespread loss of confidence among consumers in privacy security. One of the biggest economic growth areas over the past decade -- social media -- could turn out to be another digital bubble that bursts spectacularly due to the latest Facebook scandal.
But one other, perhaps more, significant fallout from the scandal is the realistic perspective it provides on the so-called "Russiagate" debacle.
For well over a year now, the US and European corporate news media have been peddling claims about how Russian state agents allegedly "interfered" in several national elections.
The Russian authorities have consistently rejected the alleged "influence campaigns" as nothing but a fabrication to slander Russia. Moscow has repeatedly asked for evidence to verify the relentless claims -- and none has been presented.
The US congress has carried out two probes into "Russiagate" without much to show for their laborious endeavors. A special counsel headed up by former FBI chief Robert Mueller has spent millions of taxpayer dollars to produce a flimsy indictment list of 19 Russian individuals who are said to have run influence campaigns out of a nondescript "troll farm" in St Petersburg.
It still remains unclear and unconvincing how, or if, the supposed Russian hackers were linked to the Russian state, and how they had any impact on the voting intentions of millions of Americans.
Alternatively, there is plausible reason to believe that the so-called Russian troll farm in St Petersburg, the Internet Research Agency, may have been nothing other than a dingy marketing vehicle, trying to use the internet like thousands of other firms around the world hustling for advertising business. Firms like Cambridge Analytica.
The whole Russiagate affair has been a storm in a teacup, and Mueller seems to be desperate to produce some, indeed any, result for his inquisitorial extravaganza.
The amazing thing to behold is how the alleged Russian "influence campaign" narrative has become an accepted truth, propagated and repeated by Western governments and media without question.
Pentagon defense strategy papers, European Union policy documents, NATO military planning, among others, have all cited alleged "Russian interference" in American and European elections as "evidence" of Moscow's "malign" geopolitical agenda.
The purported Russiagate allegations have led to a grave deepening of Cold War tensions between Western states and Russia to the point where an all-out war is at risk of breaking out.
Last week, the Trump administration slapped more sanctions on Russian individuals and state security services for "election meddling".
No proof or plausible explanation has ever been provided to substantiate the allegations of a Russian state "influence campaign'. The concept largely revolves around innuendo and a deplorable prejudice against Russia based on irrational Cold War-style Russophobia.
However, one possible beneficial outcome from the latest revelations of an actual worldwide Facebook election-influence campaign, driven by an ever-so British data consultancy, is that the scandal puts the claims against Russia into stark, corrective perspective.
A perspective which shows that the heap of official Western claims against Russia of "influencing elections" is in actual fact negligible if not wholly ridiculous.
It's a mountain versus a hill of beans. A tornado versus a storm in a teacup. Time to get real on how Western citizens are being really manipulated by their own consumer-capitalist cultures.Tags: Facebook Russiagate
Mar 22, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com
Jack 21 March 2018 at 05:45 PMTTG should love this article. Only difference is that in the writer's view the Trump campaign was far more effective than the Russian trolls.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-21/it-wasnt-russia-it-was-obama-based-social-media-mining-beat-hillaryThe reason Hillary Clinton did not win despite the media and social media companies doing everything they could to rig the election in her favor is because Facebook double dipped and allowed Cambridge Analytica to use their surveying tools to collect user data on tens of millions of users. This data was then used to target tens of millions of users with political advertising using Facebook's ad platform based on psycholgoical profiles from data they bought or acquired from Facebook.
Facebook is basically responsible for feeding the analytics system that enabled Cambridge Analytica and the Trump campaign to be so targeted and effective with a minimal budget.....
That's what happened, that's how Trump won. It wasn't the Russians, it was our own social media companies who sold our data to the Trump campaign which they then likely used to convince liberals not to vote in swing states.
It's both horrifying, and cleverly brilliant at the same time.
The funny thing is, Obama did something similar in 2012 and liberals celebrated. Not so funny when the other team takes your trick and executes it more effectively now is it?
Mar 21, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Readers report that Facebook keeps asking them to reactivate their accounts. Wolf confirms that and adds critically important point in his post: you can never escape Facebook. Facebook continues to sell your data even if you have "deleted" your account.
I doubt enough people are aware of that issue. Having delete mean delete, as in Facebook wipes your data entirely, should become a key demand in the row over Facebook's information "sharing" policies.
By Wolf Richter, a San Francisco based executive, entrepreneur, start up specialist, and author, with extensive international work experience. Originally published at Wolf Street
Things at Facebook came to a head, following the disclosure that personal data from 50 million of its users had been given to a sordid outfit in the UK, Cambridge Analytica, whose business model is to manipulate elections by hook or crook around the world, and which is now getting vivisected by UK and US authorities.
The infamous "person familiar with the matter" told Bloomberg that the Federal Trade Commission has opened an investigation into whether Facebook violated a consent decree dating back to 2011, when Facebook settled similar allegations -- giving user data to third parties without user's knowledge or consent. Bloomberg:
Under the 2011 settlement, Facebook agreed to get user consent for certain changes to privacy settings as part of a settlement of federal charges that it deceived consumers and forced them to share more personal information than they intended. That complaint arose after the company changed some user settings without notifying its customers, according to an FTC statement at the time.
If Facebook is found to be in violation of the consent decree, the FTC can extract a fine of $40,000 per day, per violation. Given the 50 million victims spread over so many days, this could be some real money, so to speak.
Facebook said in a statement, cited by Bloomberg, that it rejected "any suggestion of violation of the consent decree." It also said with tone-deaf Facebook hilarity, "Privacy and data protections are fundamental to every decision we make."
That Facebook is collecting every little bit of personal data it can from its users and their contacts and how they react to certain things, their preferences, their choices, physical appearance -- photos, I mean come on -- clues about their personalities, and the like has been known from day one. That's part of its business model. It's not a secret.
That third parties have access to this data has also been known at least since 2011. Advertisers also have had access to certain types of data to target their ads.
And yet, Facebook's user base has grown. More than ever, people put their entire lives on Facebook -- maybe not the kids, as they've become enamored with other platforms, but their moms. Babies are on Facebook long before they have any idea what Facebook is. There's a generation growing up that has been on Facebook since birth.
When the Equifax hack occurred last year -- which Equifax disclosed graciously and partially months after the fact on September 7 -- the personal data of what has now grown to 145.5 million consumers was stolen. This included names, birth dates, Social Security numbers, addresses, and "in some instances," driver's license numbers, and other data.
This shocked the world that pays attention to this because the data breach could unleash a tsunami of identity theft. But most consumers who saw it in the media simply shrugged and went on. They could have put a credit freeze on their accounts with the credit bureaus, thus making it nearly impossible for someone else to get a loan or credit card in their name (identity theft). But few consumers put a credit freeze on their accounts. Many consumers still don't know what Equifax is or what it does, and when you discuss the situation, they think you're spouting off conspiracy theories.
But there is a difference between credit bureaus such as Equifax and social media platforms such as Facebook.
With credit bureaus, consumers have no choice. They're forced to be part of the credit-bureau data bases. Their data is collected, and there is nothing they can do about it. Consumer protection should be the number one priority. When companies get hacked and this consumer data gets stolen, there should be harsh punishments against these companies if they're found to have been negligent. Arthur Andersen comes to mind.
But with Facebook and other social media platforms, there is no coercion. Consumers submit their most private data voluntarily -- nay, eagerly. They jump through hoops to share this stuff with the rest of the world. So maybe they only want to share it with x and not with y, but heck, they're uploading it to the Internet. What do they expect?
And there is another difference between Equifax and Facebook: Equifax was hacked and the data was stolen . Facebook gave away the data as part of its business model.
But they do have a major trait in common: An aggrieved consumer cannot delete the data these outfits have collected on that consumer. While Facebook allows you to "delete" items and "delete" your account, the data stays behind on the server. It's available for all purposes; it's just not publicly viewable.
So now there's a hue and cry in the media about Facebook, put together by reporters who are still active on Facebook and who have no intention of quitting Facebook. There has been no panicked rush to "delete" accounts. There has been no massive movement to quit Facebook forever. Facebook does what it does because it does it, and because it's so powerful that it can do it. A whole ecosystem around it depends on the consumer data it collects.
Yes, there will be the usual ceremonies that Equifax also went through: CEO Zuckerberg may get to address the Judiciary Committee in Congress. The questions thrown at him for public consumption will be pointed. But behind the scenes, away from the cameras, there will be the usual backslapping between lawmakers and corporations. Publicly, there will be some wrist-slapping and some lawsuits, and all this will be settled and squared away in due time. Life will go on. Facebook will continue to collect the data because consumers continue to surrender their data to Facebook voluntarily. And third parties will continue to have access to this data.
With Facebook, consumers are in total control: They can just refuse to open an account. And if they have already opened an account, they can delete the app on their mobile devices, clean the cache on their computers, and swear to not ever again sign back in. If enough consumers do that, the whole construct would come down.
The only act that would change anything is if consumers massively and forever abandon Facebook and platforms like it, and never-ever sign on again. That would bulldoze the whole problem away. But that's not going to happen because consumers don't want it to happen.
So as far as I'm concerned, people who are still active on Facebook cannot be helped. They should just enjoy the benefits of having their lives exposed to the world and serving as a worthy tool and resource for corporate interests, political shenanigans, election manipulators, jealous exes, and other facts of life.
Meanwhile, these dang trillions are flying by so fast, they're hard to see. Read US Gross National Debt Spikes $1.2 Trillion in 6 Months, Hits $21 Trillion
Mar 20, 2018 | telegraph.co.uk
T he data analysis firm at the centre of a privacy scandal came under more pressure on Monday when Channel 4 broadcast footage of Cambridge Analytica's chief executive discussing using bribes, former spies and Ukrainian women to entrap politicians.
It emerged as the Information Commissioner said she was seeking a warrant to search its computers and servers as part of investigation into the use of personal data of Facebook users.
The controversy wiped billions of dollars off Facebook's value as its founder, Mark Zuckerberg, faced questions on both sides of the Atlantic about how a private company was able to gather personal information of 50 million users.
Trouble for Cambridge Analytica deepened...
Mar 20, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org
karlof1 , Mar 19, 2018 7:34:36 PM | 56Well, there seems to be a new wrinkle in the Skripal hoax, Adam Garrie muses :karlof1 , Mar 19, 2018 7:51:59 PM | 58
"... whether the still evidence free accusations that Russia was behind the poisoning of a former double-agent on UK soil, are not related to the breaking of the Cambridge Analytica scandal. The revelations from Christopher Wylie were published by the New York Times and The Observer (an off-shoot of The Guardian) on the 17th of March, just three days after the British Prime Minister announced that she has found Russia guilty of murder, in spite of failing to produce any real evidence. Logic would dictate that it took far more than three days to produce and edit the piece about Wylie's revelations."
Assange, Snowden and others join Garrie in saying the real investigation ought to be of Cambridge. Assange also notes on his Twitter the massive mining the Obama campaign did via Facebook in 2012--an action it appears Cambridge copied for Trump's campaign. Given the info on Assange's Twitter, Cambridge and Facebook are both up to their necks in the illegal mining of personal data and worse.Add to my @56--
Snowden on "Social Media" companies :
"Businesses that make money by collecting and selling detailed records of private lives were once plainly described as "surveillance companies." Their rebranding as "social media" is the most successful deception since the Department of War became the Department of Defense."
And an observation about the reports of Russian election ballot box stuffing -- none of the reports I've seen say for which candidate the stuffing was for. Clearly, Putin didn't need any help, so I suspect US/UK embassy staffers going around and trying to help their liberal candidates get at least 1% of the vote. Russia's election authority did announce there were irregularities including the stuffing, a fact omitted from the items I read, which all implied it was Putin's team that did the deed.
Mar 18, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
NSA whistleblower and former CIA employee Edward Snowden slammed Facebook in a Saturday tweet following the suspension of Strategic Communication Laboratories (SCL) and its political data analytics firm, Cambridge Analytica, over what Facebook says was imporoper use of collected data.
In a nutshell, in 2015 Cambridge Analytica bought data from a University of Cambridge psychology professor, Dr. Aleksandr Kogan, who had developed an app called "thisisyourdigitallife" that vacuumed up loads of information on users and their contacts. After making Kogan and Cambridge Analytica promise to delete the data the app had gathered, Facebook received reports (from sources they would not identify) which claimed that not all the data had been deleted - which led the social media giant to delete Cambridge Analytica and parent company SCL's accounts.
"By passing information on to a third party, including SCL/Cambridge Analytica and Christopher Wylie of Eunoia Technologies, he violated our platform policies. When we learned of this violation in 2015, we removed his app from Facebook and demanded certifications from Kogan and all parties he had given data to that the information had been destroyed. Cambridge Analytica, Kogan and Wylie all certified to us that they destroyed the data." - Facebook
Of note, Cambridge Analytica worked for Ted Cruz and Ben Carson during the 2016 election before contracting with the Trump campaign. Cruz stopped using CA after their data modeling failed to identify likely supporters.
Cambridge Analytica has vehemently denied any wrongdoing in a statement.
In response to the ban, Edward Snowden fired off two tweets on Saturday criticizing Facebook, and claimed social media companies were simply "surveillance companies" who engaged in a "successful deception" by rebranding themselves.
Snowden isn't the first big name to call out Silicon Valley companies over their data collection and monitoring practices, or their notorious intersection with the U.S. Government.
In his 2014 book: When Google Met WikiLeaks , Julian Assange describes Google's close relationship with the NSA and the Pentagon.
Around the same time, Google was becoming involved in a program known as the "Enduring Security Framework" (ESF), which entailed the sharing of information between Silicon Valley tech companies and Pentagon-affiliated agencies "at network speed." Emails obtained in 2014 under Freedom of Information requests show Schmidt and his fellow Googler Sergey Brin corresponding on first-name terms with NSA chief General Keith Alexander about ESF Reportage on the emails focused on the familiarity in the correspondence: "General Keith . . . so great to see you . . . !" Schmidt wrote. But most reports overlooked a crucial detail. " Your insights as a key member of the Defense Industrial Base," Alexander wrote to Brin, "are valuable to ensure ESF's efforts have measurable impact." - Julian Assange
Kim Dotcom has also opined on social media's close ties to the government, tweeting in February "Unfortunately all big US Internet companies are in bed with the deep state. Google, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc. are all providing backdoors to your data."
In 2013, the Washington Post and The Guardian revealed that the NSA has backdoor access to all major Silicon Valley social media firms, including Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, and Apple - all through the notorious PRISM program which began in 2007 under the Protect America Act. PRISM's existence was leaked by Edward Snowden before he entered into ongoing asylum in Moscow. Microsoft was the first company to join the PRISM program.
The NSA has the ability to pull any sort of data it likes from these companies, but it claims that it does not try to collect it all. The PRISM program goes above and beyond the existing laws that state companies must comply with government requests for data, as it gives the NSA direct access to each company's servers -- essentially letting the NSA do as it pleases. - The Verge
After PRISM's existence was leaked by Snowden, the Director of National Intelligence issued a statment which stated that the only people targed by the programs are "outside the United States," and that the program "does not allow" the targeting of citizens within US borders.
In 2006, Wired magazine published evidence from a retired AT&T communications technician, Mark Klein, that revealed a secret room used to "split" internet data at a San Francisco office as part of the NSA's bulk data collection techniques used on millions of Americans.
During the course of that work, he learned from a co-worker that similar cabins were being installed in other cities, including Seattle, San Jose, Los Angeles and San Diego, he said.
The split circuits included traffic from peering links connecting to other internet backbone providers, meaning that AT&T was also diverting traffic routed from its network to or from other domestic and international providers , Klein said. - Wired
"They are collecting everything on everybody," Klein said.
HRH of Aquitaine 2.0 Sun, 03/18/2018 - 17:22 PermalinkMusicIsYou Sun, 03/18/2018 - 17:44 Permalink
He is right. If you didn't hear about the speech given by Tommy Robinson on Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park, watch it here: https://youtu.be/LWk-amymTXAabgary1 Sun, 03/18/2018 - 17:49 Permalink
Well look on the bright side, only idiots are placing their most vital thoughts, and innovations on Facebook or any social media for that matter. So basically big brother has acres of databases full of idiotic things. Believe me, if it can take humans a step into the future, its not on the web. So basically big brother is mining through vast amounts of useless data. Here's your sign!Usura Sun, 03/18/2018 - 17:57 Permalink
We are giving away our privacy and thus our freedom for convenience sake.
We need to stop that.
Get off the mobile devises, the social media sites and use cash.
Anything that leaves a digital footprint can be tracked.
Citizen Four, the Ed Snowden documentary, explains how invasive the surveillance on innocent people by the national security agencies really is.
The data for that surveillance is supplied by the tech cos, telecoms and banks.GreatUncle Sun, 03/18/2018 - 18:12 Permalink
I have often wondered if the VC money for these tech companies came from MOSAD.WTFUD -> navy62802 Sun, 03/18/2018 - 17:27 Permalink
only people targed by the programs are "outside the United States,"
So every sovereign nation around the world allow their citizens rights to be violated.
Just a little point there when you consider who or what is running your country.navy62802 -> WTFUD Sun, 03/18/2018 - 17:41 Permalink
Started up with 3 geeks and morphed into a Deep State Wet Dream.thatthingcanfly -> navy62802 Sun, 03/18/2018 - 17:51 Permalink
I think it was "deep state" from the very beginning ... not an original idea from Zuckerberg and his estranged friends.Oldwood -> thatthingcanfly Sun, 03/18/2018 - 17:57 Permalink
Not a doubt in your mind, huh?
If you actually worked for the Navy for any period of time, you should know that this government cannot tie its own shoes. No way are any of your whacked-out conspiracy theories even remotely possible.
Yes, Zuckerberg and the Winkelvoss twins came up with Facebook for social reasons. The government spy agencies, who know a good opportunity to use someone else's invention to serve their own ends when they see one, co-opted it. It really doesn't have to be any more complicated than that.navy62802 -> thatthingcanfly Sun, 03/18/2018 - 18:22 Permalink
The fact of WHO did this is irrelevant. What matters is that we should have understood what this meant from the begining. Many did, many more did not. We complain of being treated like sheep, bleeting all the way to our pens.
What we must accept is that there are many who could care less about liberty, happy to live in a cell, as long as th econveniences continue to poor in.
I wonder how livestock feel about living in a pen while receiving free food and healthcare? I wonder if given the choice of freedom or feed lot, which way they would go. I think we see the answer in the inner cities of our nation (and others).JPMorgan Sun, 03/18/2018 - 17:22 Permalink
I know. If only I had worked for the navy for a period of time ...VWAndy Sun, 03/18/2018 - 17:22 Permalink
Totally agree, but that could be said for any US based company.
Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Facebook, Twitter, Snap... take your pick, bets are you using one of them.HRH of Aquitaine 2.0 Sun, 03/18/2018 - 17:22 Permalink
Ya Think! FFS.WTFUD Sun, 03/18/2018 - 17:25 Permalink
He is right. If you didn't hear about the speech given by Tommy Robinson on Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park, watch it here: https://youtu.be/LWk-amymTXANumbersUsa Sun, 03/18/2018 - 17:26 Permalink
All your information are ours!me or you Sun, 03/18/2018 - 17:27 Permalink
Heads up! in case you're interested:
The Heroic Story of Andrew Jackson That "They (jew)" Don't Want You to Know
http://tomatobubble.com/andrew_the_great.htmlRKae Sun, 03/18/2018 - 17:30 Permalink
I think all of us are very aware of that.
There is not new on his comments.
It's all well and good to be disgusted by surveillance, but it's ever-encroaching, and soon you won't be able to function without complying. Privacy will be impossible, except for the elite for whom privacy will be another luxury that they get which you don't. Sort of like a gun.