Dog Brothers Public Forum

Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities => Politics & Religion => Topic started by: Crafty_Dog on January 18, 2018, 06:00:11 PM

Title: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 18, 2018, 06:00:11 PM
Tucker Carlson has gotten my attention with this theme.  Kicking this thread off with VDH:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455498/tech-companies-facebook-google-hiding-plain-sight&hl=en&geo=US?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NR%20Daily%20Monday%20through%20Friday%202018-01-18&utm_term=NR5PM%20Actives
Title: Tucker Carlson and Mark Steyn
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 18, 2018, 07:17:09 PM
Second post

see 28:00 of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5XiNojeHF8
Title: Prager vs. youtube
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 18, 2018, 07:28:57 PM
Third post

We Are Suing YouTube for Censoring Our Videos


Dear Valued Subscriber,

As you know, PragerU’s videos are available on a number of platforms, one of which is YouTube. And as you may also know, YouTube has chosen repeatedly to restrict some of our videos for violating their “Community Guidelines.”  Those guidelines are meant to protect users against viewing sexual content, violent or graphic content, and hate speech.

As a PragerU viewer, you know as well as I do that our videos contain nothing even remotely close to any of these categories.

To date, YouTube has restricted nearly 40 PragerU videos, addressing topics ranging from religion and freedom of speech to the history of the Korean War.
More than a year ago, we filed a complaint with YouTube, hoping that there was some kind of innocent mistake.

That’s when we were told by YouTube that after reviewing our videos they determined that they were indeed “not appropriate for a younger audience.” Of course, we have this in writing.

Think about the millions of actually inappropriate videos on YouTube and then ask yourself, “Why is our content restricted?”

Unfortunately, the answer is rather obvious, isn’t it?  YouTube has restricted PragerU videos for only one reason: Ideological discrimination.

Of course, YouTube is owned by Google, which was founded to, ironically, “Organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.”

YouTube has made some of our most important videos inaccessible to the very audience PragerU seeks to reach: young people.

Let me be clear: they don’t like what we teach and so they intend to stop us from teaching it. This kind of censorship is what we have seen on college campuses for years. But it is far more dangerous in this circumstance because the internet is where the world goes to get informed.
 
Can you imagine if the left owned the internet the way they own our universities?

Can you imagine what the world would look like if Google is allowed to continue to arbitrarily censor ideas they simply don’t agree with?

Well, this is why Prager University filed suit against YouTube and Google. We are not fighting this only for PragerU—we are taking this on for America and possibly the world.

Can we count on your support as we fight to end the censorship of our conservative ideas by Google/YouTube?

 
Now, I have to tell you ... this was not an easy decision.

Over the summer, former Governor of California Pete Wilson — who has been a longtime supporter of PragerU — approached us and posited the idea: “We have to sue them,” he said. “Google is hubris.”

Those words weighed heavy on our entire team as we considered our options.  Obviously, a fight with Google will be hugely difficult and costly, and we hate the idea of deploying energy and resources away from producing more content and reaching new audiences.  We simply cannot do that.  So, before taking any such action, we decided we’d attempt a more diplomatic approach one last time. On the one-year anniversary of Google blocking our content, or the “BANniversary” as we had come to call it, we renewed our complaints to YouTube and re-circulated an online petition urging Google to change course. Many articles have been written and many people, including many very prominent and influential people, rallied in support of our cause. To date, well over a quarter-of-a-million people have added their names to our petition.

What was the result of our efforts?

Nothing. YouTube ignored us. In fact, they have since restricted 11 more PragerU videos.

With our hands tied, we knew Governor Wilson was right—Google’s hubris had to be challenged.

So, we have built an all-star legal team, including Governor Wilson’s Law Firm, Eric George, Alan Dershowitz, Barak Lurie, Kelly Shackelford, Mat Staver, and more.
It’s an impressive group, because this is an important case; not only for PragerU, but for the fundamental American right to freedom of speech.

But this is not going to be easy and it isn’t going to be cheap.

Despite the fact that our amazing attorneys have agreed to reasonably cap their legal fees, there will be additional personnel, research, marketing and public relations costs to PragerU.

This case will be tried in the court of public opinion as much as in the courtroom, and we intend to win in both venues.

However, we cannot deplete our operating budget to fight this case. Thanks to you, PragerU has reached more than 1-out-of-4 Americans on the internet. Sixty-three percent of them are under 34. We plan to continue to focus on this growth and reach 3 out of 4 Americans. We can’t let up now.

We are fully committed to the lawsuit but we won’t let them slow the growth of PragerU.

This is why our board of directors and many staff members have donated, in addition to our annual gift, to what we are calling the “YouTube Action Fund.” Dennis Prager, Allen Estrin, and I have all given extra this year.

Now, here is how you can help:

1.   Please go to our website and sign the petition against YouTube censorship. It already has nearly 400,000 signatures; please add yours if you haven’t done so already, and ask 10 of your friends to do the same.

2.   More importantly, please contribute to our action fund if you can, over and above your planned support for PragerU. Our initial goal for the legal fund is $1 million, and we think we can reach that goal with your help.

Many of you have already given so generously and I am embarrassed to ask for more. But if you think this fight is important please support us in whatever way you can.

It seems like a lot to ask…until you consider how much we have to lose.

Perhaps Goliath could teach Google a little bit about where hubris leads ... when a David comes slinging.

Thank you, and God bless you.

Marissa Streit
CEO, PragerU


Can we count on your support as we fight to end the censorship of our conservative ideas by Google/YouTube?



Title: Re: The Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 19, 2018, 09:39:00 AM
https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-u-s-companies-may-lose-the-ai-race-1516280677
Title: Options
Post by: G M on January 19, 2018, 09:52:51 AM
Stop using anything google. www.startpage.com and ixquick.com and Firefox as a browser. Gab rather than twitter.
Title: Re: The Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: ccp on January 19, 2018, 10:18:34 AM
oh yeah .  and everything is wireless, everything is going to the 'cloud" and everything connects to everything else..

therefore forget any privacy and don't fool yourself for even a second this is on purpose to increase control profits

criminals who know how to get into this certainly are .  just forget law enforcement in this area.  it is not existent except for the very few with a LOT of resources if at all.

the younger generations have NO clue.

Not a world I want to live in though I have enjoyed this board for 15 yrs
Title: Facehugger book
Post by: G M on January 20, 2018, 03:17:13 PM
http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2017/09/will-facebook-become-the-worlds-most-powerful-government-contractor.html
Title: The Goolag's speech police
Post by: G M on January 20, 2018, 06:21:25 PM
http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/19/google-youtube-censorship-demonetize-hate-speech/
Title: The Googlag vs. Dennis Prager
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 20, 2018, 06:39:59 PM
 




We Are Suing YouTube for Censoring Our Videos


Dear Valued Subscriber,
As you know, PragerU’s videos are available on a number of platforms, one of which is YouTube. And as you may also know, YouTube has chosen repeatedly to restrict some of our videos for violating their “Community Guidelines.”  Those guidelines are meant to protect users against viewing sexual content, violent or graphic content, and hate speech.
As a PragerU viewer, you know as well as I do that our videos contain nothing even remotely close to any of these categories.
To date, YouTube has restricted nearly 40 PragerU videos, addressing topics ranging from religion and freedom of speech to the history of the Korean War.
More than a year ago, we filed a complaint with YouTube, hoping that there was some kind of innocent mistake.
That’s when we were told by YouTube that after reviewing our videos they determined that they were indeed “not appropriate for a younger audience.” Of course, we have this in writing.
Think about the millions of actually inappropriate videos on YouTube and then ask yourself, “Why is our content restricted?”
Unfortunately, the answer is rather obvious, isn’t it?  YouTube has restricted PragerU videos for only one reason: Ideological discrimination.
Of course, YouTube is owned by Google, which was founded to, ironically, “Organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.”

YouTube has made some of our most important videos inaccessible to the very audience PragerU seeks to reach: young people.

Let me be clear: they don’t like what we teach and so they intend to stop us from teaching it. This kind of censorship is what we have seen on college campuses for years. But it is far more dangerous in this circumstance because the internet is where the world goes to get informed.
 
Can you imagine if the left owned the internet the way they own our universities?
Can you imagine what the world would look like if Google is allowed to continue to arbitrarily censor ideas they simply don’t agree with?

Well, this is why Prager University filed suit again YouTube and Google. We are not fighting this only for PragerU—we are taking this on for America and possibly the world.
Can we count on your support as we fight to end the censorship of our conservative ideas by Google/YouTube?

 
Now, I have to tell you ... this was not an easy decision.
Over the summer, former Governor of California Pete Wilson — who has been a longtime supporter of PragerU — approached us and posited the idea: “We have to sue them,” he said. “Google is hubris.”
Those words weighed heavy on our entire team as we considered our options.
Obviously, a fight with Google will be hugely difficult and costly, and we hate the idea of deploying energy and resources away from producing more content and reaching new audiences.  We simply cannot do that.
So, before taking any such action, we decided we’d attempt a more diplomatic approach one last time. On the one-year anniversary of Google blocking our content, or the “BANniversary” as we had come to call it, we renewed our complaints to YouTube and re-circulated an online petition urging Google to change course. Many articles have been written and many people, including many very prominent and influential people, rallied in support of our cause. To date, well over a quarter-of-a-million people have added their names to our petition.
What was the result of our efforts?
Nothing. YouTube ignored us. In fact, they have since restricted 11 more PragerU videos.
With our hands tied, we knew Governor Wilson was right—Google’s hubris had to be challenged.
So, we have built an all-star legal team, including Governor Wilson’s Law Firm, Eric George, Alan Dershowitz, Barak Lurie, Kelly Shackelford, Mat Staver, and more.
It’s an impressive group, because this is an important case; not only for PragerU, but for the fundamental American right to freedom of speech.
But this is not going to be easy and it isn’t going to be cheap.
Despite the fact that our amazing attorneys have agreed to reasonably cap their legal fees, there will be additional personnel, research, marketing and public relations costs to PragerU.
This case will be tried in the court of public opinion as much as in the courtroom, and we intend to win in both venues.
However, we cannot deplete our operating budget to fight this case. Thanks to you, PragerU has reached more than 1-out-of-4 Americans on the internet. Sixty-three percent of them are under 34. We plan to continue to focus on this growth and reach 3 out of 4 Americans. We can’t let up now.

We are fully committed to the lawsuit but we won’t let them slow the growth of PragerU.

This is why our board of directors and many staff members have donated, in addition to our annual gift, to what we are calling the “YouTube Action Fund.” Dennis Prager, Allen Estrin, and I have all given extra this year.

Now, here is how you can help:
1.   Please go to our website and sign the petition against YouTube censorship. It already has nearly 400,000 signatures; please add yours if you haven’t done so already, and ask 10 of your friends to do the same.
2.   More importantly, please contribute to our action fund if you can, over and above your planned support for PragerU. Our initial goal for the legal fund is $1 million, and we think we can reach that goal with your help.
Many of you have already given so generously and I am embarrassed to ask for more. But if you think this fight is important please support us in whatever way you can.

It seems like a lot to ask…until you consider how much we have to lose.

Perhaps Goliath could teach Google a little bit about where hubris leads ... when a David comes slinging.

Thank you, and God bless you.

Marissa Streit
CEO, PragerU


Can we count on your support as we fight to end the censorship of our conservative ideas by Google/YouTube?



Title: Soros goes after Facebook and Google
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 27, 2018, 09:32:36 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/01/26/facebook-and-google-are-doomed-george-soros-says/?undefined=&utm_term=.b348fa1efd39&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1


Facebook and Google are doomed, George Soros says
By Hamza Shaban January 26 at 3:25 PM

George Soros, billionaire and founder of Soros Fund Management LLC, speaks at an event on day three of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Thursday, Jan. 25, 2018.  Simon Dawson/Bloomberg

Billionaire philanthropist and leading donor to liberal causes George Soros predicted Thursday that regulation and taxation will soon dethrone Facebook and Google, describing the tech industry's major players as powerful monopolies that harm individuals, market innovation and democracy.

In a wide-ranging, scathing speech delivered at a dinner event at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Soros applauded the European Union's heightened enforcement aimed at Web giants. He also called for greater regulation of the tech companies, seizing on a growing backlash against Silicon Valley.

“Facebook and Google have grown into ever more powerful monopolies, they have become obstacles to innovation, and they have caused a variety of problems of which we are only now beginning to become aware,” he said, according to a transcript of the speech.


Soros made the remarks as officials in Washington and industry critics continued to ramp up their scrutiny of the tech sector. That pressure has been directed at a broad array of issues,  perhaps most prominently online advertising and the spread of disinformation on popular social media platforms. In response, Facebook and Google have said they are open to greater government oversight in their ad operations. But Facebook has gone even further in recent weeks, publicly grappling with its role in global society. Last week Facebook even admitted in a blog post that social media can sometimes harm democracy.


Soros suggested that American officials draw from their European counterparts, particularly E.U. Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager, whom he described as the “nemesis” of American tech monopolies. Vestager, a former Danish economy minister, and other E.U. officials have recently advanced a host of enforcement actions against prominent U.S. tech companies. E.U. officials have sued Google over alleged antitrust violations tied to its search engine, its mobile operating system and its ad platform. In 2016, competition authorities ordered Apple to pay Ireland more than $15 billion in uncollected taxes; and Facebook has been penalized by several privacy watchdogs for breaking data protection rules.


Soros acknowledged that Europe's approach to antitrust law and regulation differs from that of the United States. But his criticism of Facebook and Google may empower Democrats who have already expressed skepticism toward Silicon Valley and the broader world of tech and telecom.

In October, for instance, congressional Democrats, with notable support from Republican Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), introduced legislation that would place greater disclosure requirements on Web platforms that run political advertisements. The lawmakers behind the bill say the rules will help prevent Russia and other foreign powers from exploiting social media and undermining U.S. elections. And last summer, the Democratic Party released a broad economic agenda, dubbed a “Better Deal," that included stricter enforcement of antitrust laws and a push against corporate monopolies.

While Soros is often criticized by conservative figures who oppose his political projects, his attack on the tech giants highlights a brewing convergence between leaders on the left and the right who have come to view Silicon Valley as a perverse influence on the country.

“It is only a matter of time before the global dominance of the U.S. IT monopolies is broken,” Soros said. “Davos is a good place to announce that their days are numbered.”
Title: Matrix Zuckerberg
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 27, 2018, 12:31:18 PM
https://www.dailywire.com/news/26203/facebook-changing-your-newsfeed-heres-how-make-james-barrett?utm_medium=email&utm_content=012718-news&utm_campaign=position5
Title: Google is tracking you
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 09, 2018, 05:39:36 AM
https://www.facebook.com/TuckerCarlsonTonight/videos/585398735128783/?hc_ref=ARRKts392ANwladWIF_wWV9zhMkyBhOjPZWd13nABAu8C5qc3PNv8Yp7truOKjpoc94
Title: MEF asks for public's help collecting examples of Tech Censorship
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 19, 2018, 05:38:24 PM
MEF Asks for Public's Help Collecting Examples of Tech Censorship
News from the Middle East Forum
February 19, 2018
http://www.meforum.org/7207/mef-asks-for-public-help-collecting-examples
Title: The Value of your personal data
Post by: G M on February 19, 2018, 07:18:11 PM
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dW7k_GZYLwk

Watch it all.

Very important.
Title: Youtube deleted this video
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 20, 2018, 05:24:54 AM
https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e06_1519057581
Title: WSJ: Tech Giants are less powerful than they seem
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 24, 2018, 11:14:16 AM
Tech Giants Are Less Powerful Than They Seem
A hallmark of companies cresting into middle age is a preoccupation with regulatory politics.
By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.
Feb. 23, 2018 6:18 p.m. ET


Mark Zuckerberg’s announcement that the Facebook algorithm will be revamped to downgrade third-party “news” may have been a lot of things—a way to calm critics of Facebook’s election role, a way to re-engage users who were turned off by the political din.

But it was also something else: At this late date, Mr. Zuckerberg, with two billion users and a $560 billion market cap, is still hunting for a sustainable product and revenue model for his company.

Idiocy is in a waxing phase in America. We know that. And Facebook and its social-media fellows have plenty to answer for in the court of public opinion, with their algorithms constantly supplying us things to be unhinged about. But antitrust is not a solution for the privacy and fake news problems that come with social media. And neither is antitrust called for on traditional monopoly grounds.

Google is said to be dominant in a certain kind of “search,” but searching for purchasable items now often begins on Amazon. Meanwhile, much of the online information that most preoccupies Americans is to be found inside Facebook, Twitter and other apps whose data isn’t reachable by Google.

Facebook is surely dominant in the business of algorithmically sifting your friends’ posts to decide which you’ll see, but there remain plenty of other ways for friends to exchange information.

Facebook and Google together are said to be dominant in digital advertising. But digital ads are ads, a $540 billion annual market they hardly dominate.

Amazon is said to be dominant in e-commerce, with a 44% share. But its share of total U.S. retail sales is 4%. Its share of global retail sales is less than 0.5%.

What’s more, companies dominant today won’t be dominant a decade or two from now. That’s the lesson of history. Today’s leaders will guard existing cash flows and leave it to others to try to catch the next bit of lightning in a bottle. And for good reason: The iPhone, Google’s search box and the Facebook twist on social media were far from certain to be the windfalls they turned out to be.

Are we not catching whiffs of impending maturity? Amazon is hunting for a second headquarters to house 50,000 new staff. It’s bulking up on storefronts and fleets of trucks and planes. Wasn’t the appeal of digital economics supposed to be the ability to grow without a commensurate rise in overhead? And who will run this sprawling retail conglomerate when Jeff Bezos is gone?

Facebook not only is running out of new users to sign up, its adherents are starting to notice that they see only a tiny, Facebook-biased fraction of what their “friends” intend them to see.

Apple is lashed to a single product, the iPhone, whose latest model is hardly leaping off the shelf. Apple’s fabulous margins are increasingly maintained by jacking up prices. The company is moving into a grandiose new headquarters even as it falls far behind in the video-streaming market it once imagined conquering.

Already visible down the road are wearable technologies, augmented and artificial reality, various services that render the limitations of location meaningless. Anybody who thinks he knows which companies will capture these opportunities is fooling himself.

The truth is, today’s digital giants are providers of easily dispensable or replaceable services, so must act constantly to keep users happy or risk being eclipsed.

Their targeting by activists on the make is the best evidence of their pending maturity. Barry Lynn, a researcher at the Google-sponsored New America Foundation, orchestrated his own firing as a stunt to launch his new anti-“monopoly” research shop. Lina Khan, the Yale Law Journal author, became a national figure in 2017 with her argument that Amazon is too powerful because, you know, it’s too powerful.

No wonder Facebook is frantically doing penance for Russian ads and fake news during the 2016 election. Or that Google has now become the biggest corporate lobbyist in Washington. Or that three of the finalist sites picked by Amazon in its headquarters search are in the Washington area, where Mr. Bezos already owns the Washington Post and clearly craves to increase his sway with the political class.

The tech giants were all but pushed into being influential voices in the net-neutrality fight, not because they believed in the cause, but because anything that centralizes control in Washington naturally appeals to companies with the biggest lobbying clout. At the same time, their greatest fear is Congress deciding their own platforms should be treated as “public utilities” too.

To be absorbed in rent-seeking battles is increasingly the fate of America’s established tech giants. That’s one more reason to expect the next truly big thing to be invented by someone else.
Title: What went wrong at Newsweek
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 26, 2018, 05:42:45 AM
https://slate.com/technology/2018/02/what-went-wrong-at-newsweek-according-to-current-and-former-staffers.html

", , ,Though Newsweek has had more than its share of instability over the past decade, the rapidity and sensationalism of the magazine’s latest implosion is, in ways, exceptional. (Disclosure: I interned at Newsweek in the summer of 2010.) Few other major U.S. publications have seen their internal strife strewn across national headlines; still fewer have to worry about their owners funneling money to a religious institution, as Newsweek’s parent company is alleged to have done.

"But much of the story, as insiders tell it, will ring disconcertingly familiar to anyone involved in the modern news industry. It’s a tale of a precarious business model, a roller coaster of explosive growth and cruel contraction, mercurial corporate ownership, and journalists forced to produce work so shoddy and craven that they were embarrassed to attach their name to it, all in the name of “saving the company”—and their jobs. At a time when Google and Facebook have become the prime conduits to online news, Newsweek’s downfall highlights the existential vulnerability of even the best-known media brands to the whims of tech companies’ algorithms. It also suggests something more chilling: how quickly a reputable news organization can disintegrate in the hands of the wrong owners.


"All media outlets are on a constant hunt for traffic, but not all newsrooms are managed the same way. With near unanimity, the staffers I spoke to described a newsroom ruled by fear, internecine rivalry, and a slavish obsession with clicks at all costs. They told of reporters covering beats such as science, culture, and foreign affairs being judged not on their work’s merit but on their ability to meet targets of 500,000 or 1 million page views per month. They told of top editors angling for one another’s jobs by trying to persuade higher-ups that they could bring in more traffic. Allegations of sexism, favoritism, and bullying were rampant. , , ,"
Title: Prager U. suing Google over youtube videos
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 26, 2018, 05:53:15 AM
second post:

http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/24/prageru-suing-google-over-youtube-videos/
Title: WSJ: Protect the News from Google and Facebook
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 26, 2018, 07:26:04 AM
third post

Protect the News From Google and Facebook
A partial exemption from antitrust laws would help publishers and readers.
By David Chavern
Feb. 25, 2018 4:42 p.m. ET
42 COMMENTS

The news business is suffering, but not because people don’t want news. They do—more than ever. The problem is that the money generated by news audiences flows mostly to Google and Facebook , not to the reporters and publishers who produce excellent journalism.

The Duopoly now captures 83% of all digital ad revenue growth and 73% of U.S. digital advertising, according to a CNBC report. As a result, newspapers’ online audience growth does not produce revenue to match. According to data from Pew, newspaper advertising revenue fell from $22 billion in 2014 to $18 billion in 2016 even as web traffic for the top 50 U.S. newspapers increased 42%.

Local news is most at risk. As print circulation declines, community news publishers have the hardest time adapting to the ever-changing demands of Facebook and Google algorithms. We think of “fake news” as a national phenomenon, but in the absence of a workable news business model, wild rumors and conspiracy theories could become more influential at the local level, too.

Tech savvy, digital-only publishers are also struggling. BuzzFeed CEO Jonah Peretti said in December that Google and Facebook are “paying content creators far too little for the value they deliver to users,” and that “this puts high-quality creators at a financial disadvantage, and favors publishers of cheap media.”
A user launches the Facebook app on his phone.
A user launches the Facebook app on his phone. Photo: Elise Amendola/Associated Press

Google and Facebook have become the primary and de facto regulators of the news business, and governments around the world are starting to recognize the danger. British Prime Minister Theresa May announced earlier this month that her government would review the economics of internet news consumption. Regulators in Germany, Israel and South Korea are investigating how Google’s business practices have disrupted the media market and harmed publishers and consumers. U.S. regulators, on the other hand, have rarely looked into Google or Facebook—and never at their influence in the news marketplace.

Some voices on the left and right are calling for Google and Facebook to be regulated as utilities. But there is an easier solution: exempt news publishers from certain aspects of antitrust regulation.

U.S. antitrust laws, designed to promote fair competition and prevent consolidation, actually make it harder for traditional news outlets to compete with Silicon Valley giants. Under current law, for instance, news publishers cannot get together and agree to withhold their product unless they receive a return on their investment. Let’s start by changing that simple inequity. News publishers should be able to use their collective leverage in negotiations with big tech.

Rep. David Cicilline, top Democrat on the House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee, is expected to introduce a bill to do that next week. The Journalism Competition and Preservation Act of 2018 is a low-regulation, pro-market way to unleash the news industry’s negotiating power. If antitrust enforcers can’t protect society from the outsize influence of modern-day trusts, the least the government can do is get out of the way and let publishers protect themselves and their readers.

Mr. Chavern is president and CEO of the News Media Alliance, a trade association representing some 2,000 newspapers in the U.S. and Canada.
Title: Re: WSJ: Protect the News from Google and Facebook
Post by: DougMacG on February 26, 2018, 05:46:21 PM
Problem noted but solution rejected - MHO.  

Note the bias; WSJ is a provider of news.  They charge plenty but aren't getting the ad revenue - or enough subscribers.  They are in need of a new profit paradigm.

If you are receiving a product for free, you ARE the product, not the customer.  Google and Facebook are selling you, not news.

Facebook has a liberal bias and other flaws.  It is a fight to get good information from Google when what you seek doesn't fit their narrative, global warming for example.  Young people are turning away from Facebook.  I would love to turn away from Google, but they give quite a bit of free value and their ads mostly miss me, advertising today what I searched and bought yesterday.

My point is that both of these companies are one competitors' disruptive innovation away from losing their grip on the market, whether it is a year from now or a hundred years.

Content providers, like rock stars, need to get some free play to us until we're hooked, then somewhere down the road they make money and plenty of it if they connect.

WSJ: Good product but they only sometimes set themselves apart.  They are looking at other ways to deliver it.  I notice they are doing more and more podcasts, not for revenue yet but for exploring avenues.  They are way behind the innovation curve.

Drudge Report and Craigslist both built their marketshare to a top 10 internet destination in the world before they started to make money.  Craigslist is the first reason all the newspapers are in trouble.  Why didn't NYT, LAT, McClatchy or whoever do that first or do it better?  Clayton Christensen has an answer for that - the entrenched player in the market CAN'T do it.  They would lost too much in revenues to disrupt their own market.  I remember having a Wednesday night deadline for Sunday rental ads and being audited by the IRS because the cost was so high when rents were low.  To that newspaper, good riddance I wish, you couldn't have provided worse service or value.  Google and Facebook have their own life cycle and someday face a similar fate.

DBMA public forum, excellent content!  What do we charge readers and how much do we pay our writers?  Free information built the internet, there will still be sources of value outside of any cartel.

This problem with media is not new.  Look at the fall of Enron.  How big was this company?  How many people did they impact?  Yet there was NOT ONE investigative reporter on it during the whole implosion until after it fell all the way to the ground. The elite media don't have a corner on the information. When they wait until everyone knows to tell us, war breaks out or trump gives a speech, they do not own that news or the rights to sell it.  
Title: Youtube using SPLC to police content
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 01, 2018, 06:07:51 AM
http://dailysignal.com/2018/02/28/youtube-quietly-relies-far-left-organization-help-police-content?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MorningBell%22&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWXpBd01XVTJPREV5T1RjMSIsInQiOiJjXC9VXC9CMFZvQW1FcmRhcGVKRmRLbWtMYzBra3dBeVdONHdiVEIzVE9Ma1JiakJ1VkxaQmdUMmhIN3BzaHZGQmZjb01NS0ZOTGxOSHlCdjZFeHNWVVJKXC9TVWZMM2JDUmhMbXBIQzl0SnQ1TVlcL1pTOXNtbDFMU2d1RUlETFVpTm0ifQ%3D%3D
Title: Youtube moderators "mistakenly" pull right wing channels
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 02, 2018, 06:23:37 AM
https://gellerreport.com/2018/03/youtubes-new-moderators-mistakenly-pull-right-wing-channels.html/
Title: FB blocks Michael Yon
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 02, 2018, 10:20:18 PM
https://www.michaelyon-online.com/facebook-blocked-my-account-again.htm
Title: TWitter asks for help on civility , , ,
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 02, 2018, 10:40:21 PM
Third post

http://canoe.com/technology/twitter-ceo-asks-for-help-on-civility-youtube-stumbles-trying-to-deal-with-misinformation
Title: Good idea or law of unintended consequences?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 03, 2018, 06:09:42 PM
https://gellerreport.com/2018/03/public-wants-big-tech-regulated-axios-survey.html/
Title: FB fake fact checkers busted for busting a satire site
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 05, 2018, 09:39:07 AM
https://patriotpost.us/articles/54534-facebooks-fake-fact-checkers-bust-the-babylon-bee
Title: NRO: Algorithms against the right
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 07, 2018, 06:45:28 AM
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/social-media-companies-discriminate-against-conservatives/
Title: OTOH, the Intellectual Dark Web
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 07, 2018, 07:13:44 AM
second post

https://life.spectator.co.uk/2018/02/the-intellectual-dark-web/
Title: WSJ: Here's how FB really is spying on you.
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 07, 2018, 09:35:04 PM
https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-really-is-spying-on-you-just-not-through-your-phones-mic-1520448644?mod=cx_picks&cx_navSource=cx_picks&cx_tag=video&cx_artPos=4#cxrecs_s

Photos and graphs at the URL
==========================

 By Joanna Stern
March 7, 2018 1:50 p.m. ET
161 COMMENTS

“Can I try the Cole Haans in a size 8?”
Later that night on Facebook: An advertisement for Cole Haan pumps.

OK, maybe a coincidence.

“What’s the best high-tech scale?” my wife asks aloud.
Five minutes later on Instagram: An ad for scales.

Wait, are they listening?

“Get the little red Sudafed pills,” my mom says after I sneeze.
That afternoon: An advertisement for Sudafed PE.

Yep, they’ve even wiretapped my bodily functions.

A conspiracy theory has spread among Facebook and Instagram users: The company is tapping our microphones to target ads. It’s not.

“Facebook does not use your phone’s microphone to inform ads or to change what you see in News Feed,” says Facebook.

Yeah, sure, and the government swears it isn’t keeping any pet aliens at Area 51. So I contacted former Facebook employees and various advertising technology experts, who all cited technical and legal reasons audio snooping isn’t possible.

Uploading and scanning that much audio data “would strain even the resources of the NSA,” says former Facebook ad-targeting product manager Antonio Garcia Martinez. “They would need to understand the context of what you are saying—not just listen for words,” says Sandy Parakilas, a former Facebook operations manager.

I believe them, but for another reason: Facebook is now so good at watching what we do online—and even offline, wandering around the physical world—it doesn’t need to hear us. After digging into the various bits of info Facebook and its advertisers collect and the bits I’ve actually handed over myself, I can now explain why I got each of those eerily relevant ads. (Facebook ads themselves offer limited explanations when you click “Why am I seeing this?”)

Advertising is an important staple of the free internet, but the companies buying and selling ads are turning into stalkers. We need to understand what they’re doing, and what we can—or can’t—do to limit them.
What You’ve Bought

The story of how that Sudafed ad got to me begins at Walgreens. As I bought tissues and Afrin, I keyed in my phone number so I could get loyalty points.
When you enter your email address, phone number or other customer ID when checking out at a store, data brokers could get your purchase history.
When you enter your email address, phone number or other customer ID when checking out at a store, data brokers could get your purchase history. Photo: Robert Alcaraz/The Wall Street Journal

Information about the contents of my shopping bag began to spread. A third-party data collector—likely Nielsen-Catalina Solutions—added it to the purchase history it acquires from Walgreens.

Johnson & Johnson, maker of Sudafed, paid the data broker for that information. With the use of Facebook’s tools, the information from my loyalty card—email, phone number, etc.—was matched with my Facebook account. (Data brokers run personal information through an algorithm before uploading so it’s not identifiable, Facebook says, but it still can be matched with Facebook account information.)

Then via Facebook, Johnson & Johnson decided to target adults ages 25 to 54 who bought Sudafed or a competing brand. In other words, me.
Opt Out of Data Gathering

Follow the links below for instructions to stop tracking by the largest data brokers.

    Acxiom
    Epsilon
    Experian
    Oracle Data Cloud
    TransUnion
    WPP

Do this: For starters, either don’t use loyalty cards, or register them to an email address or phone number you don’t use.

Facebook works directly with six data brokers, all of which allow you to opt out from their sharing of your personal data, everything from your email to your purchase history.

Of course, it isn’t  easy. You need to go to each broker website and fill out your form with, yes, your personal information.
Where You’ve Been

What could be better than your purchase history? Location, location, location. Did you stop by a shop? This ad will remind you to come back! Are you close to one of our stores? Here’s a coupon!

My colleague Christopher Mims detailed in his recent column how advertisers are using all sorts of location signals—your phone’s GPS, Wi-Fi access points around you, IP addresses, etc.— to follow your breadcrumbs.

Do this: Limit Facebook from knowing where you are. In the mobile app (iOS and Android), go to Settings > Account Settings > Location and turn off location tracking. Disable location history, too.
In Facebook's app, tap Settings then follow these steps to prevent the social network from keeping tabs on your whereabouts.
In Facebook's app, tap Settings then follow these steps to prevent the social network from keeping tabs on your whereabouts. Photo: Wilson Rothman/The Wall Street Journal

Other apps can pinpoint your location and serve you ads back through Facebook. Before granting any app location access, think it through. On the iPhone, go to Settings > Privacy > Location Services and go through the apps you’ve granted location access. (They should all say “Never” or “While Using”—not “Always.”) On Android, go to Settings > Location.
Which Apps You’re Using

A few days before my wife mentioned that digital scale, I downloaded LoseIt, a food-tracking app, to my iPhone. No more than 24 hours later, my entire Facebook and Instagram feeds were taken over with fitness and weight-loss ads. (Yes, Facebook-owned Instagram pulls from the same ad selection.)

The free version of LoseIt shows ads from Facebook’s Audience Network. Even if you don’t log into the app via Facebook, the companies swap information. In my case, LoseIt’s maker FitNow Inc. used my iPhone’s Identifier for Advertisers (IDFA), a number stored on my iPhone, to match up any other history associated with my IDFA, including my Facebook account.
In the iPhone's Settings menu, you can limit the ability of advertisers to get hold of your iPhone's unique identifier.
In the iPhone's Settings menu, you can limit the ability of advertisers to get hold of your iPhone's unique identifier. Photo: Wilson Rothman/The Wall Street Journal

FitNow confirmed that, when I opened the app, my IDFA became associated with “Healthy Living” and “Weight Loss,” which are now marked on my Facebook advertising profile.

Do this: Apple gives you the ability to limit advertisers from getting your IDFA. In iOS go to Settings > Privacy > Advertising > switch on Limit Ad Tracking. At the same time you should reset the advertising identifier. With Android’s similar system, just go to Settings > Google > Ads > Opt out of Ads Personalization.
What You’ve Clicked or Tapped

Of course, there’s another way Facebook knows, well, pretty much everything about me: my web browsing history. Facebook Pixel is installed on millions of websites and apps, enabling advertisers and Facebook to see what you do on there. It’s why you may see an ad for a spatula after browsing spatulas. Add something to a shopping cart? Click on a different product or article on the site? Pixel can know.

Do this: Interest-based advertising is used across the web by the big technology companies. Facebook, Amazon, Google and others offer ways to opt out on their own websites. On Facebook, go to Settings > Account Settings > Ads > Ad Settings and turn off all the settings on that page. You can also delete any interests Facebook may have gathered about you previously.

On your computer’s browser, install the Ghostery or Privacy Badger extensions. Both allow you to see—and disable— trackers that are running on webpages.
Who You Really Are

All that information, combined with your activity on Facebook and Instagram—which pages or posts you’ve liked, the people you are friends with and more—gives the social networking conglomerate a very good portrait of you.

The portrait gets clearer with even more information from data brokers: your salary, car preference, home size, political affiliations, spending habits and far more.

It’s what allows any advertiser to log into Facebook Ads Manager and start targeting. Even I was able to log in and laser focus on people in a certain NYC ZIP code who have bought furniture and cooking spices—and who are “likely to move soon.”

Do this: Short of deleting Facebook and living in a bunker, there isn’t anything you can do to stop this entirely.

“When ad targeting is used well, it makes advertising better,” says Facebook spokesperson Joe Osborne. “That’s why we build our targeting tools in a way that doesn’t share people’s personal information with advertisers and that gives people control over the ads they see.”

My problem is, we still don’t have enough transparency about how these ads are getting to us. The more we focus on the realities—not that they’re listening, but how they’re monitoring our app downloads and trips to the supermarket—the more we’ll know where our privacy is at stake.

But hey, if you’re still worried about the mic, by all means, turn it off. (On iPhone, go to Settings > Privacy > Microphone > Facebook. On Android, go to Settings > Apps > Facebook > Permissions > Disable microphone.
In the iPhone's Settings menu, you can disable the Facebook app from accessing your microphone.
In the iPhone's Settings menu, you can disable the Facebook app from accessing your microphone. Photo: Joanna Stern/The Wall Street Journal
Title: New Algorithm
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 08, 2018, 08:28:21 AM
https://gellerreport.com/2018/03/facebook-conservative-unaffected.html/
Title: We must build our own platforms
Post by: G M on March 08, 2018, 12:22:39 PM
https://gab.ai/Matt_Bracken/posts/21258579

To escape the Goolag.
Title: Michael Yon: FB strikes again
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 09, 2018, 09:08:38 PM
https://www.michaelyon-online.com/facebook-strikes-again.htm
Title: The coming State-Goolag conspiracy
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 12, 2018, 11:22:37 AM
Pasting this here from another thread with my take on it in the subject line

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/03/12/sadiq-khan-warns-silicon-valley-hate-speech-fake-news-blames-donald-trump/
Title: New Yorker: Reddit
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 12, 2018, 01:16:38 PM
second post

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/03/19/reddit-and-the-struggle-to-detoxify-the-internet?mbid=nl_Daily%20031218&CNDID=50142053&spMailingID=13102971&spUserID=MjAxODUyNTc2OTUwS0&spJobID=1361130200&spReportId=MTM2MTEzMDIwMAS2
Title: FB Secret Police
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 16, 2018, 11:59:49 PM
https://gellerreport.com/2018/03/facebook-totalitarianism.html/
Title: Trump Campaign got into FB data
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 17, 2018, 05:29:53 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/17/us/politics/cambridge-analytica-trump-campaign.html?emc=edit_ta_20180317&nl=top-stories&nlid=49641193&ref=cta
Title: NRO: Cambridge Analytica
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 20, 2018, 05:04:36 AM
Pasting this here as well

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/cambridge-analytica-social-media-panic/
Title: Is not the sudden interest astounding ?
Post by: ccp on March 20, 2018, 06:16:33 PM
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/03/20/what-facebook-could-learn-from-wells-fargos-woes/
“What you find is that there’s never just one cockroach in the kitchen,” Warren Buffet explained"

I remember it being announced OBama was using FB information and they gladly shared with the most powerful "ONE" who they must have thought would help Hill win.

with Sandberg's blessing

As Rush pointed out that FB MO is to sell data for marketing purposes
so what is new? 
Thats how they make their money.

The only thing new is now the Dems are on the receiving end and now , now we hear them and their media accomplisses having a hissy fit.
Rush was rightly laughing about the ways the Dems are contorting to implicate "russians" 
Talk about fake news. 

Title: The Goolag Loves You
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 23, 2018, 11:56:01 AM
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-20/google-and-amazon-antitrust-fears-are-misplaced

Does not address the implications of Google/youtube/FB controlling the town square and steering public discourse through its algorithms.
Title: Youtube bans most (all?) firearms videos
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 24, 2018, 12:48:07 PM
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-21/youtube-bans-firearm-sales-and-how-to-videos-prompting-backlash
Title: Stratfor: Are Corporations Poised to Overtake Countries?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 25, 2018, 06:07:07 PM
Are Corporations Poised to Overtake Countries?


It can be difficult to separate the important from unimportant on any given day. Reflections mean to do exactly that — by thinking about what happened today, we can consider what might happen tomorrow.


    Corporations such as Facebook and others will continue to outdo the state in accruing massive amounts of personal data on individuals, particularly in the West.
    Massive firms could use such information as part of an effort to reshape people’s allegiances.
    As states perceive corporations as potential threats to their power, they will take action to keep such companies at bay.

 

Will the corporation supplant the state as the world's dominant organizational structure in the coming century? It's a question to which many world thinkers adamantly answer "yes." In this bold vision for the future, national borders gradually wither away as transnational companies become ever more powerful, leading governments by the nose in pursuit of perfect supply chain efficiency. For advocates of this vision, the prevailing trends throughout the world, large companies' growing influence, the giant cash piles of companies like Apple and diminishing trade barriers all point to the coming predominance of the corporation. Skeptics, by contrast, say the obituary for the state is decidedly premature but concede that the corporation is likely to eat away at national power in the decades to come.

The Big Picture

Major changes are afoot in the global economy, especially when it comes to advances in technology — the most geopolitically important of which Stratfor follows under its Fourth Industrial Revolution theme. Many of these new technologies will empower corporations, possibly even to the point at which they could challenge states.


The history of the world is essentially a history of the invisible lines that have shaped the global population. The basic societal unit, the human, is largely the same the world over, but systems have emerged to turn humans into cogs in larger machines. Organizations and institutions exercise power thanks to individuals' willingness to subordinate themselves to wider goals. In feudal times, a king's power depended on the loyalty of his lords, who themselves needed to keep their peasants in line to ensure their own continued strength. While ostensibly preoccupied with the world to come, the Catholic Church once wielded a large degree of power in the present realm. Today, however, the institution is a shadow of its former self because it has not succeeded in persuading as large a percentage of the population to believe in it, thereby reducing its power on a relative basis. In the centuries that followed the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, the nation-state began to supplant the church, ultimately providing a common sense of identity for which large groups of diverse people were willing to die.

But the idea that individuals could begin to rally around the corporation more than the nation-state is flawed. First off, the favorable geopolitical circumstances that have permitted corporations to thrive over the last seven decades might not continue. Beyond that, however, there are also deeper philosophical problems with the idea, centered on the question of personal motivation.

If corporations are to overtake the state in global importance, individuals would need to collectively switch their primary allegiance (or be compelled to do so by circumstance) to massive companies over their current polities. The situation would also require the average person to prize a corporate identity more highly than a national one – something that few have been willing to do thus far. National identities have coalesced over many centuries, becoming woven into families, cultures, traditions and languages. Corporations, by contrast, are relative newcomers to the realm of identity politics and have not managed to achieve the same degree of penetration into people's lives. Still, recent developments portend a shift in power from country to corporation.

Harnessing Knowledge in Pursuit of Power

In recent years, personal information has become an increasingly important commodity, particularly in Europe and North America. But whereas one would have expected the state to collect such information in the past, today it is the corporation that is amassing such knowledge. Western populations have been relatively content – the present fallout from the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica incident notwithstanding – to allow companies to learn vast amounts of information about them. Over the last two decades, companies such as Facebook, Google and Amazon have become interwoven in the daily lives of Western citizens, and they have amassed extraordinary amounts of information at an individual user level for the purposes of targeted advertising. These developments have given technology corporations the ability to gain access to a degree of knowledge over individuals' lives that a Western politician seeking election could only dream about.

Large proportions of people's lives are migrating online into areas such as social media, and if the trajectory continues at its current rate, corporations such as Facebook and Amazon could soon possess more knowledge about individuals in a Western country than national governments, which are largely restrained in the information they can gather and retain.

Large proportions of people's lives are migrating online into areas such as social media, and if the trajectory continues at its current rate, corporations such as Facebook and Amazon could soon possess more knowledge about individuals in a Western country than national governments, which are largely restrained in the information they can gather and retain. In a battle for hearts and minds, it is not hard to imagine Apple one day enjoying a better chance than a national government of persuading an individual to align with its interests. This could be the key to enormous persuasive power; indeed, it is possible that it could provide corporations with a path to ultimately win the battle for a population's hearts and minds.

Already, it appears that states are preparing a counterattack against the corporate challenger, particularly by resorting to antitrust legislation. Judicial officials in the European Union have launched legal action against major U.S. technology companies through such avenues, while a similar debate has begun in the United States as well.

The planet is a long way from sitting down to watch a World Cup match pitting Amazon versus Facebook instead of the likes of Brazil versus France, yet corporations will continue to make inroads into the lives of people around the globe to the degree that they could come to rival the state for power. As the recent legal proceedings in the European Union show, the first salvoes have been fired in the great battle between the state and the corporation, and more are likely to come.
Title: FTC goes after FB;
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 26, 2018, 07:56:01 PM
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/03/26/ftc-announces-facebook-investigation-citing-substantial-concerns-about-privacy-practices/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_content=links&utm_campaign=20180326
Title: Do not let shiny objects distract us from this question
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 26, 2018, 07:58:28 PM
second post:

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/03/26/zuckerberg-fundamentally-uncomfortable-deciding-what-counts-as-hate-speech/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_content=links&utm_campaign=20180326

With the pressure on FB and with FB being the progressive organization that it is, a grand compromise wherein pressure is eased up on FB in return for it being a dutiful soldier in the Orwellian mind control mission of the Deep State is the deep danger.
Title: What Facehugger and Goolag have on you
Post by: G M on March 27, 2018, 04:06:32 PM
https://mobile.twitter.com/iamdylancurran/status/977559925680467968

Title: Re: What Facehugger and Goolag have on you. Facebook broke campaign laws
Post by: DougMacG on March 28, 2018, 07:26:45 AM
https://mobile.twitter.com/iamdylancurran/status/977559925680467968

I don't do Facebook and they still probably have everything on me.  I surrendered to the free and powerful features of Google and what they have on me is frightening.  Leave your cell phone at home if you have anything secretive to attend to...
------------------------------------------------

Facebook broke campaign laws in Obama campaign

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/facebook-data-scanadal-trump-obama-campaign-election-meddling/


 "they were very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn't have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side."

Federal law "bans corporations from making 'direct or indirect' contributions to federal candidates."

Exactly what they did.  read the whole piece and the links within it.

Law with no enforcement or consequence, util a Republican or conservative does it.  Then watch out!

Title: Facebook 2009, We won't sell your information
Post by: DougMacG on March 28, 2018, 07:39:51 AM
https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/978714961450061826
Title: The Economist on anti-trust remedies to the Goolag
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 31, 2018, 09:45:04 AM


http://discovery.economist.com/features/21735026-which-antitrust-remedies-welcome-which-fight-techlash-against-amazon-facebook-and-161617744
Title: Zuckerberg proposes FB Supreme Court
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 02, 2018, 04:24:20 PM


http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/04/02/mark-zuckerberg-proposes-facebook-supreme-court-to-rule-on-hate-speech/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_content=links&utm_campaign=20180402
Title: Facebook admits to spying on Messenger
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 07, 2018, 06:55:06 AM
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/04/04/report-facebook-messenger-analyzes-what-you-send-to-friends-family/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_content=links&utm_campaign=20180404
Title: Re: Facebook admits to spying on Messenger
Post by: DougMacG on April 07, 2018, 11:11:53 AM
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/04/04/report-facebook-messenger-analyzes-what-you-send-to-friends-family/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_content=links&utm_campaign=20180404

Creeps. Maybe their excesses will be their downfall.
Title: Re: The Goolag, the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 07, 2018, 11:24:25 AM
"Maybe their excesses will be their downfall."

May their excesses be their downfall.
Title: Facebook deems Diamond & Silk unsafe
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 08, 2018, 12:56:09 PM
https://www.dailywire.com/news/29175/facebook-deems-pro-trump-diamond-and-silk-unsafe-joseph-curl
Title: some good points
Post by: ccp on April 08, 2018, 02:21:23 PM
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/04/06/delingpole-smash-big-techs-robber-baron-cartel-now/
Title: The Economist on all this
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 08, 2018, 07:00:00 PM


http://discovery.economist.com/features/21735026-which-antitrust-remedies-welcome-which-fight-techlash-against-amazon-facebook-and-161617744?kw=all&csid=socialpr&ref=features&aid=5650068264
Title: I'm shocked, absolutely shocked , , ,Zuckerberg gave money to 85 Congressmen
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 08, 2018, 10:47:31 PM
second post

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-07/facebook-gave-money-85-house-committee-questioning-zuckerberg-next-week
Title: Re: The Goolag, the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: ccp on April 09, 2018, 08:19:17 AM
I am not sure why but I really detest Zuckerberg and always have.

I don't like Google's Schmidt either.

With there phony political correctness while in effect stealing and selling our personal data.  I certainly was not a fan of their coziness with Obama .

What do we know about *their* personal lives..  How many women did Schmidt pay off to silence them from exposing with regards to  "MeToo "?

For some reason Steve Jobs or Bezos don't bother me.  I admire them and only wish I DID buy Amazon when it dipped to ~ 30 during the tech crash ~2000. 
Title: The guy who would be Prez took body language class
Post by: ccp on April 09, 2018, 09:54:23 AM
OMG .  He even uses the same body language coach.  Tell me who the lip biting pose reminds you of:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/facebook-ceo-apologizes-says-company-155501276.html


addendum I don't know what happened to the picture but it was of Zuck biting his lip.

Looked EXACTLY like when Clinton would bite his lip while trying to con us that he was  showing contrition.
Title: Facehugger spying on even those who didn't consent
Post by: G M on April 09, 2018, 08:07:13 PM
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/374730.php

The surveillance economy.
Title: CDC uses social media to predict who is going to give
Post by: ccp on April 09, 2018, 09:16:29 PM
syphilis to who  -  my question - ok then what?   

stock the drug stores in a given county with more penicillin.

send fliers to the gays who are  mainly the ones spreading this to be sure to wear their condoms?

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/9/syphilis-outbreaks-predicted-google-searches-tweet/
Title: Daily Signal: Ten Questions for Zuckerberg
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 10, 2018, 04:57:50 AM
https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/04/09/facebook-ceo-mark-zuckerberg-should-answer-these-questions-when-he-testifies-before-congress/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MorningBell%22&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWXpBM1ptWmpZakl6WXpObSIsInQiOiJ0WVlIWFhoXC96WU1jK2VUT0lHazdxK3ZuOVpOTFRhc3lxcXZ6MlFQQ2gxdzBBTDBySDMxbkUwUGpKRWpJU0lGTGR5MHFIMzlTdFZtUCtRK29ScU9TcnpyTkt6RTVvS0tPWUoyWGxnMzBUVmtFdXhlelwvVDlXOFg5OUdVU2NGdGNyIn0%3D
Title: You May Not Be Interested In Social Credit, But Social Credit Is Interested In Y
Post by: G M on April 10, 2018, 10:01:24 AM
http://jackbaruth.com/?p=9609

You May Not Be Interested In Social Credit, But Social Credit Is Interested In You
Posted on April 9, 2018 by Jack Baruth


It’s an idea that is four or five years old now, but the Chinese government is finally taking baby steps towards putting its “social credit” system into production. What is social credit, you ask? Well, it’s a system by which ordinary citizens are rated for their behavior. You can lose points for breaking minor laws, speaking out against the government, or for associating with people who do those things.

Users with high social credit get preferred placement on dating apps, free loaner bicycles, and other benefits. If your social credit is low, on the other hand, you might find yourself unable to buy a business-class travel ticket… or you might find that you have no ability to buy a ticket at all. Your children might be denied access to good schools, and you might be removed from lists of applicants for available jobs. Participation in the system is mandatory for Chinese subjects, er, citizens.

So-called “heritage Americans” rightly view this sort of thing as an utterly horrific abomination, particularly since it is backed by the government itself, but the Chinese don’t share our mistrust of social conditioning or coercive behavior. Look for Social Credit to be a massive success, both for the compliant citizens who score highly under the system and for high-ranking members of the Chinese government who will benefit from its chilling effect on potential critics or activists.

And we could leave the whole subject there, except for one little thing.


We know that “foreign” corporations will be subject to the whims of the Social Credit system, which means that even if Westerners are not individually ranked in Social Credit they will be evaluated as part of the credit rating given to their employer. It’s a nifty way to ensure that foreign critics of the Chinese government don’t have a chance to participate in the Chinese market.

It seems unlikely to think that it will stop there. In much the same way as Facebook creates “ghost profiles” of people who do not choose to have a Facebook account, there is no reason to think that the Social Credit system will not eventually expand to rate foreigners. Are you interested in visiting China? Better have good social credit. Do you want to work for a Chinese company, even if that company is an American-market pork producer? Then you’ll want to watch what you say. There are quite a few Chinese-owned American companies, from the Chicago Stock Exchange and the Waldorf-Astoria to AMC Theatres.

There is also, of course, the possibility — scratch that, the certainty — that the system will be subject to considerable error. For Americans, it’s likely to result in nothing more than some inconvenience or lost work opportunities. For a Chinese citizen, trapped in the country without the ability to buy a ticket out?

Luckily we have no such social credit system in the United States. Except we do, of course. It was just built using venture capital. We all understand now that nothing on Facebook is private, but in a world where employers are demanding access to the Facebook accounts of their employees there’s never been a better time to walk away from your veal pen in Zuckerberg’s Information Farm. Failing that, you should just create a short and sweet profile with no personal information and no political affiliations that might cost you opportunities in the future. You can be fired nowadays simply for holding conservative views — and if the rulings so far on James Damore’s lawsuit against Google are any indication, it’s perfectly legal for an employer to do so.

As for your humble author, maybe now’s the time for me to hurry up and take out a loan on a lightly-used Viper ACR. My financial credit score is way better than my social credit score is going to be.
Title: Bias at FB - though it is obvious, here are some numbers
Post by: ccp on April 11, 2018, 09:20:42 AM
The LEFT is so fond of quotas for minorities and women etc but what about quotas for political persuasions .  The counted political affiliations at FB of high level exucs shows a 45 to 10 bias for Obama Hillary lovers vs Romney huggers and ZERO for Trump.

No bias there

And what is the BS about artificial intelligence the Zuck keeps telling us?

As though that would take him off the hook and make it all nonparitison

AI still has to be created by people with all their biases.   
Title: Re: The Goolag, the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 11, 2018, 03:01:45 PM
Skynet via FB , , , , , ,
Title: Re: The Goolag, the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: DougMacG on April 11, 2018, 03:06:05 PM
Isn't it creepy that Zuckerberg wants to be regulated?  What does that tell us?  Regulation will help hold together their monopoly.  Regulation legalizes what he is doing, selling private information.  Then he only has to compare his business to the laws he helps write, not to an arbitrary standard of right versus wrong, with damages and liability.


Title: Re: The Goolag, the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 11, 2018, 03:10:29 PM
AND he serves the Deep State in sending American Creed thinking down the memory hole.
Title: Re: The Goolag, the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: ccp on April 11, 2018, 04:50:56 PM
"Then he only has to compare his business to the laws he helps write, not to an arbitrary standard of right versus wrong, with damages and liability."

one of the questioners pointed this out.

don't know if true but it has been pointed out online that he has contributed to every Senator on the panel.

there are no shortage of big shots who want in to his money.

the power of billions for all to see. 

He is running for President too.   
Title: Re: The Goolag, the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: DougMacG on April 12, 2018, 04:58:06 AM
"He is running for President too."

Now that I've seen and heard him, I don't fear him as a candidate, and this scandal isn't helping him in that regard. It looks like he has his hands full running FB, should have sold it before this all blew up.

I was actually impressed with the self awareness I saw in response to Sen Cruz's questioning.  Silicon Valley, where they hire and operate, is a 'very far left' place.  To admit that means the political bias discovered in FB is more solveable than it anywhere else, such as in mainstream media or academia.  They have 15,000 to 20,000 people going through content.  If they want to serve both sides of a badly divided country all they might need to do is create and enforce balance on those teams.  In other words, have conservatives, not liberals, look for hate speech in conservative content.

If he doesn't do that, soon(!), he is serving half the market and setting the stage for voluntary breakup.  Let FB be a liberal social media website and leave a market opening for new entrants, like MSM did for Fox.

I forgot which Senator (Lindsey Graham?) I heard ask, Are you a Monopoly?  Who is your biggest competitor?  And most telling, why did you buy Instagram?

If we are concerned with monopolistic concentrations of power, why are we allowing Facebook to buy competitive social media sites, why did we allow Google to buy youtube, eBay to buy Paypal, etc?  We allow competitors and market participants to be swallowed up, and then talk about a breakup.  Once again, government was asleep at the wheel and now we have a problem.


Title: Tighter Regulation Will Make Facebook More Profitable
Post by: DougMacG on April 13, 2018, 03:40:46 PM
Doug, 4/11:  "Isn't it creepy that Zuckerberg wants to be regulated?  What does that tell us?  Regulation will help hold together their monopoly.  Regulation legalizes what he is doing..."

Jonah Goldberg, National Review, 4/13:
https://townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/2018/04/13/tighter-regulation-would-probably-make-facebook-more-profitable-n2470497
Tighter Regulation Would Probably Make Facebook More Profitable

Why would the titans of capitalism welcome regulation? Because regulation is the best protection against competition. It stabilizes prices, eliminates uncertainty and writes profits into law
 
Title: regulation is not helpful
Post by: ccp on April 13, 2018, 05:24:42 PM
and they have the resources to bribe politicians who make the laws hire batteries of lawyers to interpret and game the law and still have cash left over to protect their image and put everyone else out of business or buy them out..

Breaking them up ? is that the way to go?   :|

I don't want this squirt running the world and all our lives.  some kids might not care or see the problems with it because they are young but I do.

Title: Surveillance Capitalism
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 15, 2018, 05:52:46 AM
      Facebook and Cambridge Analytica



In the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, news articles and
commentators have focused on what Facebook knows about us. A lot, it
turns out. It collects data from our posts, our likes, our photos,
things we type and delete without posting, and things we do while not on
Facebook and even when we're offline. It buys data about us from others.
And it can infer even more: our sexual orientation, political beliefs,
relationship status, drug use, and other personality traits -- even if
we didn't take the personality test that Cambridge Analytica developed.

But for every article about Facebook's creepy stalker behavior,
thousands of other companies are breathing a collective sigh of relief
that it's Facebook and not them in the spotlight. Because while Facebook
is one of the biggest players in this space, there are thousands of
other companies that spy on and manipulate us for profit.

Harvard Business School professor Shoshana Zuboff calls it "surveillance
capitalism." And as creepy as Facebook is turning out to be, the entire
industry is far creepier. It has existed in secret far too long, and
it's up to lawmakers to force these companies into the public spotlight,
where we can all decide if this is how we want society to operate and --
if not -- what to do about it.

There are 2,500 to 4,000 data brokers in the United States whose
business is buying and selling our personal data. Last year, Equifax was
in the news when hackers stole personal information on 150 million
people, including Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, and
driver's license numbers.

You certainly didn't give it permission to collect any of that
information. Equifax is one of those thousands of data brokers, most of
them you've never heard of, selling your personal information without
your knowledge or consent to pretty much anyone who will pay for it.

Surveillance capitalism takes this one step further. Companies like
Facebook and Google offer you free services in exchange for your data.
Google's surveillance isn't in the news, but it's startlingly intimate.
We never lie to our search engines. Our interests and curiosities, hopes
and fears, desires and sexual proclivities, are all collected and saved.
Add to that the websites we visit that Google tracks through its
advertising network, our Gmail accounts, our movements via Google Maps,
and what it can collect from our smartphones.

That phone is probably the most intimate surveillance device ever
invented. It tracks our location continuously, so it knows where we
live, where we work, and where we spend our time. It's the first and
last thing we check in a day, so it knows when we wake up and when we go
to sleep. We all have one, so it knows who we sleep with. Uber used just
some of that information to detect one-night stands; your smartphone
provider and any app you allow to collect location data knows a lot
more.

Surveillance capitalism drives much of the internet. It's behind most of
the "free" services, and many of the paid ones as well. Its goal is
psychological manipulation, in the form of personalized advertising to
persuade you to buy something or do something, like vote for a
candidate. And while the individualized profile-driven manipulation
exposed by Cambridge Analytica feels abhorrent, it's really no different
from what every company wants in the end. This is why all your personal
information is collected, and this is why it is so valuable. Companies
that can understand it can use it against you.

None of this is new. The media has been reporting on surveillance
capitalism for years. In 2015, I wrote a book about it. Back in 2010,
the Wall Street Journal published an award-winning two-year series about
how people are tracked both online and offline, titled "What They Know."

Surveillance capitalism is deeply embedded in our increasingly
computerized society, and if the extent of it came to light there would
be broad demands for limits and regulation. But because this industry
can largely operate in secret, only occasionally exposed after a data
breach or investigative report, we remain mostly ignorant of its reach.

This might change soon. In 2016, the European Union passed the
comprehensive General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR. The details
of the law are far too complex to explain here, but some of the things
it mandates are that personal data of EU citizens can only be collected
and saved for "specific, explicit, and legitimate purposes," and only
with explicit consent of the user. Consent can't be buried in the terms
and conditions, nor can it be assumed unless the user opts in. This law
will take effect in May, and companies worldwide are bracing for its
enforcement.

Because pretty much all surveillance capitalism companies collect data
on Europeans, this will expose the industry like nothing else. Here's
just one example. In preparation for this law, PayPal quietly published
a list of over 600 companies it might share your personal data with.
What will it be like when every company has to publish this sort of
information, and explicitly explain how it's using your personal data?
We're about to find out.

In the wake of this scandal, even Mark Zuckerberg said that his industry
probably should be regulated, although he's certainly not wishing for
the sorts of comprehensive regulation the GDPR is bringing to Europe.

He's right. Surveillance capitalism has operated without constraints for
far too long. And advances in both big data analysis and artificial
intelligence will make tomorrow's applications far creepier than
today's. Regulation is the only answer.

The first step to any regulation is transparency. Who has our data? Is
it accurate? What are they doing with it? Who are they selling it to?
How are they securing it? Can we delete it? I don't see any hope of
Congress passing a GDPR-like data protection law anytime soon, but it's
not too far-fetched to demand laws requiring these companies to be more
transparent in what they're doing.

One of the responses to the Cambridge Analytica scandal is that people
are deleting their Facebook accounts. It's hard to do right, and doesn't
do anything about the data that Facebook collects about people who don't
use Facebook. But it's a start. The market can put pressure on these
companies to reduce their spying on us, but it can only do that if we
force the industry out of its secret shadows.

This essay previously appeared on CNN.com.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/26/opinions/data-company-spying-opinion-schneier/index.html
Title: Silicon behemoths in Education system
Post by: ccp on April 18, 2018, 09:40:33 AM
http://michellemalkin.com/2018/04/11/the-student-data-mining-scandal-under-our-noses/
Title: Glitc vs censorship?
Post by: ccp on April 19, 2018, 04:53:34 AM
comedian posts abusive posts from liberals and HE gets blocked by Zuck book.  Is this a glitch that offensive posts are seen and immediately wrongly concluded they came from him though they came from others and he automatically gets blocked?
Or you are not allowed to repost abusive posts from others ?
 Or is this a concerted effort to censor a conservative?  Don't know:

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/04/18/facebook-suspends-conservative-comedian-terrence-williams-for-posting-abusive-messages-he-received/
Title: Re: Glitc vs censorship?
Post by: G M on April 19, 2018, 05:09:41 AM
comedian posts abusive posts from liberals and HE gets blocked by Zuck book.  Is this a glitch that offensive posts are seen and immediately wrongly concluded they came from him though they came from others and he automatically gets blocked?
Or you are not allowed to repost abusive posts from others ?
 Or is this a concerted effort to censor a conservative?  Don't know:

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/04/18/facebook-suspends-conservative-comedian-terrence-williams-for-posting-abusive-messages-he-received/

I think it's safe to assume Facehugger is always acting in bad faith.
Title: Google search manipulation; no paper trail for search manipulation
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 25, 2018, 04:54:01 PM
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/04/24/exclusive-research-google-search-manipulation-can-swing-nearly-80-percent-undecided-voters/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_content=links&utm_campaign=20180425

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/04/25/dr-robert-epstein-no-paper-trail-for-google-search-manipulation/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_content=links&utm_campaign=20180425
Title: Re: The Goolag, the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: ccp on April 26, 2018, 05:20:05 AM
"EXCLUSIVE — Research: Google Search Manipulation Can Swing Nearly 80 Percent of Undecided Voter"

no surprise

MSM dead silent except when it hurts their leftist side (cambridge) then suddenly the outrage is expressed

I certainly would not trust that snake Schmidt .
Title: Re: Google search manipulation, conservative search engine needed
Post by: DougMacG on April 26, 2018, 07:28:35 PM
Since Google and Facebook discriminate against conservative search results, someone else should step in and fill that gap.  There is a skill to using Google, estimating what is the most succinct combination of keywords that will take you right to what you are looking for.  

That doesn't work when looking for facts, evidence and opinion on the conservative side of an issue such as climate science or economics.  If you searched during the campaign for specific, negative stories on Hillary it gave you all positive.  

Title: Re: The Goolag, the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 26, 2018, 07:37:34 PM
How does Duck stack up?
Title: Re: The Goolag, the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: G M on April 27, 2018, 05:10:10 PM
How does Duck stack up?


It's not bad. For my professional work, I still use goolag, but now make sure to run it through the brave browser.
Title: Digital Maoism
Post by: G M on April 27, 2018, 05:11:05 PM
http://nymag.com/selectall/2018/04/jaron-lanier-interview-on-what-went-wrong-with-the-internet.html

This dovetails with something you’ve said in the past that’s with me, which is your phrase Digital Maoism. Do you think that the Digital Maoism that you described years ago — are those the people who run Silicon Valley today?

I was talking about a few different things at the time I wrote “Digital Maoism.” One of them was the way that we were centralizing culture, even though the rhetoric was that we were distributing it. Before Wikipedia, I think it would have been viewed as being this horrible thing to say that there could only be one encyclopedia, and that there would be one dominant entry for a given topic. Instead, there were different encyclopedias. There would be variations not so much in what facts were presented, but in the way they were presented. That voice was a real thing.

And then we moved to this idea that we have a single dominant encyclopedia that was supposed to be the truth for the global AI or something like that. But there’s something deeply pernicious about that. So we’re saying anybody can write for Wikipedia, so it’s, like, purely democratic and it’s this wonderful open thing, and yet the bizarreness is that that open democratic process is on the surface of something that struck me as being Maoist, which is that there’s this one point of view that’s then gonna be the official one.

And then I also noticed that that process of people being put into a global system in which they’re supposed to work together toward some sort of dominating megabrain that’s the one truth didn’t seem to bring out the best in people, that people turned aggressive and mean-spirited when they interacted in that context. I had worked on some content for Britannica years and years ago, and I never experienced the kind of just petty meanness that’s just commonplace in everything about the internet. Among many other places, on Wikipedia.

On the one hand, you have this very open collective process actually in the service of this very domineering global brain, destroyer of local interpretation, destroyer of individual voice process. And then you also have this thing that seems to bring out this meanness in people, where people get into this kind of mob mentality and they become unkind to each other. And those two things have happened all over the internet; they’re both very present in Facebook, everywhere. And it’s a bit of a subtle debate, and it takes a while to work through it with somebody who doesn’t see what I’m talking about. That was what I was talking about.

But then there’s this other thing about the centralization of economic power. What happened with Maoists and with communists in general, and neo-Marxists and all kinds of similar movements, is that on the surface, you say everybody shares, everybody’s equal, we’re not gonna have this capitalist concentration. But then there’s some other entity that might not look like traditional capitalism, but is effectively some kind of robber baron that actually owns everything, some kind of Communist Party actually controls everything, and you have just a very small number of individuals who become hyperempowered and everybody else loses power.

And exactly the same thing has happened with the supposed openness of the internet, where you say, “Isn’t it wonderful, with Facebook and Twitter anybody can express themselves. Everybody’s an equal, everybody’s empowered.” But in fact, we’re in a period of time of extreme concentration of wealth and power, and it’s precisely around those who run the biggest computers. So the truth and the effect is just the opposite of what the rhetoric is and the immediate experience.

A lot of people were furious with me over Digital Maoism and felt that I had betrayed our cause or something, and I lost some friends over it. And some of it was actually hard. But I fail to see how it was anything but accurate. I don’t wanna brag, but I think I was just right. I think that that’s what was going on and that’s what’s happening in China. But what’s worse is that it’s happening elsewhere.
Title: Face(Lib)book censors Pam Geller
Post by: ccp on April 28, 2018, 10:06:59 AM
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/04/27/facebook-blocks-pamela-geller-reporting-muslim-anti-semitism-germany/
Title: Re: The Goolag, the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: ccp on May 02, 2018, 05:38:36 AM
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/05/01/facebook-is-now-ranking-news-organizations-based-on-trustworthiness/

I have no idea how they can "rank" news based on likes or dislikes or truthfulness alone without political agendas entering into the equation

Can't be done .
And am I supposed to believe because "AI " what ever that is , is used that it is somehow more accurate or indiscriminant? 

That is certainly flawed .

Title: The Goolag, the Orwellian Tech Octopus, George Gilder: Life after Google
Post by: DougMacG on May 02, 2018, 10:01:23 AM
interesting that George Gilder's next book is called Life after Google.  Big tech disruption coming.  That makes more sense to me than the current feeling that this current state of affairs is permanent.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/richkarlgaard/2018/02/09/why-technology-prophet-george-gilder-predicts-big-techs-disruption/#577ea14e2d21

Any Gilder interview could go in a number of threads.  He quotes Scott Grannis at the start.

Gilder: "I see a kind of rebirth of the Silicon Valley dream. It defies the current Silicon Valley re-centralization of leviathan companies that chiefly buy up their own rivals and buy up their own stocks"
...
"The clouds [cloud computing] are dispersing into the skies—sky computing rendered on your laptop and smartphone, spread across blockchains, transparent and transformative."

Gilder is always an interesting read.  Good to see someone looking beyond the Google Facebook complex.
Title: FB brings in Jon Kyl to probe political bias
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 03, 2018, 06:20:42 AM
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/2/facebook-brings-in-jon-kyl-to-probe-political-bias/

Title: The conservative case for breaking up the tech giants
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 17, 2018, 10:48:24 AM
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/breaking-up-tech-giants-conservative-case/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NR%20Daily%20Monday%20through%20Friday%202018-05-16&utm_term=NR5PM%20Actives
Title: Re: The conservative case for breaking up the tech giants
Post by: DougMacG on May 17, 2018, 03:40:00 PM
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/breaking-up-tech-giants-conservative-case/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NR%20Daily%20Monday%20through%20Friday%202018-05-16&utm_term=NR5PM%20Actives

Mark me down as skeptical on this.  We should prosecute illegal tactics, not illegal size or market share, IMHO.

It reminds me of the case against Microsoft brought by Janet Reno and Bill Clinton in March 2000.  Government attacking the nation's most successful company ever (at the time) triggered the tech crash, was devastating to investors of all tech.

Facebook is a choice.  There are other ways to stay in touch with people.  25% choose not to participate and many of those in are not active.

Google also is a choice, or a series of choices.  In both cases, they take, store and sell more of your privacy, security and information than they disclose.  Maybe a civil lawsuit would be a better choice, better than have the government decide how these frozen in time services should be allocated.

All of these mentioned are companies people love to hate.  Ripe for disruption through market forces.  Turning the decision of how big a private sector company should be over to big government does not look like a solution to me.
Title: my one cent
Post by: ccp on May 17, 2018, 06:28:47 PM
from CDs post :

"there is another option to deal with this situation that would reduce the power of these companies and serve the public interest. That is breaking these monopolies up into smaller, more focused entities."

I am a conservative in THIS camp.

I don't listen to Gilder anymore.

Title: Re: The Goolag, the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 18, 2018, 05:55:37 AM
For the purpose of conversation, I take the other side:

Monopoly power may not be used to leverage outside of its area.  FB is using its monopoly power to suppress conservative thought.  It is doing so through a sustained pattern of deceptive business practices.
Title: Re: The Goolag, the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: ccp on May 18, 2018, 07:05:29 AM
I would add Google also does this
as well as Twitter whose /CEO makes no bones about doing this.

So, CD do you advocate regulation or break up or neither?

Title: Re: The Goolag, the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 18, 2018, 07:42:56 AM
My thinking is not yet fixed, but at the moment I am sympathetic to a notion I vaguely remember from some cases I saw in law school concerning a shopping mall (private property) being constructively considered to be the "town square" (the nature of the town was that there was no "town square") and that the mall had to allow political speech.  Frankly I don't know whether this line of precedent remains valid or not.
Title: Re: The Goolag, the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: G M on May 18, 2018, 10:35:00 AM
My thinking is not yet fixed, but at the moment I am sympathetic to a notion I vaguely remember from some cases I saw in law school concerning a shopping mall (private property) being constructively considered to be the "town square" (the nature of the town was that there was no "town square") and that the mall had to allow political speech.  Frankly I don't know whether this line of precedent remains valid or not.


My thought is to use antitrust laws like a meat ax on the goolag and it's fellow travelers. Why? Because it's war, so fcuk them.
Title: Re: The Goolag, the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 18, 2018, 10:00:04 PM
Continuing the conversation:

FEATURED ANALYSIS
The Cultural Shift Against Free Speech
Brian Mark Weber
 
At first, Twitter seemed like a great idea: quickly and concisely communicating our thoughts with just a few keystrokes, rather than babbling on and on. Still, something didn't seem quite right about that 140-character limitation, even when it was doubled to 280 characters last year. Somehow, it still seemed a restriction on our speech.
But that was just the beginning. This simple social media platform is now going far beyond limiting our character-count to controlling what we think and how we interact with our fellow citizens.

One of the core problems created by social media behemoths like Twitter and Facebook is not that their policies are posing any serious legal threat to the First Amendment. As David French writes at National Review, "The law of free speech has mainly improved. Americans might have more legal defenses against government censorship now than they ever have before. If the government moves against your speech based on your viewpoint and you fight back, you're likely to win."

But social media platforms can bypass the Constitution altogether by creating a paradigm shift in the way current and future generations understand the important role free speech plays in our society. French adds, "The culture of free speech has decayed. Individuals and organizations are far more sensitive and far less tolerant of dissent than they were even in the recent past."

Twitter thinks it has the answer, but its users won't be freer to speak their minds.

In 2016, Twitter launched an Orwellian "Trust & Safety Council" made up of more than 40 organizations, some of which have a history of suppressing free speech. Having thus created a council with representation from a very limited range of ideological perspectives, the company tipped its authoritarian hand.

Twitter explained that in order for users to "express themselves freely and safely on Twitter, we must provide more tools and policies."

Somehow we've managed to build a thriving civilization without having our social interactions with others flagged by an intrusive authority, but now Twitter thinks we need just that. After all, society itself has embedded cultural norms and practices over time to ensure civil discourse. But these cultural norms are under actually threatened by the advent of technology and the pervasive use of social media by millions of Americans.

Sure, some of Twitter's changes seem benign on the surface. For example, the latest push by CEO Jack Dorsey purports to focus on people who are routinely blocked by other users, those who send tweets to accounts they don't follow, and those who launch multiple accounts from a single IP address. But how far will this go? Dorsey himself said that "this is a step, but we can see this going quite far."

Indeed, it may well go too far.

This week, The Verge posted an internal Google video imagining a future in which social media is used not merely to referee online interaction, but to socially engineer our entire society.

If that doesn't send chills down your spine, then maybe we're already closer to that world than we realize.

For now, Twitter asserts that it's merely trying to rid the platform of "spammy behavior." But earlier this year, James O'Keefe's Project Veritas revealed (via The Daily Wire) "Twitter employees admitting that they 'shadow ban' right-leaning accounts, which essentially bans them from the platform without letting them know that they have been banned while allowing left-leaning accounts to slip through without the same scrutiny."

That wouldn't be so bad if Twitter were merely trying to filter out inappropriate or abusive online behavior without regard to ideology. But while middle-of-the-road conservative groups and individuals are being shadow-banned, Twitter has no qualms about allowing groups like Hamas to freely express their hatred and their calls for violence simply because Hamas is a democratically elected government entity that claims to be part of the Middle East "peace process." Remember, Hamas was deemed a foreign terrorist organization by none other than President Bill Clinton in 1997, and it orchestrated the recent violence on the Gaza border that lead to the deaths of dozens of its soldiers.

Our Founding Fathers wisely protected us against government's intrusion into what we say and how we say it. Twitter, Facebook and other social media platforms, however, are subversively changing the very way Americans think about communication.

And these changes are also occurring in academia and in the workplace, where the anti-free speech culture being fostered online is also part of the broader culture. The result is that we've become conditioned by social media to accept environments in which simply sharing an opinion can lead to being flagged, suppressed or outright banned from a social community. This is having a ripple effect on the way Americans interact with one another away from social media.

Of course, no one is suggesting that the government take action against private companies. As Reason's Robby Soave writes, "Twitter is a private company. It is free to make whatever speech rules it wants. Forcing Twitter to permit more kinds of speech would not actually be pro-free speech — in fact, it would violate the First Amendment."

And that's why one of the greatest challenges our society will face in the 21st century is maintaining a culture of free speech when so many of us discuss politics and social issues not in the public square where everyone can speak freely, but in the privately-run realms of the Internet.

The time has come for Americans to speak up, before it's too late. This is no longer a discussion about cleaning up social media, but about preserving a civilization whose great strength has always derived from its First Amendment.
Title: POTH: Germany, Facebook, hate speech, and Freedom of Speech
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 19, 2018, 09:04:30 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/19/technology/facebook-deletion-center-germany.html?nl=top-stories&nlid=49641193ries&ref=cta

Germany Acts to Tame Facebook, Learning From Its Own History of Hate
A country taps its past as it leads the way on one of the most pressing issues facing modern democracies: how to regulate the world’s biggest social network.
At a Facebook deletion center in Berlin, the agents, who work for a third-party firm, remove illegal hate speech from the social network.CreditGordon Welters for The New York Times
•   
•   
•   
•   
•  •  By Katrin Bennhold
May 19, 2018
BERLIN — Security is tight at this brick building on the western edge of Berlin. Inside, a sign warns: “Everybody without a badge is a potential spy!”
Spread over five floors, hundreds of men and women sit in rows of six scanning their computer screens. All have signed nondisclosure agreements. Four trauma specialists are at their disposal seven days a week.

They are the agents of Facebook. And they have the power to decide what is free speech and what is hate speech.  This is a deletion center, one of Facebook’s largest, with more than 1,200 content moderators. They are cleaning up content — from terrorist propaganda to Nazi symbols to child abuse — that violates the law or the company’s community standards.

Germany, home to a tough new online hate speech law, has become a laboratory for one of the most pressing issues for governments today: how and whether to regulate the world’s biggest social network.

Around the world, Facebook and other social networking platforms are facing a backlash over their failures to safeguard privacy, disinformation campaigns and the digital reach of hate groups.

In India, seven people were beaten to death after a false viral message on the Facebook subsidiary WhatsApp. In Myanmar, violence against the Rohingya minority was fueled, in part, by misinformation spread on Facebook. In the United States, Congress called Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief executive, to testify about the company’s inability to protect its users’ privacy.

As the world confronts these rising forces, Europe, and Germany in particular, have emerged as the de facto regulators of the industry, exerting influence beyond their own borders. Berlin’s digital crackdown on hate speech, which took effect on Jan. 1, is being closely watched by other countries. And German officials are playing a major role behind one of Europe’s most aggressive moves to rein in technology companies, strict data privacy rules that take effect across the European Union on May 25 and are prompting global changes.

 “For them, data is the raw material that makes them money,” said Gerd Billen, secretary of state in Germany’s Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection. “For us, data protection is a fundamental right that underpins our democratic institutions.”

Germany’s troubled history has placed it on the front line of a modern tug-of-war between democracies and digital platforms.

In the country of the Holocaust, the commitment against hate speech is as fierce as the commitment to free speech. Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” is only available in an annotated version. Swastikas are illegal. Inciting hatred is punishable by up to five years in jail.

But banned posts, pictures and videos have routinely lingered on Facebook and other social media platforms. Now companies that systematically fail to remove “obviously illegal” content within 24 hours face fines of up to 50 million euros.

The deletion center predates the legislation, but its efforts have taken on new urgency. Every day content moderators in Berlin, hired by a third-party firm and working exclusively on Facebook, pore over thousands of posts flagged by users as upsetting or potentially illegal and make a judgment: Ignore, delete or, in particularly tricky cases, “escalate” to a global team of Facebook lawyers with expertise in German regulation.

Some decisions to delete are easy. Posts about Holocaust denial and genocidal rants against particular groups like refugees are obvious ones for taking down.
Others are less so. On Dec. 31, the day before the new law took effect, a far-right lawmaker reacted to an Arabic New Year’s tweet from the Cologne police, accusing them of appeasing “barbaric, Muslim, gang-raping groups of men.”

The request to block a screenshot of the lawmaker’s post wound up in the queue of Nils, a 35-year-old agent in the Berlin deletion center. His judgment was to let it stand. A colleague thought it should come down. Ultimately, the post was sent to lawyers in Dublin, London, Silicon Valley and Hamburg. By the afternoon it had been deleted, prompting a storm of criticism about the new legislation, known here as the “Facebook Law.”

 “A lot of stuff is clear-cut,” Nils said. Facebook, citing his safety, did not allow him to give his surname. “But then there is the borderline stuff.”

Complicated cases have raised concerns that the threat of the new rules’ steep fines and 24-hour window for making decisions encourage “over-blocking” by companies, a sort of defensive censorship of content that is not actually illegal.

The far-right Alternative of Germany, a noisy and prolific user of social media, has been quick to proclaim “the end of free speech.” Human rights organizations have warned that the legislation was inspiring authoritarian governments to copy it.

Other people argue that the law simply gives a private company too much authority to decide what constitutes illegal hate speech in a democracy, an argument that Facebook, which favored voluntary guidelines, made against the law.

“It is perfectly appropriate for the German government to set standards,” said Elliot Schrage, Facebook’s vice president of communications and public policy. “But we think it’s a bad idea for the German government to outsource the decision of what is lawful and what is not.”

Richard Allan, Facebook’s vice president for public policy in Europe and the leader of the company’s lobbying effort against the German legislation, put it more simply: “We don’t want to be the arbiters of free speech.”

German officials counter that social media platforms are the arbiters anyway.

It all boils down to one question, said Mr. Billen, who helped draw up the new legislation: “Who is sovereign? Parliament or Facebook?”

Learning From (German) History

When Nils applied for a job at the deletion center, the first question the recruiter asked him was: “Do you know what you will see here?”
Nils has seen it all. Child torture. Mutilations. Suicides. Even murder: He once saw a video of a man cutting a heart out of a living human being.
And then there is hate.

“You see all the ugliness of the world here,” Nils said. “Everyone is against everyone else. Everyone is complaining about that other group. And everyone is saying the same horrible things.”

The issue is deeply personal for Nils. He has a 4-year-old daughter. “I’m also doing this for her,” he said.

The center here is run by Arvato, a German service provider owned by the conglomerate Bertelsmann. The agents have a broad purview, reviewing content from a half-dozen countries. Those with a focus on Germany must know Facebook’s community standards and, as of January, the basics of German hate speech and defamation law.

“Two agents looking at the same post should come up with the same decision,” says Karsten König, who manages Arvato’s partnership with Facebook.
The Berlin center opened with 200 employees in 2015, as Germany was opening its doors to hundreds of thousands of migrants.

That year a selfie went viral.
Image
Anas Modamani, a Syrian refugee, posed with Chancellor Angela Merkel and posted the image on Facebook. It instantly became a symbol of her decision to allowing in hundreds of thousands of migrants.

Soon it also became a symbol of the backlash.

The image showed up in false reports linking Mr. Modamani to terrorist attacks in Brussels and on a Christmas market in Berlin. He sought an injunction against Facebook to stop such posts from being shared but eventually lost.

The arrival of nearly 1.4 million migrants in Germany has tested the country’s resolve to keep a tight lid on hate speech. The law on illegal speech was long-established but enforcement in the digital realm was scattershot before the new legislation.

Posts calling refugees rapists, Neanderthals and scum survived for weeks, according to jugendschutz.net, a publicly funded internet safety organization. Many were never taken down. Researchers at jugendschutz.net reported a tripling in observed hate speech in the second half of 2015.

Mr. Billen, the secretary of state in charge of the new law, was alarmed. In September 2015, he convened executives from Facebook and other social media sites at the justice ministry, a building that was once the epicenter of state propaganda for the Communist East. A task force for fighting hate speech was created. A couple of months later, Facebook and other companies signed a joint declaration, promising to “examine flagged content and block or delete the majority of illegal posts within 24 hours.”

But the problem did not go away. Over the 15 months that followed, independent researchers, hired by the government, twice posed as ordinary users and flagged illegal hate speech. During the tests, they found that Facebook had deleted 46 percent and 39 percent.

“They knew that they were a platform for criminal behavior and for calls to commit criminal acts, but they presented themselves to us as a wolf in sheep skin,” said Mr. Billen, a poker-faced civil servant with stern black frames on his glasses.

By March 2017, the German government had lost patience and started drafting legislation. The Network Enforcement Law was born, setting out 21 types of content that are “manifestly illegal” and requiring social media platforms to act quickly.

Officials say early indications suggest the rules have served their purpose. Facebook’s performance on removing illegal hate speech in Germany rose to 100 percent over the past year, according to the latest spot check of the European Union.

Platforms must publish biannual reports on their efforts. The first is expected in July.

At Facebook’s Berlin offices, Mr. Allan acknowledged that under the earlier voluntary agreement, the company had not acted decisively enough at first.
“It was too little and it was too slow,” he said. But, he added, “that has changed.”

He cited another independent report for the European Commission from last summer that showed Facebook was by then removing 80 percent of hate speech posts in Germany.

The reason for the improvement was not German legislation, he said, but a voluntary code of conduct with the European Union. Facebook’s results have improved in all European countries, not just in Germany, Mr. Allan said.

“There was no need for legislation,” he said.

Mr. Billen disagrees.

“They could have prevented the law,” he said. YouTube scored 90 percent in last year’s monitoring exercise. If other platforms had done the same, there would be no law today, he said.

A Regulatory Dilemma

Germany’s hard-line approach to hate speech and data privacy once made it an outlier in Europe. The country’s stance is now more mainstream, an evolution seen in the justice commissioner in Brussels.  Vera Jourova, the justice commissioner, deleted her Facebook account in 2015 because she could not stand the hate anymore.
“It felt good,” she said about pressing the button. She added: “It felt like taking back control.”

But Ms. Jourova, who grew up behind the Iron Curtain in what is now the Czech Republic, had long been skeptical about governments legislating any aspect of free speech, including hate speech. Her father lost his job after making a disparaging comment about the Soviet invasion in 1968, barring her from going to university until she married and took her husband’s name.

“I lived half my life in the atmosphere driven by Soviet propaganda,” she said. “The golden principle was: If you repeat a lie a hundred times it becomes the truth.”

When Germany started considering a law, she instead preferred a voluntary code of conduct. In 2016, platforms like Facebook promised European users easy reporting tools and committed to removing most illegal posts brought to their attention within 24 hours.

The approach worked well enough, Ms. Jourova said. It was also the quickest way to act because the 28 member states in the European Union differed so much about whether and how to legislate.  But the stance of many governments toward Facebook has hardened since it emerged that the consulting firm Cambridge Analytica had harvested the personal data of up to 87 million users. Representatives of the European Parliament have asked Mr. Zuckerberg to come to Brussels to “clarify issues related to the use of personal data” and he has agreed to come as soon as next week.

Ms. Jourova, whose job is to protect the data of over 500 million Europeans, has hardened her stance as well.

“Our current system relies on trust and this did nothing to improve trust,” she said. “The question now is how do we continue?”

The European Commission is considering German-style legislation for online content related to terrorism, violent extremism and child pornography, including a provision that would include fines for platforms that did not remove illegal content within an hour of being alerted to it.

Several countries — France, Israel, Italy, and Canada among them — have sent queries to the German government about the impact of the new hate speech law.
And Germany’s influence is evident in Europe’s new privacy regulation, known as the General Data Protection Regulation, or G.D.P.R.. The rules give people control over how their information is collected and used.

[Here’s what G.D.P.R. means for you, and the internet.]

Inspired in part by German data protection laws written in the 1980s, the regulation has been shaped by a number of prominent Germans. Ms. Jourova’s chief of staff, Renate Nikolay, is German, as is her predecessor’s chief of staff, Martin Selmayr, now the European Commission’s secretary general. The lawmaker in charge of the regulation in the European Parliament is German, too.

“We have built on the German tradition of data protection as a constitutional right and created the most modern piece of regulation of the digital economy,” Ms. Nikolay said.

“To succeed in the long-term companies needs the trust of customers,” she said. “At the latest since Cambridge Analytica it has become clear that data protection is not just some nutty European idea, but a matter of competitiveness.”

On March 26, Ms. Jourova wrote a letter — by post, not email — to Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook’s chief operating officer.

“Is there a need for stricter rules for platforms like those that exist for traditional media? Is the data of Europeans affected by the current scandal?” she asked, referring to the Cambridge Analytica episode. And, if so, “How do you plan to inform the user about this?” 

She demanded a reply within two weeks, and she got one. Some 2.7 million Europeans were affected, Ms. Sandberg wrote.  But she never answered Ms. Jourova’s question on regulation.

“There is now a sense of urgency and the conviction that we are dealing with something very dangerous that may threaten the development of free democracies,” said Ms. Jourova, who is also trying to find ways to clamp down on fake news and disinformation campaigns.

“We want the tech giants to respect and follow our legislation,” she added. “We want them to show social responsibility both on data protection and on hate speech.”
So do many Facebook employees, Mr. Allan, the company executive, said.

“We employ very thoughtful and principled people,” he said. “They work here because they want to make the world a better place, so when an assumption is made that the product they work on is harming people it is impactful.  People have felt this criticism very deeply.”

A Visual Onslaught

Nils works eight-hour shifts. On busy days, 1,500 user reports are in his queue. Other days, there are only 300. Some of his colleagues have nightmares about what they see. 

Every so often someone breaks down. A mother recently left her desk in tears after watching a video of a child being sexually abused. A young man felt physically sick after seeing a video of a dog being tortured. The agents watch teenagers self-mutilating and girls recounting rape.

They have weekly group sessions with a psychologist and the trauma specialists on standby. In more serious cases, the center teams up with clinics in Berlin.

In the office, which is adorned with Facebook logos, fresh fruit is at the agents’ disposal in a small room where subdued colors and decorative moss growing on the walls are meant to calm fraying nerves.

To decompress, the agents sometimes report each other’s posts, not because they are controversial, but “just for a laugh,” said another agent, the son of a Lebanese refugee and an Arabic-speaker who has had to deal with content related to terrorism generally and the Islamic State specifically. By now, he said, images of “weird skin diseases” affected him more than those of a beheading. Nils finds sports injuries like breaking bones particularly disturbing.

There is a camaraderie in the office and a real sense of mission: Nils said the agents were proud to “help clean up the hate.”

The definition of hate is constantly evolving.

The agents, who initially take a three-week training course, get frequent refreshers. Their guidelines are revised to reflect hate speech culture. Events change the meaning of words. New hashtags and online trends must be put in context.

“Slurs can become socialized,” Mr. Allan of Facebook explained.

“Refugee” became a group protected from the broad hate speech rules only in 2015. “Nafri” was a term used by the German police that year to describe North Africans who sexually harassed hundreds of women, attacking and, in some cases, raping them. Since then, Nafri has become a popular insult among the far-right.

Nils and his colleagues must determine whether hateful content is singling out an ethnic group or individuals.

That was the challenge with a message on Twitter that was later posted to Facebook as a screenshot by Beatrix von Storch, deputy floor leader of the far-right party, AfD.
“What the hell is wrong with this country?” Ms. von Storch wrote on Dec. 31. “Why is an official police account tweeting in Arabic?  Do you think that will appease the barbaric murdering Muslim group-raping gangs of men?” she continued.

A user reported the post as a violation of German law, and it landed in Nils’s queue. He initially decided to ignore the request because he felt Ms. von Storch was directing her insults at the men who had sexually assaulted women two years earlier.

Separately, a user reported the post as a violation of community standards. Another agent leaned toward deleting it, taking it as directed at Muslims in general.

They conferred with their “subject matter expert,” who escalated it to a team in Dublin.

For 24 hours, the post kept Facebook lawyers from Silicon Valley to Hamburg busy. The Dublin team decided that the post did not violate community standards but sent it on for legal assessment by outside lawyers hired by Facebook in Germany.

Within hours of news that the German police were opening a criminal investigation into Ms. von Storch over her comments, Facebook restricted access to the post. The user who reported the content was notified that it had been blocked for a violation of section 130 of the German criminal code, incitement to hatred. Ms. von Storch was also notified too.

In the first few days of the year, it looked like the platforms were erring on the side of censorship. On Jan. 2, a day after Ms. von Storch’s post was deleted, the satirical magazine Titanic quipped that she would be its new guest tweeter. Two of the magazine’s subsequent Twitter posts mocking her were deleted. When Titanic published them again, its account was temporarily suspended.

Since then, things have calmed down. And even Mr. Allan conceded: “The law has not materially changed the amount of content that is deleted.”
Title: Re: The Goolag, the Orwellian Tech Octopus, 60 minutes
Post by: DougMacG on May 20, 2018, 08:39:38 AM
On "60 Minutes" later today, The Power of Google, Steve Kroft reports on the power of Google, its critics who say the company has stifled competition, and an antitrust enforcer who is taking action.

Liberal media (CBS) won't take them on for their political bias, search results manipulation, but maybe they will expose the troubling privacy violation issues. 
Title: Google and Lamarkian Epigenetics
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 20, 2018, 07:55:20 PM
https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/17/17344250/google-x-selfish-ledger-video-data-privacy
Title: Google's Selfish Ledger
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 23, 2018, 05:08:50 AM
https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/17/17344250/google-x-selfish-ledger-video-data-privacy
Title: Transhumanism
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 23, 2018, 05:12:49 AM
Second post
==================

Hmmm , , ,

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/transhumanism-promise-immortality-glorified-body-ersatz-christian-hope/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NR%20Daily%20Monday%20through%20Friday%202018-05-14&utm_term=NR5PM%20Actives
Title: Re: Google's Selfish Ledger
Post by: G M on May 23, 2018, 06:38:35 AM
https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/17/17344250/google-x-selfish-ledger-video-data-privacy

Big Brother is Nudging you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice_architecture

Title: The Googlag vs. Dennis Prager 2.0
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 23, 2018, 10:23:36 PM
https://donate.prageru.com/give/184491/#!/donation/checkout
Title: Bezos revenge?
Post by: ccp on May 24, 2018, 04:58:03 AM
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/05/23/demonitized-amazon-cuts-off-conservative-blog-legal-insurrection/
Title: FB demands driver license and SS# to run political ads
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 26, 2018, 07:47:03 AM
https://pjmedia.com/trending/facebook-demands-drivers-license-social-security-number-for-anti-obama-book-ad/?utm_source=PJMCoffeeBreak&utm_medium=email&utm_term=May2018
Title: Re: FB demands driver license and SS# to run political ads
Post by: DougMacG on May 26, 2018, 09:54:10 AM
https://pjmedia.com/trending/facebook-demands-drivers-license-social-security-number-for-anti-obama-book-ad/?utm_source=PJMCoffeeBreak&utm_medium=email&utm_term=May2018

Facebook won't mis-use your private data.  They are gathering it for re-sale purposes only.
Title: Stratfor: What the GDPR means
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 28, 2018, 08:47:45 AM
    Not all EU member states have enacted national laws on data protection, and many will have difficulty shouldering the costs of doing so.
    The second half of 2018 will provide early indicators of how much the European Union can influence large technology companies to address the privacy concerns of EU citizens.
    Uncertainty regarding the severity of national enforcement could influence the regional development of technology, especially in terms of small and medium-sized enterprises.

 
The Big Picture

In preparation for Stratfor's upcoming 2018 Third-Quarter Forecast, we are releasing a series of supporting analyses, focusing on critical topics, regions and sectors. These assessments have been designed specifically to contextualize and augment the upcoming quarterly global forecast.

 

Data privacy and protection regulations have become increasingly critical elements of corporate strategy, especially as more sectors integrate artificial intelligence (AI). Just before the start of the third quarter of 2018, the European Union will begin enforcing sweeping modifications to its personal data privacy protections, giving the first indications regarding the enforcement of the policy across the Continent and how companies and member states will approach implementation.
See 2018 Annual Forecast

The Details of the GDPR

In an effort to allay the privacy concerns of EU citizens and make data privacy laws consistent across members' borders, the European Union began enforcing its General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) on May 25. For two years, companies worldwide have been preparing for the changes, which will be widespread and significantly impact their day-to-day operations.

The new regulations deepen data protection for European citizens in several ways. First, they expand the scope of the definition of personal data and provide avenues to enforce greater transparency at all stages of data collection and use. The regulations emphasize informed consent (through simple, understandable language) and grant more control to the individual, including the right to be forgotten and the right to access all collected data. The regulations also lay out strict data storage requirements and set a time limit (72 hours) for the issue of  breach notifications. Finally, the GDPR includes language that makes the reuse of data by third parties difficult, while also stipulating severe fines for violations.

How Will Countries Implement the GDPR?

Though the GDPR standardizes data protection policies across the European Union, each individual member state must place its own language into national law, leaving the door open for countries to interpret and implement the regulations in different ways. This process is meant to streamline the regulation and legislation of data privacy, making the country in question the single authority on the matter within its borders. But in practice, this means countries across the European Union can all monitor and fine businesses in different ways.

The regulatory and financial limitations of EU member states will be the primary factors determining how each proceeds in implementing the GDPR. Several countries did not even pass national GDPR bills before May 25, and according to a Reuters survey, a majority of the participants don't believe they'll have the funding or power to enforce the legislation they do eventually establish.

A map of Europe's GDPR enforcement across various countries

Portuguese authorities have been vocal about their inability to afford the costs of enforcing the data privacy regulations, and authorities from France and the Netherlands have already indicated that they will be lenient in the initial months after the GDPR goes into effect. Traditionally, Berlin has had stricter data privacy protection legislation. Germany was among the first countries to implement national laws with regards to GDPR and will likely continue to be on the stricter end of the spectrum in terms of enforcement.

How Will Companies Handle the GDPR?

For businesses, simply bringing their security measures and customer interfaces up to the new standards of the GDPR will be an expensive task. Companies of all size are reportedly behind schedule on implementing the necessary changes, and starting in the third quarter, it will be important to keep an eye on how countries levy fines against companies based on size, region of operation and the location of their headquarters.

Smaller companies will face the biggest challenge, as they will have a larger per employee cost of implementation, though the record-processing requirements are somewhat relaxed for companies employing fewer than 250 people. For companies small enough that they operate in a single country, the European Union's country-by-country implementation strategy will have a massive impact. Nations with looser enforcement and more forgiving penalties will offer potential areas where smaller technology companies in Europe can still thrive.

Large, international companies, meanwhile, will be obliged to keep track of the different legislation throughout the European Union. But they will also have the money both to implement the new changes fairly easily and to fight any eventual fines in court.

The GDPR is likely to hit the middle tier of companies in the European technology sector the hardest. These businesses are large enough that they operate across multiple borders, but they don't have the financial heft to fight the legislation long term.

The GDPR's Impact on AI Development

The European Union recently released a road map plotting the future of artificial intelligence (AI) in the bloc. France is leading the charge, as well as promoting a start-up culture within the country itself. But an extensive study from the Center of Data Innovation indicates that the GDPR has the potential to delay or disrupt AI development in Europe. Data – corporate, personal and more – fuels AI, and the more the GDPR limits the sharing repurposing and reusing of data, the higher the cost will be for various AI applications.

The criteria that European countries develop to enforce data privacy will be a good indicator of whether the Continent prioritizes the GDPR or the somewhat incongruent goals of AI development. France, in particular, will be important to watch closely due to the stated goals of President Emmanuel Macron's government. The same goes for Germany, given that it has traditionally functioned as a strict enforcer of data privacy and protection.

Implications Beyond the European Union

How massive international tech companies handle the new regulations will indicate the degree to which the GDPR impacts the global market and the European Union's place within it. If companies such as Apple, Google and Facebook begin separating their European market from others by applying the privacy standards on the Continent alone, that would spell trouble for the European Union's ability to develop AI and keep pace with North American and Asian competitors. However, if these big corporations begin applying the privacy standards of the GDPR more broadly (Facebook already plans to offer EU safeguards to users globally), the European Union will be able to set the tone for future data privacy discussions and regulations on an international level.
Title: Re: The Goolag, the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: ccp on May 28, 2018, 05:31:32 PM
anyone else notice that when I try to view a story from Drudge or other online source that I often can not see it for the following message:

video is restricted - must log into Google accounts.   ?

This is happening more and more lately
I resent this from one of the masters of the universe
Title: Re: The Goolag, the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: G M on May 28, 2018, 06:52:48 PM
anyone else notice that when I try to view a story from Drudge or other online source that I often can not see it for the following message:

video is restricted - must log into Google accounts.   ?

This is happening more and more lately
I resent this from one of the masters of the universe

What browser are you using?
Title: Re: The Goolag, the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 28, 2018, 07:42:36 PM
Smells of an anti-trust violation.  You're not supposed to leverage a (quasi) monopoly in one market (e.g. search engine) for competitive advantage in a distinct market.
Title: Re: The Goolag, the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: ccp on May 29, 2018, 04:23:53 AM
Google Chrome
or Safari

I haven't thought if it different from one to another.  I will try to figure that out.
Title: Re: The Goolag, the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: G M on May 29, 2018, 06:36:55 AM
Google Chrome
or Safari

I haven't thought if it different from one to another.  I will try to figure that out.

Brave.com

Try that.
Title: More FB transgressions
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 03, 2018, 08:17:36 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/03/technology/facebook-device-partners-users-friends-data.html?nl=top-stories&nlid=49641193ries&ref=cta
Title: WSJ: Tech's Titans tiptoe towards monopoly
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 04, 2018, 11:29:46 PM
https://www.wsj.com/articles/techs-titans-tiptoe-toward-monopoly-1527783845
Title: Re: WSJ: Tech's Titans tiptoe towards monopoly
Post by: DougMacG on June 05, 2018, 03:05:56 PM
https://www.wsj.com/articles/techs-titans-tiptoe-toward-monopoly-1527783845

When I wrote I wasn't worried about Facebook, they will someday fall to competition, but I forgot our braindead government already allowed them to eat up all their competitors.  Yes, there is something wrong with that.

From the article:
"Imagine a not-too-distant future in which trustbusters force Facebook to sell off Instagram and WhatsApp."
Title: Re: The Goolag, the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 05, 2018, 06:42:29 PM
Working from memory from my FTC days, using market dominance in one market to achieve advantage in another market is anti-competitive.
Title: POTH: FB in bed with Chinese front company
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 05, 2018, 06:56:58 PM
second post

by Michael LaForgia and Gabriel J.X. Dance

    June 5, 2018

Facebook has data-sharing partnerships with at least four Chinese electronics companies, including a manufacturing giant that has a close relationship with China’s government, the social media company said on Tuesday.

The agreements, which date to at least 2010, gave private access to some user data to Huawei, a telecommunications equipment company that has been flagged by American intelligence officials as a national security threat, as well as to Lenovo, Oppo and TCL.

The four partnerships remain in effect, but Facebook officials said in an interview that the company would wind down the Huawei deal by the end of the week.

Facebook gave access to the Chinese device makers along with other manufacturers — including Amazon, Apple, BlackBerry and Samsung — whose agreements were disclosed by The New York Times on Sunday.

The deals were part of an effort to push more mobile users onto the social network starting in 2007, before stand-alone Facebook apps worked well on phones. The agreements allowed device makers to offer some Facebook features, such as address books, “like” buttons and status updates.

Facebook officials said the agreements with the Chinese companies allowed them access similar to what was offered to BlackBerry, which could retrieve detailed information on both device users and all of their friends — including work and education history, relationship status and likes.

Huawei used its private access to feed a “social phone” app that let users view messages and social media accounts in one place, according to the officials.

Facebook representatives said the data shared with Huawei stayed on its phones, not the company’s servers.

Senator John Thune, the South Dakota Republican who leads the Commerce Committee, has demanded that Facebook provide Congress with details about its data partnerships. “Facebook is learning hard lessons that meaningful transparency is a high standard to meet,” Mr. Thune said.

His committee also oversees the Federal Trade Commission, which is investigating Facebook to determine whether the company’s data policies violate a 2011 consent decree with the commission.

Senator Mark Warner of Virginia pointed out that concerns about Huawei were not new, citing a 2012 congressional report on the “close relationships between the Chinese Communist Party and equipment makers like Huawei.”

“I look forward to learning more about how Facebook ensured that information about their users was not sent to Chinese servers,” said Mr. Warner, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee.

“All Facebook’s integrations with Huawei, Lenovo, Oppo and TCL were controlled from the get-go — and Facebook approved everything that was built,” said Francisco Varela, a Facebook vice president. “Given the interest from Congress, we wanted to make clear that all the information from these integrations with Huawei was stored on the device, not on Huawei’s servers.”

Banned in China since 2009, Facebook in recent years has quietly sought to re-establish itself there. The company’s chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, has tried to cultivate a relationship with China’s president, Xi Jinping, and put in an appearance at one of the country’s top universities.

Last year, Facebook released a photo-sharing app in China that was a near replica of its Moments app, but did not put its name on it. And the company has worked on a tool that allowed targeted censorship, prompting some employees to quit over the project.

Still, Facebook has struggled to gain momentum, and in January an executive in charge of courting China’s government left after spending three years on a charm campaign to get the social media service back in the country.

None of the Chinese device makers who have partnerships with Facebook responded to requests for comment on Tuesday.

Huawei, one of the largest smartphone manufacturers in the world, is a point of national pride for China and is at the vanguard of the country’s efforts to expand its influence abroad. The company was the recipient of billions of dollars in lines of credit from China’s state-owned policy banks, helping to fuel its overseas expansion in Africa, Europe and Latin America. Its founder, Ren Zhengfei, is a former engineer in the People’s Liberation Army.

The United States government has long regarded the company with suspicion, and lawmakers have recommended that American carriers avoid buying the network gear it makes. In January, AT&T walked away from a deal to sell a new Huawei smartphone, the Mate 10.

United States officials are investigating whether Huawei broke American trade controls by dealing with Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria. The Trump administration has taken aim at Huawei and its rival ZTE in recent weeks, and in April the Federal Communications Commission advanced a plan to bar federally subsidized telecom companies from using suppliers that are considered national security threats.

Facebook has not entered into a data-sharing agreement with ZTE, officials at the social network said.

TCL, a consumer electronics firm, has accused the Trump administration of bias against Chinese companies and last June dropped a bid to buy a San Diego-based company that makes routers and other hardware.

Lenovo, a maker of computers and other devices, recently shelved ambitions to acquire BlackBerry after the Canadian government signaled that such a deal could compromise national security.
Title: Re: The Goolag, the Orwellian Tech Octopus, Anti-Trust?
Post by: DougMacG on June 06, 2018, 05:21:20 AM
Working from memory from my FTC days, using market dominance in one market to achieve advantage in another market is anti-competitive.

Yes, and it is a subjective, unevenly applied area of law.  Insert the word unfair in the above and what you describe very likely can be.

News article 2012: 
https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/04/09/facebook-buys-instagram-for-1-billion/?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=438B1C8F85FF12B13DDCF23828F172AF&gwt=pay

Who was President then?  This was approved WHY?  No one could see in 2012 that there might be a future monopolistic problem with Facebook?  Entering other markets is one thing but being allowed to eat up your competitors and potential competitors is the most anti-competitive business practice of all.

What about google then?  Dominant in search engines, should not have been allowed to enter email or develop an operating system for smartphones, buy and build cell phones, compete with Skype.  Oops, Microsoft bought SKype in 2011:  https://www.wired.com/2011/05/microsoft-buys-skype-2/
MICROSOFT BUYS SKYPE FOR $8.5 BILLION.

Which administration let THAT happen?  The party of government, make that crony government.  The party who thinks there is a role for government to regulate runaway capitalism was AWOL when it came to regulating their elitist buddies of massive powers.  And people wonder why Silicon Valley is Democrat?
----------------------
Back a few decades, it was widely rumored that Pitney Bowes propped up its competitors to avoid achieving 100% market share and being broken up in in the permanent and forever essential business of postage meters.  Times change.  Now we have young adults who have never mailed a letter.
Title: Anti-trust law solution?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 06, 2018, 08:24:35 AM
Back when I worked in the Anti-Trust division of the FTC (second summer law school) my primary case concerned the FTC looking to UNDO a merger-- i.e. to compel divestiture-- a really stupid idea in this case, asserting anti-competitive effects having to do with dominance in car batteries and windshield wipers if I remember correctly.

The relevant precedent (working from memory here) was a SCOTUS decision in a case in which Dupont had bought a paint company and the government sought to impose divestiture. A key question presented was whether the passage (DECADES in this case!!!)  of a lot of time estopped the government from seeking divestiture.  The answer was that it did not because "laches does not run against the government" with the government's right to seek divestiture being  based upon Section 7 of the Clayton Act.

Assuming this remains valid case law, the fact that the mergers/acquisitions in question went through does not block the government from subsequently insisting upon divestiture.




Title: Re: Anti-trust law solution?
Post by: DougMacG on June 06, 2018, 09:55:44 AM
Back when I worked in the Anti-Trust division of the FTC (second summer law school) my primary case concerned the FTC looking to UNDO a merger-- i.e. to compel divestiture-- a really stupid idea in this case, asserting anti-competitive effects having to do with dominance in car batteries and windshield wipers if I remember correctly.

The relevant precedent (working from memory here) was a SCOTUS decision in a case in which Dupont had bought a paint company and the government sought to impose divestiture. A key question presented was whether the passage (DECADES in this case!!!)  of a lot of time estopped the government from seeking divestiture.  The answer was that it did not because "laches does not run against the government" with the government's right to seek divestiture being  based upon Section 7 of the Clayton Act.

Assuming this remains valid case law, the fact that the mergers/acquisitions in question went through does not block the government from subsequently insisting upon divestiture.

Very interesting.  I'm not sure if breaking up FB with Instagram in this case would have any real effect on the FB monopoly, but the business practice of eating up your potential competitors is anti-competitive by definition.  I can see a proper role for government here, with plenty of danger of going too far or making things worse.

In my tech background circles, people made hundreds of millions investing in start-up networking technology companies that got bought up by the giants, Cisco in one case, to not have the new technology brought to market.
Title: Re: The Goolag, the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: ccp on June 06, 2018, 10:43:21 AM
"Back when I worked in the Anti-Trust division of the FTC "

A cousin of mine who would be about your age worked for the FTC as an attorney I think in the early 90's was based I think in Miami.

Would you have known someone in Miami?
Title: Re: The Goolag, the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 06, 2018, 12:41:11 PM
Summer of 1980 IIRC in Washington DC for me.
Title: Facebook terminates Brownels
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 15, 2018, 02:25:25 PM
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018/06/09/brownells-youtube-terminated/
http://www.recoilweb.com/brownells-youtube-channel-terminated-138180.html
https://www.dailywire.com/news/31698/youtube-shuts-down-firearms-parts-dealers-channel-james-barrett
http://www.breachbangclear.com/google-shuts-down-brownells-video-channel/
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...publicity-youtube-restores-brownells-channel/
https://www.ammoland.com/2018/06/yo...minate-brownells-video-account/#axzz5IVtoaJKE
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/s...mporarily-blocks-gun-video-channel/690347002/
https://www.dailywire.com/news/31698/youtube-shuts-down-firearms-parts-dealers-channel-james-barrett

https://www.facebook.com/BrownellsI....128761.48772207991/10155675556837992/?type=3
https://www.facebook.com/BrownellsI...3741844.48772207991/10155678459977992/?type=3
Title: NRO: Discussion of Anti-Trust Issues
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 17, 2018, 08:56:29 PM
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/tech-companies-antitrust-regulation-not-best-way-to-foster-competition/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NR%20Daily%20Monday%20through%20Friday%202018-06-11&utm_term=NR5PM%20Actives
Title: Eric Holder's Law Firm Launches Investigation into FB Anti-Conservative Bias
Post by: ccp on June 27, 2018, 08:17:48 AM
https://pjmedia.com/trending/eric-holders-law-firm-launches-investigation-into-facebooks-anti-conservative-bias/

Ok Holder maybe not involved but who could trust this.

And Holder will not leak any findings or influence is some way?
He is one of the most political lawyers in the country

ONly Repubs could be so stupid ..........
Title: Re: The Goolag, the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 07, 2018, 10:34:26 AM
Hat tip GM

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/08/vdh-for-elizabeth-heng.php
Title: Prager Fights Back
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 07, 2018, 10:45:13 AM
Second post

https://mailchi.mp/prageru/ji95s4o01m-449289?e=24192a6e80
Title: Alex Jones and the conspiracy against him
Post by: G M on August 09, 2018, 05:53:01 PM
http://www.thediplomad.com/2018/08/conspiracies.html


Wednesday, August 8, 2018
Conspiracies!

I don't think I have ever read anything written by Alex Jones or listened to any of his broadcasts/podcasts. One of my sons finds him entertaining, and has on occasion told me about some one or another of Jones's "conspiracy" theories, e.g., the Sandy Hook shooting being a hoax--I ain't buying it. So, if Jones quietly had disappeared from our public discourse, I would have been among the last to realize it. But, of course, he has not just quietly disappeared. He has been "disappeared" by the combined might of Apple, Google, Twitter, YouTube, etc. Why? Well, it seems these massive American corporations, each of them with a net worth more than that of most nations' GDP, "suddenly" decided that Jones was spewing hate and unfounded conspiracy, so we, the world's public, had to be protected from that. What rubbish. What toxic rubbish.

The Jones ban forms part of a well-coordinated progressive assault on "unpopular" speech, in other words, one the first amendment of or Constitution. The ACLU, once the sterling knight who rode to the defense of the First Amendment, is rather muted about it all, only making a tepid remark. A conspiracy?

We hear progs throwing back in conservative faces the line, "Well, they are private companies, so . . . " Yes, they are indeed private companies . . . I wonder if that prog pro-property argument would hold if these tech giants also owned bakeries and refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding? Or refused to allow Muslims, blacks or hispanics access to their platforms? You know the answer.

I think we need some clever conservative lawyers to revisit the whole public accommodation argument that's been used to open up hotels, restaurants, etc., and expand the definition of a "public accommodation." I wonder if the progs would support that expansion of government power at the expense of the private sector?

Speaking of hateful conspiracies, the single most active one is the whole Russia Collusion narrative. Maybe it's time to shut down anybody pushing that factless nonsense? CNN, you're off the air!
Title: POtH: The Education of Mark Zuckerberg
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 09, 2018, 10:04:26 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/opinion/the-expensive-education-of-mark-zuckerberg-and-silicon-valley.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: ccp on August 10, 2018, 04:55:35 AM
 "Here’s how I see it: Facebook, as well as Twitter and Google’s YouTube, have become the digital arms dealers of the modern age."

you mean when Obama used FB data to game the 2012 election ?

only now it needs to be front and center to delegitimize Trump.


"They have weaponized social media. They have weaponized the First Amendment. They have weaponized civic discourse. And they have weaponized, most of all, politics."

weaponize the first amendment?  you mean like the MSM does every day?

"I certainly did not see it coming, either, when I first met him, in the fall of 2005, although in hindsight the signs that he would get it really wrong were right there in front of me."

We on the Forum have been pointing this out for many years but since Z is a lib you didn't care.
Title: Youtube using Wikipedia to "fact check" climate change skeptics
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 10, 2018, 09:07:25 AM
http://www.speroforum.com/a/ZKBQYSMIBE52/83824-YouTube-uses-WikiPedia-factchecks-to-overrule-climate-change-skeptics?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=HKFTYZDGVG4&utm_content=ZKBQYSMIBE52&utm_source=news&utm_term=YouTube+uses+WikiPedia+factchecks+to+overrule+climate+change+skeptics#.W2234nrcB2A
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: ccp on August 10, 2018, 02:51:49 PM
“Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any moment.”

Yes and so who is going to factcheck Wikipedia?

I thought we were heading into the Golden Age of information .

Instead there is more and more propaganda and it is hard to discern who is telling the truth.  And those claiming to tell the truth
are like cons telling you they are honest. 

Saying one is honest doesn't make em so.
Title: Twitter goes increasingly Goolag
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 11, 2018, 09:27:48 AM
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/08/conservative-journalists-receive-warning-from-twitter-after-publishing-damning-articles-on-feinstein-and-crooked-hillary/

Note well the reference to the possible use of bots to trigger the review.  This may well be the coming tactic , ,  ,
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: ccp on August 11, 2018, 03:11:27 PM
"Apparently this triggered the left-wing attack machine, possibly with the help of bots to mass report his tweet."

I just looked up wikipedia for "bots" and this could refer to endless types with all different goals from getting into a computer to spying to altering ones data and many more functions.

Is there any oversight of this?

Who is monitoring and does ANYone know what exactly these bots are doing?

I suppose we are at the mercy of the companies.

With a known left winger at the helm we cannot trust this.

More from wikipedia:


"Detecting non-human Twitter users has been of interest to academics.[7][30] Indiana University has developed a free service called Botometer[31] (formerly BotOrNot), which scores Twitter handles based on their likelihood of being a Twitterbot.[32][33][34] One significant academic study estimated that up to 15% of Twitter users were automated bot accounts.[35][36] The prevalence of Twitter bots coupled with the ability of some bots to give seemingly human responses has enabled these non-human accounts to garner widespread influence.[37][38][39][40]
Political[edit]
A subset of Twitter bots programmed to complete social tasks played an important role in the United States 2016 Presidential Election.[41] Researchers estimated that pro-Trump bots generated four tweets for every pro-Clinton automated account and out-tweeted pro-Clinton bots 7:1 on relevant hashtags during the final debate. Deceiving Twitter bots fooled candidates and campaign staffers into retweeting misappropriated quotes and accounts affiliated with incendiary ideals.[42][43][44] Concerns about political Twitter bots include the promulgation of malicious content, increased polarization, and the spreading of fake news.[45][46] In the last few months of the 2016 election, Twitter bots operated by Russian agents retweeted Trump an estimated half a million times.[47]"

Ok so some academics are looking at this.  Of course since they are 90 % libs I am discouraged again as to the objectiveness of the above - notice it is all about the Russian thing.

I will try to search more when I have time to find out more about bots .
Title: youtube fake views for sale
Post by: ccp on August 11, 2018, 03:49:28 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/11/technology/youtube-fake-view-sellers.html
Title: Goolag always tracking you
Post by: G M on August 13, 2018, 11:41:27 AM
https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/ap-report-google-knows-where-you-are-even-if-you-disable-tracking/

VODKAPUNDIT
AP Report: Google Knows Where You Are, Even If You Disable Tracking

 BY STEPHEN GREEN AUGUST 13, 2018

Private detective capturing a photo suspiciously from around a corner while using a retro camera

Don't be evil or whatevs.

In an exclusive report this morning, the AP says, "Google tracks your movements, like it or not." Their investigation found that "many Google services on Android devices and iPhones store your location data even if you’ve used privacy settings that say they will prevent it from doing so," and their findings were confirmed by computer-science researchers at Princeton.

According to the story, Google claims smartphone users can "pause" location tracking, or even "turn off Location History at any time," which promises that "the places you go are no longer stored."

AP says quite boldly "that isn't true," because even with Location History paused, "some Google apps automatically store time-stamped location data without asking." And of course all that data goes back to the Mothership in Menlo Park, CA. From there, your data goes... well, I suppose to goes to wherever Google chooses to send it -- your metadata is their data, bub.

None of which should surprise you in the least.

Google and Apple got into a tiff a while back, when Apple allowed iPhone and iPad owners to disable web tracking, but then Google started inserting browser code to do so anyway without the user's permission -- or knowledge.

Privacy should matter to you, even if you aren't planning on murdering anyone in Raleigh.

Let me explain, as briefly as I can.

Remember when we still went to the mall to shop? Picture yourself on a Saturday trip to the local mall -- one of the half-day trips where you start at the big anchor store on one end of the mall and slowly work your way down to the other anchor store on the other end.

While you're there you run into a helpful fellow named Java Script. It's a weird name and he's a weird guy. And when I say he's helpful, I don't mean he's helpful to you -- he's there at the behest of every store in the mall.

And what Java does is follow you around, and loudly announce to every employee what you look at, what you put in your shopping bag, what you put back, what you buy, how much you spent, and how long you spent on each activity. Sometimes he gets in your way to bother you with information about other stores at the mall, and what they're selling, and for how much. And you can't get rid of the guy. He shouts out everything you do, and stays so on top of you that a two-hour trip takes closer to three.

Maybe he waits outside the bathroom when you stop to pee -- maybe. If Mr. Script is working for Google, he probably follows you in there, too. Taking notes.

I told you he was weird.

Probably you haven't bought anything less innocuous than a couple of sport shirts, lunch at the food court, and a gift card for someone's birthday. But Java has been on your heels the whole time, telling everyone exactly what you're up to. Just how long did you linger in front of Victoria's Secret, anyway? All Vicky has to do is ask Java Script.

Actually she doesn't even need to ask.

Eventually, if you're a red-blooded American, you're going to want to punch him in the mouth.

You would never go shopping anywhere that had Mr. Java Script badgering you, yet that's exactly what shopping on the web is like. That's exactly what doing much of anything on the web is like: Constantly followed, tracked, your most personal information shared with every impersonal corporation. And with the government, too.

Everybody does it, but Google probably does it more, it certainly does it the most effectively, and as the AP reported today, Google doesn't give a damn about your feeble little efforts to enable privacy features.

Your phone is the ultimate spy because it's on your person almost all of the time, and it has GPS tracking built in. If you're an iPhone user, you don't have to install any Google apps. If you're an Android owner, the Google spyware is baked in.

About two years ago I swore off of all Google products. No Google or Google-owned apps on my phone, and no Google search or services like Gmail on my computers. Giving up Waze, the navigation app, was really hard -- like a lot of Google's products and services, it's the best in its class. But Google gave up on the whole "Don't be evil" thing before they even started, and it's also abundantly clear that the company's culture despises people who think like I do, and probably nearly every reader of PJMedia, too. So I'm happy to return the favor.

You should, too.
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 13, 2018, 01:56:45 PM
So what do I do to keep my Iphone from spying on me?

PS:  Didn't GM start a thread about this sort of thing?
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: G M on August 13, 2018, 02:06:54 PM
So what do I do to keep my Iphone from spying on me?

PS:  Didn't GM start a thread about this sort of thing?


I sure did!
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 13, 2018, 03:21:05 PM
Feel free to remind us of its name  :-D
Title: Can Minds
Post by: ccp on August 13, 2018, 06:00:45 PM
break the A -  F -  G stranglehold on the world's information ?

https://www.westernjournal.com/facebook-challenger-something-zuckerberg-offer-freedom/
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 14, 2018, 07:44:20 AM
VERY intriguing!

What happens next with this?  What to look for?  How to take advantage of it/support it?
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: ccp on August 14, 2018, 07:58:50 AM
I don' t totally understand it but it seems like its growth is through referral and "token" rewards

intriguing (too good to be true) but it would sure be nice to break the "bare naked choke hold" the titans have on everyone in the world.  I am sick of them already . 
I resent them and they cannot be trusted with such power.  No one really can:

https://www.minds.com/
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: G M on August 14, 2018, 11:32:25 AM
Feel free to remind us of its name  :-D

G M's guide to online privacy !

 :-D
Title: Google helps China censor without transparency, employees (finally) object
Post by: DougMacG on August 17, 2018, 05:48:44 AM
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2018/08/16/google-staff-demand-transparency-censored-search-engine-plans/
Title: WSJ: A better way to regulate social media
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 20, 2018, 07:25:14 AM
Opinion Commentary
A Better Way to Regulate Social Media
A multistakeholder ‘content congress’ could take account of everyone’s concerns.
By Danielle Tomson and
David Morar
Aug. 19, 2018 3:45 p.m. ET

You don’t have to be a fan of conspiracy theories to worry about the precedent Apple , YouTube and Facebook set by banning Alex Jones and Infowars.com. Mr. Jones complained that it was like “something out of ‘1984,’ ” as he does not know how to rebut Facebook’s decision. The company does not divulge how it makes these decisions, for fear that users would deliberately push boundaries.

Mr. Jones isn’t alone in being concerned with the seemingly authoritarian power of tech giants to decide what gets removed in an opaque content-moderation process. As de facto arbiters of speech and access to audiences, companies with such consolidated publishing power have unique responsibilities to be transparent with the public.

Instead of making decisions in private isolation, companies would do better by engaging one another and their users to shape content-moderation policies in a more transparent and consistent way. We propose a deliberative body, a “content congress,” where stakeholders—including companies, civil-society groups and even constituencies of end-users—could hash out best practices, air grievances, and offer rebuttals.

How would it work? Multistakeholder initiatives take varied forms, and we aren’t advocating for a specific one. We offer multistakeholderism because simple calls for government regulation or self-regulation are not enough—the public wants input. Such a body should not be a legally binding authority but an arena for transparent coordination, public representation and human engagement in an industry dominated by algorithms and machines. Companies want feedback; government wants more insight into decision-making; and people want to be heard.

The content congress should have issue-based working groups, which would proactively or reactively address complicated use cases. For instance, how do you address videos depicting unjust violence or death? Facebook faced backlash for censoring videos of police brutality that resulted in on-camera death posted by social-justice groups. How do you curb pornography, without censoring images of female breasts in instances of breastfeeding or health advocacy?

And what should the protocol be when social media stars inspire violent trolls among their followings? A content congress could facilitate a transparent process in handling Mr. Jones, whose fans harassed parents of Sandy Hook victims, or Milo Yiannopoulos, whose followers hacked actress Leslie Jones’s website and harassed her until she left Twitter . Given the public nature of a content congress, Messrs. Jones and Yiannpoulos would probably have a say too.

For private companies to be part of such a loose organization might sound strange, but there is a precedent. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, a nonprofit governance body, maintains the functions of the Domain Name System through multistakeholder decision-making. Early Internet advocates rejected direct government control and sought a more open and inclusive way to make policy; Icann, with its sometimes-slow or complex decision-making, was the answer. Stakeholders include businesses, nonprofits, activists and governments.

Another example is the Global Network Initiative, an international nonprofit dedicated to internet freedom and privacy rights. Drawing from the expertise of stakeholders ranging from the Harvard Berkman-Klein Center to the Committee to Protect Journalists, it helps companies like Facebook and Vodafone resist government requests to surveil or censor users and their communications.

Beyond tech, there are similar examples in the finance industry’s coordination to fix systemic issues and avoid disaster. Algorithmically enhanced trading once posed a threat to healthy financial markets in creating volatile high-frequency trading. Proactive self-regulation through the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority brought together industry stakeholders to come up with solutions, staving off disaster and more government regulation.

Multistakeholder initiatives can be complex or slow, but they are preferable to the current slew of black-box content-moderation practices, or to heavy-handed government regulation. Many communities online—left, right and center—have experienced the arbitrary decision-making of powerful content platforms. These frustrated communities are starting to call their representatives to demand government action.

Companies would do well to be proactive by engaging each other and stakeholders in solution-making before government or courts step in. Recently, key industry players have expressed willingness to collectively discuss their content moderation practices in a more open forum. This participation is a signal of goodwill and an opportunity to create a sustainable, innovative multistakeholder body within the industry.

Ms. Tomson is director of the Personal Democracy Forum. Mr. Morar recently received his doctorate from George Mason University’s Schar School.
Title: Destroy the Goolag!
Post by: G M on August 31, 2018, 02:20:09 PM
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/376849.php

August 31, 2018
Lee Smith: FaceBook, Google, and Twitter are Not Platforms But Publishers and Should, Therefore, Not Have the Special Protections for Neutral Platforms in the Communications Decency Act
His article was recently flagged by FaceBook as "spam," as so many articles written by conservative-leaning journalists are these days.

And he has some thoughts.


View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter

Lee Smith
@LeeSmithDC
 Can you see it ⁦@ragipsoylu⁩ ?

11:51 AM - Aug 31, 2018
33
39 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy


Lee Smith
@LeeSmithDC
 I'll say something about social media & publishing. I don't believe FB or Twitter or any platform is obliged to let me post. But if they're making editorial decisions, then they should not enjoy exemptions of CDA Section 230 but rather face same liabilties as publishers 1/

Lee Smith
@LeeSmithDC
Can you see it ⁦@ragipsoylu⁩ ?

View image on Twitter
12:07 PM - Aug 31, 2018
271
165 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Lee Smith
@LeeSmithDC
 Right now they are disguising their roles as publishers by employing euphemisms like "community standards," rather than being forced to acknowledge they are in fact making editorial decisions. 2/

Lee Smith
@LeeSmithDC
I'll say something about social media & publishing. I don't believe FB or Twitter or any platform is obliged to let me post. But if they're making editorial decisions, then they should not enjoy exemptions of CDA Section 230 but rather face same liabilties as publishers 1/ https://twitter.com/LeeSmithDC/status/1035601032146046976 …

12:09 PM - Aug 31, 2018
159
111 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Lee Smith
@LeeSmithDC
 They are immensely powerful publishers—with FN worth roughly 100x more than @nytimes, and swallowed up digital ads that were supposed to keep legacy media whole. Result is prestige media brands, like NYT etc, are nothing more than blogs published on FB etc. 3/

Lee Smith
@LeeSmithDC
Right now they are disguising their roles as publishers by employing euphemisms like "community standards," rather than being forced to acknowledge they are in fact making editorial decisions. 2/ https://twitter.com/LeeSmithDC/status/1035604888582012929 …

12:12 PM - Aug 31, 2018
81
47 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
By "FN" he meant "FB," or FaceBook, of course.


Lee Smith
@LeeSmithDC
 Financial collapse of press led to its ethical & professional collapse as well. Two generations of media experience & expertise wiped out since rise of internet is a major reason why media is so reckless now—not enough people to say, eg., "Hey kids, Russiagate is a hoax." 4/

Lee Smith
@LeeSmithDC
They are immensely powerful publishers—with FN worth roughly 100x more than @nytimes, and swallowed up digital ads that were supposed to keep legacy media whole. Result is prestige media brands, like NYT etc, are nothing more than blogs published on FB etc. 3/ https://twitter.com/LeeSmithDC/status/1035605575059628033 …

12:16 PM - Aug 31, 2018
59
41 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Lee Smith
@LeeSmithDC
 This is why it's bizarre to see journalists of all people defend 'deplatforming' when it is only by making social media platforms accountable like all other publishers that there is any chance at all to protect a vital American institution—our free press. 5/

Lee Smith
@LeeSmithDC
Financial collapse of press led to its ethical & professional collapse as well. Two generations of media experience & expertise wiped out since rise of internet is a major reason why media is so reckless now—not enough people to say, eg., "Hey kids, Russiagate is a hoax." 4/ https://twitter.com/LeeSmithDC/status/1035606261541298177 …

12:20 PM - Aug 31, 2018
32
25 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Lee Smith
@LeeSmithDC
 That journalists are not "resisting" dangers of social media exemptions & demanding laws written during days of dialup connex but are rather vying to become courtiers in tech oligarch's retinues is evidence of profound cynicsm. That's partly where Russiagate hoax comes from END

Lee Smith
@LeeSmithDC
This is why it's bizarre to see journalists of all people defend 'deplatforming' when it is only by making social media platforms accountable like all other publishers that there is any chance at all to protect a vital American institution—our free press. 5/ https://twitter.com/LeeSmithDC/status/1035607396863959040 …

12:25 PM - Aug 31, 2018
24
19 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Meanwhile, someone posted a clearly threatening meme on Twitter -- a picture of someone pointing a gun at a grieving Meghan McCain, with the caption "This one's for you" -- and it took more than a day of lobbying by her husband to convince Twitter to overrule its leftwing SJW low-level Censorship Squads and categorize it correctly as threatening.

View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter

MediaResearchCenter

@theMRC
 Users Blast Twitter For Not Addressing Photoshopped Image of a Gun Aimed at Meghan McCain http://ow.ly/hdvd101evP2

8:15 AM - Aug 31, 2018
26
40 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy


That also just happened with Dana Loesch, of course.

Given that Twitter and FaceBook have a hair-trigger response to anything said by someone on the right, but permit leftwingers to threaten to kill people and their children as well, how can these billion dollar corporations claim that they are neutral platforms rather than biased publishers picking and choosing what appears on their media sites?

And how can they claim to the protections of s. 230 of the Communications Decency Act which only provides safe harbor for disinterested platforms, not interested-and-opinionated publishers?

Dana Loesch and Meghan McCain should have the right to sue Twitter for being a willing, knowing facilitator of threats and intentional emotional distress. They are choosing to allow threats against conservatives because they like such threats.

Therefore, they should not have the immunity a neutral platform does.

Don't expect any help from this from the Corporate Republican Political Class, however, as almost all of them are bought off and have already decided to sell your ass down the river to keep the Big Tech "lobbying" (bribe) money coming.

Meanwhile, the Corporate Owned NeverTrump, Inc. faction wonders why people actually support Trump:

View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter

Fox News

@FoxNews
 .@POTUS: "We will not let large corporations silence conservative voices."

6:29 PM - Aug 30, 2018
1,862
812 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy


Trump: Google, FaceBook, and Amazon in a "very antitrust situation."

President Donald Trump warned Google, Facebook, and Amazon that they are in a "very antitrust situation" in an interview Thursday, stopping short of saying he'd break them up.
...

Trump added that "conservatives have been treated very unfairly" by Google, which is owned by Alphabet. "I tell you there are some moments where we say, 'Wow that really is bad, what they’re doing.'"

The president has been stepping up his attacks on tech giants like Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Twitter the past few weeks for their censorship of conservatives, saying Aug. 20 that it's "very dangerous".

Title: Google era ending? Cryptographic revolution
Post by: DougMacG on August 31, 2018, 07:16:49 PM
WSJ weekend interview is George Gilder:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/sage-against-the-machine-1535747443

Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 31, 2018, 08:12:50 PM
Tucker Carlson tonight was a special episode dedicated to the Goolag.
Title: The Goolag's Catch 22
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 01, 2018, 08:39:06 PM


https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/social-media-companies-made-mistakes-censorship-wont-fix/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NR%20Daily%20Saturday%202018-08-25&utm_term=NR5PM%20Actives
Title: Secret deal between Goolag and Mastecard
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 03, 2018, 10:11:53 PM
https://www.bloombergquint.com/business/2018/08/30/google-and-mastercard-cut-a-secret-ad-deal-to-track-retail-sales#gs.geGQ0vM
Title: The Software Engineer that Goolag fired
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 04, 2018, 07:12:10 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=f9_o42QaVnA
Title: DOJ to convene meeting on the Goolag fg with conservative speech
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 05, 2018, 10:42:23 AM
second post

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/405177-justice-to-convene-meeting-on-whether-social-media-companies-are?userid=188403
Title: WSJ: Big Tech in the Dock
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 06, 2018, 02:28:12 PM
Big Tech in the Dock
The companies are tempting government intervention.
128 Comments
By The Editorial Board
Sept. 5, 2018 7:44 p.m. ET


Twitter and Facebook executives were grilled on Capitol Hill Wednesday, amid the growing debate over political bias in social media and search. The tech giants say they don’t intentionally suppress conservatives, and perhaps that’s true. But their nonchalance risks alienating users—and government intervention.

Complaints about anti-conservative bias by tech platforms have been growing for some time. While the evidence is mostly anecdotal, the seemingly synchronized and vaguely justified decisions by Apple , Facebook and Google to ban right-wing fabulist Alex Jones’s Infowars in August for “hate speech” raised more doubts about their purported neutrality.

President Trump belly-flopped in as usual on Twitter. “They have it RIGGED,” he tweeted last week. “Google & others are suppressing voices of Conservatives and hiding information and news that is good. They are controlling what we can & cannot see. This is a very serious situation-will be addressed!” Mr. Trump warned later at the White House that tech companies are “treading on very, very troubling territory” and had “better be careful.”

White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow then said the Administration will investigate the tech giants, and on Wednesday The Journal reported the Justice Department will examine whether the social-media giants are “intentionally stifling” certain viewpoints.
***

Consider conservative radio host Dennis Prager, whose “PragerU” educational videos on topics such as “Did Bush Lie About Iraq?” and “Is America Racist?” have been restricted by Google’s YouTube unit. None of the 50 or so censored videos included violent, sexually explicit or hateful content that violated Google’s Community Guidelines.

YouTube’s algorithms and “community” of users can flag videos as objectionable, but Google guidelines require an internal review team to remove them. So Google employees ostensibly had to have agreed. PragerU has sued Google and claims in its lawsuit that YouTube “declined to provide any explanation for why the videos were restricted or demonetized because they purportedly ‘can’t share more details about our review process, as doing so could benefit channels that do not play by the rules (those who game the system).’”

Conservative Doug Wead recently complained on The Federalist website that Google barred him from buying an ad to promote a Fox Business interview. He says a Google employee told him the crawler along the bottom of the video, which quoted Mr. Trump calling the Mueller investigation a “witch hunt,” was hate speech.

Google has a serious problem if its employees can’t distinguish news and opinion from hate speech. Infowars may have deserved to be banned, but the ill-defined justifications offered by the tech companies have unsettled even many conservatives who disdain Mr. Jones but worry that they could be next. This has allowed Mr. Jones to pose as a free-speech martyr, which he isn’t.

Some conservatives also say their content is being discriminated against in Google News and search. Google says its algorithms aren’t politically biased and incorporate dozens of variables, some of which are based on location and may change by the hour. Thus it would be difficult to prove its algorithms discriminate since each user’s experience is unique.

Most discrimination is also likely to be incidental—for instance, favoring sites with the most clicks and links, which may be liberal outlets that don’t charge for content. But this underscores the bigger problem, which is that social media and search platforms wield significant influence over public debate, yet their editorial judgments are opaque and often arbitrary.

Google controls 90% of all search. When accused of bias, it hides behind automated and non-transparent algorithms. Look, Ma, no hands! All the while its employees exercise significant control over what users see and don’t see. According to the PragerU lawsuit, human reviewers appear to enjoy carte blanche to block flagged content.

Facebook and Google also control 60% of digital ad revenues, and both have used their market dominance to undercut competitors. Facebook has blocked publishers from promoting their content on its news stream by tagging the ads as political.
***

In 2012 Federal Trade Commission staff issued a report recommending a lawsuit against Google for anti-competitive conduct. The commission led by Obama appointee Jon Leibowitz voted against a lawsuit, but Google’s competitors have continued to grouse about predatory practices.

Meantime, fury on the political left and right is converging and amplifying demands for government action. Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley last year launched an investigation into Google’s business practices, and other states may follow. Democratic Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia has proposed stripping platforms of some of their legal protection for user-generated content under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Senator Ted Cruz has said the predicate for Section 230 immunity is “you’re a neutral public forum.”

The Trump FTC has said it will reopen the agency’s probe of Big Tech. The commission could hamstring the monopolists with regulation—perhaps appointing government monitors to oversee content reviews—and watch out if Elizabeth Warren is elected President.

Then there’s the private litigation threat. PragerU’s charge that Google violated its free-speech rights is unlikely to prevail in court because Google isn’t the government and can choose to exclude certain content under the law. But claims that Google engaged in unfair business practices by violating its own terms and conditions are stronger.

Count us among the skeptics that government has an answer to this, and we don’t need an Internet version of the Fairness Doctrine (1949-1987). But history shows that Americans will eventually ask politicians to rein in businesses that appear to be unaccountable. The lords of Big Tech will pay a price if they create the perception that they are the censorship arm of the political left.
Title: shock poll
Post by: ccp on September 07, 2018, 05:16:52 PM
Google 90% donate to crats

https://www.spartareport.com/2018/09/shock-overwhelming-majority-of-google-employees-donate-to-democrats/

ethnic make up :

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/37-percent-of-silicon-valley-foreign-born

foreigners in Silicon Vallery:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/311810/google-employee-ethnicity-us/
Title: end of the tech titans as seen by G Gilder
Post by: ccp on September 08, 2018, 11:53:10 PM
https://www.conservativebookclub.com/book/life-after-google-blockchain-economy
Title: Twitter silences Benghazi hero critical of Obama
Post by: G M on September 09, 2018, 07:16:04 PM
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/09/twitter-suspends-benghazi-hero-after-criticism-of-president-obama/
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 10, 2018, 08:37:44 AM
The brazenness of it staggers the mind , , ,
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: G M on September 10, 2018, 08:45:19 AM
The brazenness of it staggers the mind , , ,

Well, to be fair, Twitter also banned Louis Farrakhan and HAMAS.

Just kidding, of course they didn’t. Both have active accounts.
Title: Control the language and control thought
Post by: G M on September 12, 2018, 12:54:56 PM
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/twitter-blocks-posts-that-use-phrase-illegal-alien-as-hateful-content/

1984 wasn't supposed to be a guidebook.
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: ccp on September 12, 2018, 12:59:37 PM
"  Control the language and control thought
« Reply #153 on: Today at 02:54:56 PM »
Reply with quote
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/twitter-blocks-posts-that-use-phrase-illegal-alien-as-hateful-content/"

Well yeah . They don't want to piss off 1/2 their work force.

Title: Chinese Social Credit System
Post by: ccp on September 13, 2018, 04:46:12 AM
China's social and businees credit system
Discussed on John Batchlor show last night (though I cannot find a link)  China will soon implement over 600 million cameras that will record the behavior of its people inside its' borders
If you go to communist party meeting your credit score goes up.  If you go to church it goes down - among many other things.

One can not help see similar trends here with political correctness.  With lefties vying to be more PC then the next. IF your PC is low you need to be harrassed up the wazoo till you confrom.

Same thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System
Title: 2nd post today Google - wing for Democrat Party
Post by: ccp on September 13, 2018, 06:08:54 AM
We already know this but this makes the solid case for it:

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/12/leaked-video-google-leaderships-dismayed-reaction-to-trump-election/

NOW COMBINE THIS WITH THE SOCIAL CREDIT SYSTEM IN CHINA AND WE SEE WHERE ALL THIS IS HEADING IN THE UNITED STATES

WE NEED TO MAKE GOOGLE FB AND AMAXON INTO UTILITIES.  OR ELSE

in my humble o
Title: Re: 2nd post today Google - wing for Democrat Party
Post by: DougMacG on September 13, 2018, 08:13:35 AM
We already know this but this makes the solid case for it:

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/12/leaked-video-google-leaderships-dismayed-reaction-to-trump-election/

NOW COMBINE THIS WITH THE SOCIAL CREDIT SYSTEM IN CHINA AND WE SEE WHERE ALL THIS IS HEADING IN THE UNITED STATES

WE NEED TO MAKE GOOGLE FB AND AMAXON INTO UTILITIES.  OR ELSE

in my humble o

We need to make them obsolete not legislate their permanence.

Getting the web addresses for the Republican Challengers to Tina Smith and Tammy Baldwin out of Google my previous post elsewhere was like pulling teeth. Anyone who thinks their web searches are not biased has never tried to look up conservative side information. There has to be a better way!
Title: Re: 2nd post today Google - wing for Democrat Party
Post by: G M on September 13, 2018, 08:40:08 AM
We already know this but this makes the solid case for it:

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/12/leaked-video-google-leaderships-dismayed-reaction-to-trump-election/

NOW COMBINE THIS WITH THE SOCIAL CREDIT SYSTEM IN CHINA AND WE SEE WHERE ALL THIS IS HEADING IN THE UNITED STATES

WE NEED TO MAKE GOOGLE FB AND AMAXON INTO UTILITIES.  OR ELSE

in my humble o

We need to make them obsolete not legislate their permanence.

Getting the web addresses for the Republican Challengers to Tina Smith and Tammy Baldwin out of Google my previous post elsewhere was like pulling teeth. Anyone who thinks their web searches are not biased has never tried to look up conservative side information. There has to be a better way!

I can tell you that they really disappear/memory hole unpleasant information for the left.

Title: Why can't I post this on FB?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 13, 2018, 11:05:03 AM
Somehow, neither the man who sent me this (very tech savvy) nor I can post this on FB:  https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_NovWeb/280/DOC_0C05793123/C05793123.pdf
Title: Re: Why can't I post this on FB?
Post by: G M on September 13, 2018, 11:17:26 AM
Somehow, neither the man who sent me this (very tech savvy) nor I can post this on FB:  https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_NovWeb/280/DOC_0C05793123/C05793123.pdf

You have been able to post other pdf files on Facehugger?
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 13, 2018, 11:31:30 AM
Ah, maybe that's it.
Title: Google helping China censor
Post by: DougMacG on September 14, 2018, 07:31:28 AM
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/01/technology/china-google-censored-search-engine.html

Despicable.
Title: Re: Google helping China censor
Post by: G M on September 14, 2018, 10:00:53 AM
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/01/technology/china-google-censored-search-engine.html

Despicable.

Oh, it's just practice for censoring information here.
Title: How I was rejected by FB -- and won
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 17, 2018, 01:30:48 PM
How I Was Rejected by Facebook - and Won
by Phyllis Chesler
Arutz Sheva: Israel National News
September 13, 2018
https://www.meforum.org/articles/2018/how-i-was-rejected-by-facebook-and-won
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: ccp on September 20, 2018, 05:03:13 PM
Funny I was just thinking that we need another internet that is truly free and unbiased and the Left can keep their propaganda silos aka Google FB and the rest and I read this from
Eric Schit of Google :

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/20/eric-schmidt-ex-google-ceo-predicts-internet-split-china.html

I wonder how many babes he paid off to avoid the metoo thing.
Title: Yeah, sure they don't...GOOLAG
Post by: G M on September 21, 2018, 11:05:03 AM
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-travelban/google-staff-discussed-tweaking-search-results-to-counter-travel-ban-wsj-idUSKCN1M103O

Google staff discussed tweaking search results to counter travel ban: WSJ
2 MIN READ

(Reuters) - Google employees brainstormed ways to alter search functions to counter the Trump administration’s controversial 2017 travel ban, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday, citing internal emails.

FILE PHOTO: A Google logo in an office building in Zurich September 5, 2018. REUTERS/Arnd WIegmann/File Photo
Google employees discussed how they could tweak the company's search-related functions to show users how to contribute to pro-immigration organizations and contact lawmakers and government agencies, the WSJ said. The ideas were not implemented. on.wsj.com/2DePzWh

President Donald Trump’s travel ban temporarily barred visitors and immigrants from seven majority Muslim countries. It spurred public outcry and was revised several times. Trump said the travel ban was needed to protect the United States against attacks by Islamist militants, and the Supreme Court upheld the measure in June.

The Google employees proposed ways to “leverage” search functions and take steps to counter what they considered to be “islamophobic, algorithmically biased results from search terms ‘Islam’, ‘Muslim’, ‘Iran’, etc.” and “prejudiced, algorithmically biased search results from search terms ‘Mexico’, ‘Hispanic’, ‘Latino’, etc,” the Journal added, quoting from the emails.

A Google spokesperson said the emails represented brainstorming and none of the ideas were implemented. She said the company does not manipulate search results or modify products to promote political views.

“Our processes and policies would not have allowed for any manipulation of search results to promote political ideologies,” the spokesperson said in a statement.
Title: The Goolag fires up the memory hole!
Post by: G M on September 22, 2018, 02:36:25 PM
https://theintercept.com/2018/09/21/google-suppresses-memo-revealing-plans-to-closely-track-search-users-in-china/



GOOGLE SUPPRESSES MEMO REVEALING PLANS TO CLOSELY TRACK SEARCH USERS IN CHINA
Ryan Gallagher, Lee Fang
September 21 2018, 10:18 a.m.
GOOGLE BOSSES HAVE forced employees to delete a confidential memo circulating inside the company that revealed explosive details about a plan to launch a censored search engine in China, The Intercept has learned.

The memo, authored by a Google engineer who was asked to work on the project, disclosed that the search system, codenamed Dragonfly, would require users to log in to perform searches, track their location — and share the resulting history with a Chinese partner who would have “unilateral access” to the data.

The memo was shared earlier this month among a group of Google employees who have been organizing internal protests over the censored search system, which has been designed to remove content that China’s authoritarian Communist Party regime views as sensitive, such as information about democracy, human rights, and peaceful protest.

According to three sources familiar with the incident, Google leadership discovered the memo and were furious that secret details about the China censorship were being passed between employees who were not supposed to have any knowledge about it. Subsequently, Google human resources personnel emailed employees who were believed to have accessed or saved copies of the memo and ordered them to immediately delete it from their computers. Emails demanding deletion of the memo contained “pixel trackers” that notified human resource managers when their messages had been read, recipients determined.

The Dragonfly memo reveals that a prototype of the censored search engine was being developed as an app for both Android and iOS devices, and would force users to sign in so they could use the service. The memo confirms, as The Intercept first reported last week, that users’ searches would be associated with their personal phone number. The memo adds that Chinese users’ movements would also be stored, along with the IP address of their device and links they clicked on. It accuses developers working on the project of creating “spying tools” for the Chinese government to monitor its citizens.

People’s search histories, location information, and other private data would be sent out of China to a database in Taiwan, the memo states. But the data would also be provided to employees of a Chinese company who would be granted “unilateral access” to the system.

To launch the censored search engine, Google set up a “joint venture” partnership with an unnamed Chinese company. The search engine will “blacklist sensitive queries” so that “no results will be shown” at all when people enter certain words or phrases, according to documents seen by The Intercept. Blacklisted search terms on a prototype of the search engine include “human rights,” “student protest,” and “Nobel Prize” in Mandarin, said sources familiar with the project.

According to the memo, aside from being able to access users’ search data, the Chinese partner company could add to the censorship blacklists: It would be able to “selectively edit search result pages … unilaterally, and with few controls seemingly in place.”

That a Chinese company would maintain a copy of users’ search data means that, by extension, the data would be accessible to Chinese authorities, who have broad powers to obtain information that is held or processed on the country’s mainland. A central concern human rights groups have expressed about Dragonfly is that it could place users at risk of Chinese government surveillance — and any person in China searching for blacklisted words or phrases could find themselves interrogated or detained. Chinese authorities are well-known for routinely targeting critics, activists, and journalists.

“It’s alarming to hear that such information will be stored and, potentially, easily shared with the Chinese authorities,” said Patrick Poon, a Hong Kong-based researcher with the human rights group Amnesty International. “It will completely put users’ privacy and safety at risk. Google needs to immediately explain if the app will involve such arrangements. It’s time to give the public full transparency of the project.”

ON AUGUST 16, two weeks after The Intercept revealed the Dragonfly plan, Google CEO Sundar Pichai told the company’s employees that the China plan was in its “early stages” and “exploratory.” However, employees working on the censored search engine were instructed in late July, days before the project was publicly exposed, that they should prepare to get it into a “launch-ready state” to roll out within weeks, pending approval from officials in Beijing.

“It will completely put users’ privacy and safety at risk.”
The memo raises new questions about Pichai’s claim that the project was not well-developed. Information stored on the company’s internal networks about Dragonfly “paints a very different picture,” it says. “The statement from our high-level leadership that Dragonfly is just an experiment seems wrong.”

The memo identifies at least 215 employees who appear to have been tasked with working full-time on Dragonfly, a number it says is “larger than many Google projects.” It says that source code associated with the project dates back to May 2017, and “many infrastructure parts predate” that. Moreover, screenshots of the app “show a project in a pretty advanced state,” the memo declares.

Most of the details about the project “have been secret from the start,” the memo says, adding that “after the existence of Dragonfly leaked, engineers working on the project were also quick to hide all of their code.”

The author of the memo said in the document that they were opposed to the China censorship. However, they added, “more than the project itself, I hate the culture of secrecy that has been built around it.”

The memo was first posted September 5 on an internal messaging list set up for Google employees to raise ethical concerns. But the memo was soon scrubbed from the list and individuals who had opened or saved the document were contacted by Google’s human resources department to discuss the matter. The employees were instructed not to share the memo.

Google reportedly maintains an aggressive security and investigation team known as “stopleaks,” which is dedicated to preventing unauthorized disclosures. The team is also said to monitor internal discussions.

“More than the project itself, I hate the culture of secrecy that has been built around it.”
Internal security efforts at Google have ramped up this year as employees have raised ethical concerns around a range of new company projects. Following the revelation by Gizmodo and The Intercept that Google had quietly begun work on a contract with the military last year, known as Project Maven, to develop automated image recognition systems for drone warfare, the communications team moved swiftly to monitor employee activity.

The “stopleaks” team, which coordinates with the internal Google communications department, even began monitoring an internal image board used to post messages based on internet memes, according to one former Google employee, for signs of employee sentiment around the Project Maven contract.


Google’s internal security team consists of a number of former military and law enforcement officials. For example, LinkedIn lists as Google’s head of global investigations Joseph Vincent, whose resume includes work as a high-ranking agent at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency’s Homeland Security Investigations unit. The head of security at Google is Chris Rackow, who has described himself as a former member of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s hostage rescue team and as a former U.S. Navy SEAL.

For some Google employees, the culture of secrecy at the company clashes directly with its public image around fostering transparency, creating an intolerable work environment.

“Leadership misled engineers working on [Dragonfly] about the nature of their work, depriving them of moral agency,” said a Google employee who read the memo.

Google did not respond to a request for comment on this story.
Title: GOOLAG techie resigns over China search engine
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 24, 2018, 01:47:33 AM
https://theintercept.com/2018/09/13/google-china-search-engine-employee-resigns/
Title: New Movie Claims Google Handed the Popular Vote to Hillary Clinton in 2016
Post by: G M on September 24, 2018, 11:37:26 AM
https://pjmedia.com/trending/new-movie-claims-google-handed-the-popular-vote-to-hillary-clinton-in-2016/

New Movie Claims Google Handed the Popular Vote to Hillary Clinton in 2016
 BY TYLER O'NEIL SEPTEMBER 23, 2018



When Donald Trump surprised the world by winning the 2016 election, liberals clung to the idea that his victory was illegitimate because Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. According to a psychologist who supported Clinton in 2016, however, Google's bias in Clinton's favor may remove even that symbolic victory from her.

Almost all of Clinton's popular vote margin could be attributed to Google bias, making her win "negligible." Dr. Robert Epstein, a psychologist who earned his Ph.D. at Harvard, actually reported this finding last year, but he explains how it works in the upcoming film "The Creepy Line."

Epstein made a stir in 2015 by reporting in Politico that Google could "rig" the 2016 election. This story discussed the results of his study, which was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). That study found that "biased search ranking can easily shift the voting preferences of undecided voters from 20% or more — up to 80% in some demographic groups."

In a white paper published by the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology in June 2017, Epstein followed up on this PNAS study, suggesting that Clinton's popular vote margin was almost entirely attributable to pro-Clinton bias at Google.

"Extrapolating from the mathematics introduced in this report ... the lead author of the PNAS study [Epstein himself] predicted that a pro-Clinton bias in Google's search results would, over time, shift at least 2.6 million votes to Clinton. She won the popular vote in the November election by 2,864,974 votes," Epstein wrote with his co-author Ronald E. Robertson.

"Without the pro-Clinton bias in Google's search results, her win margin in the popular vote would have been negligible," Epstein wrote.

On Friday, the psychologist confirmed to PJ Media that this stunning result has not been previously reported. PJ Media learned of the study in a screening for "The Creepy Line" on Wednesday night.

"It's actually at the end of the paper I released months ago, quite a while ago," Epstein told PJ Media on Friday.

"From my perspective, it's pretty straightforward. It's just math," the psychologist said. He noted that "the math in the 2015 PNAS paper is pretty solid. There's even a table in there that allows you to figure out whether or not you can use search rankings to flip an election based on the projected win margin."

During the interview, Epstein lamented Trump's win and his presidency, but he insisted that Google's power is a much more important and terrifying issue.

Google Exec Boasted About Helping Hillary Clinton by Boosting Latino Turnout in 2016
"This is not a problem for conservatives. This is a problem for humanity," the psychologist told PJ Media. "Who gave a handful of executives in Silicon Valley the right to decide what billions of people around the world can see and cannot see? Who gave them that power?"

In "The Creepy Line," New York Times bestselling author Peter Schweizer argued that "we did. We all did," by signing the user agreements. Epstein disagreed with that idea.

"I don't believe that meeting ever took place. I don't think there was ever a vote on that issue for that matter," he told PJ Media.

Epstein has long studied the impact of search engines like Google, and their ability to sway opinion. He has proven that search engine manipulation effect (SEME) can impact how people see the world — and how they see political figures specifically.

SEME works in a few ways. When you type a word into a Google search, Google will present various suggestions for a search. Epstein's research has found that if all the suggestions are positive, people are more likely to see positive websites for that person or issue. But if there is one negative suggestion included under that search bar, the negative result is likely to get ten to fifteen times more clicks.

Similarly, Google presents ten search results per page, and the very first search result is considered the most reliable. For questions like, "What is the capital of France?" the correct answer, "Paris," comes to the top. But on issues of opinion — and especially when researching political candidates — the search results and their ranking can have tremendous thorny implications.

As Epstein says in "The Creepy Line," "Google and Facebook have the power to undermine democracy with no one knowing it has been undermined. If they exercise these powers, democracy is an illusion."

"We found systematic bias in favor of one candidate, Hillary Clinton," he says in the film. They found the bias "in all ten search positions on the first page. If you took away this bias, it is possible the popular vote would have been even."

According to Epstein's research, Google's search results favored Hillary Clinton, and SEME can sway 20 percent of voters — and 80 percent, in certain demographic groups. He himself — again, a Clinton supporter in 2016 — suggested that the bias swayed 2.6 million votes, on the low end.

State AGs, DOJ Target Facebook, Google for Creating 'a Virtual Fence Around the Free Market'
With liberals still convinced Clinton should have won the election, these results are extremely important to report. Some corners of the Internet are already claiming that if Clinton and Trump had a do-over today, the Democrat would prevail. Some of the vitriol might subside if liberals understood the implications of Epstein's work, and realized that Trump's appeal may have been even stronger — given that Google may have put its tremendous thumb on the scale.

Earlier this month, Tucker Carlson unveiled an email from a Google executive bragging about helping to increase the Latino vote, assuming that Latinos would heavily favor Clinton. Shortly after that, the Daily Caller released a video of Google executives lamenting Trump's victory. On Thursday, the Wall Street Journal's John D. McKinnon and Douglas MacMillan reported that Google employees schemed about how to tweak the search function to harm Trump's travel ban.

Liberals may like the idea that Google helped Hillary Clinton, but even they should be afraid of the kind of suggestive power that Google has, Epstein said.

"We all need to rise above our political biases and understand there's a much larger problem here."

Indeed, Schweizer told PJ Media Thursday that Benito Mussolini, Vladimir Lenin, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong "would dream about" the kind of "control or influence" that Facebook and Google have over billions of people.

"The Creepy Line" reveals just how much power Google and Facebook have. Epstein is working to set up a monitoring system to alert people to exactly what these companies are doing in real time. You can request a screening of the film at this link.
Title: Get rid of Chrome, be Brave
Post by: G M on September 25, 2018, 10:25:00 AM
https://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2018/09/23/why-im-leaving-chrome/

Why I’m done with Chrome
This blog is mainly reserved for cryptography, and I try to avoid filling it with random 512px-Google_Chrome_icon_(September_2014).svg“someone is wrong on the Internet” posts. After all, that’s what Twitter is for! But from time to time something bothers me enough that I have to make an exception. Today I wanted to write specifically about Google Chrome, how much I’ve loved it in the past, and why — due to Chrome’s new user-unfriendly forced login policy — I won’t be using it going forward.

A brief history of Chrome
When Google launched Chrome ten years ago, it seemed like one of those rare cases where everyone wins. In 2008, the browser market was dominated by Microsoft, a company with an ugly history of using browser dominance to crush their competitors. Worse, Microsoft was making noises about getting into the search business. This posed an existential threat to Google’s internet properties.

In this setting, Chrome was a beautiful solution. Even if the browser never produced a scrap of revenue for Google, it served its purpose just by keeping the Internet open to Google’s other products. As a benefit, the Internet community would receive a terrific open source browser with the best development team money could buy. This might be kind of sad for Mozilla (who have paid a high price due to Chrome) but overall it would be a good thing for Internet standards.

For many years this is exactly how things played out. Sure, Google offered an optional “sign in” feature for Chrome, which presumably vacuumed up your browsing data and shipped it off to Google, but that was an option. An option you could easily ignore. If you didn’t take advantage of this option, Google’s privacy policy was clear: your data would stay on your computer where it belonged.

What changed?
A few weeks ago Google shipped an update to Chrome that fundamentally changes the sign-in experience. From now on, every time you log into a Google property (for example, Gmail), Chrome will automatically sign the browser into your Google account for you. It’ll do this without asking, or even explicitly notifying you. (However, and this is important: Google developers claim this will not actually start synchronizing your data to Google — yet. See further below.)

Your sole warning — in the event that you’re looking for it — is that your Google profile picture will appear in the upper-right hand corner of the browser window. I noticed mine the other day:

foo

The change hasn’t gone entirely unnoticed: it received some vigorous discussion on sites like Hacker News. But the mainstream tech press seems to have ignored it completely. This is unfortunate — and I hope it changes — because this update has huge implications for Google and the future of Chrome.

In the rest of this post, I’m going to talk about why this matters. From my perspective, this comes down to basically four points:

Nobody on the Chrome development team can provide a clear rationale for why this change was necessary, and the explanations they’ve given don’t make any sense.
This change has enormous implications for user privacy and trust, and Google seems unable to grapple with this.
The change makes a hash out of Google’s own privacy policies for Chrome.
Google needs to stop treating customer trust like it’s a renewable resource, because they’re screwing up badly.
I warn you that this will get a bit ranty. Please read on anyway.

Google’s stated rationale makes no sense
The new feature that triggers this auto-login behavior is called “Identity consistency between browser and cookie jar” (HN). After conversations with two separate Chrome developers on Twitter (who will remain nameless — mostly because I don’t want them to hate me), I was given the following rationale for the change:

IMG_3331

To paraphrase this explanation: if you’re in a situation where you’ve already signed into Chrome and your friend shares your computer, then you can wind up accidentally having your friend’s Google cookies get uploaded into your account. This seems bad, and sure, we want to avoid that.

But note something critical about this scenario. In order for this problem to apply to you, you already have to be signed into Chrome. There is absolutely nothing in this problem description that seems to affect users who chose not to sign into the browser in the first place.

So if signed-in users are your problem, why would you make a change that forces unsigned–in users to become signed-in? I could waste a lot more ink wondering about the mismatch between the stated “problem” and the “fix”, but I won’t bother: because nobody on the public-facing side of the Chrome team has been able to offer an explanation that squares this circle.

And this matters, because “sync” or not…

The change has serious implications for privacy and trust
The Chrome team has offered a single defense of the change. They point out that just because your browser is “signed in” does not mean it’s uploading your data to Google’s servers. Specifically:

While Chrome will now log into your Google account without your consent (following a Gmail login), Chrome will not activate the “sync” feature that sends your data to Google. That requires an additional consent step. So in theory your data should remain local.

This is my paraphrase. But I think it’s fair to characterize the general stance of the Chrome developers I spoke with as: without this “sync” feature, there’s nothing wrong with the change they’ve made, and everything is just fine.

This is nuts, for several reasons.

User consent matters. For ten years I’ve been asked a single question by the Chrome browser: “Do you want to log in with your Google account?” And for ten years I’ve said no thanks. Chrome still asks me that question — it’s just that now it doesn’t honor my decision.

The Chrome developers want me to believe that this is fine, since (phew!) I’m still protected by one additional consent guardrail. The problem here is obvious:

If you didn’t respect my lack of consent on the biggest user-facing privacy option in Chrome (and  didn’t even notify me that you had stopped respecting it!) why should I trust any other consent option you give me? What stops you from changing your mind on that option in a few months, when we’ve all stopped paying attention?

The fact of the matter is that I’d never even heard of Chrome’s “sync” option — for the simple reason that up until September 2018, I had never logged into Chrome. Now I’m forced to learn these new terms, and hope that the Chrome team keeps promises to keep all of my data local as the barriers between “signed in” and “not signed in” are gradually eroded away.

The Chrome sync UI is a dark pattern. Now that I’m forced to log into Chrome, I’m faced with a brand new menu I’ve never seen before. It looks like this:

Thing

 

Does that big blue button indicate that I’m already synchronizing my data to Google? That’s scary! Wait, maybe it’s an invitation to synchronize! If so, what happens to my data if I click it by accident? (I won’t give it the answer away, you should go find out. Just make sure you don’t accidentally upload all your data in the process. It can happen quickly.)

In short, Google has transformed the question of consenting to data upload from something affirmative that I actually had to put effort into — entering my Google credentials and signing into Chrome — into something I can now do with a single accidental click. This is a dark pattern. Whether intentional or not, it has the effect of making it easy for people to activate sync without knowing it, or to think they’re already syncing and thus there’s no additional cost to increasing Google’s access to their data.

Don’t take my word for it. It even gives (former) Google people the creeps.

Big brother doesn’t need to actually watch you. We tell things to our web browsers that we wouldn’t tell our best friends. We do this with some vague understanding that yes, the Internet spies on us. But we also believe that this spying is weak and probabilistic. It’s not like someone’s standing over our shoulder checking our driver’s license with each click.

What happens if you take that belief away? There are numerous studies indicating that even the perception of surveillance can significantly greatly magnify the degree of self-censorship users force on themselves. Will user feel comfortable browsing for information on sensitive mental health conditions — if their real name and picture are always loaded into the corner of their browser? The Chrome development team says “yes”. I think they’re wrong.

For all we know, the new approach has privacy implications even if sync is off. The Chrome developers claim that with “sync” off, a Chrome has no privacy implications. This might be true. But when pressed on the actual details, nobody seems quite sure.

For example, if I have my browser logged out, then I log in and turn on “sync”, does all my past (logged-out) data get pushed to Google? What happens if I’m forced to be logged in, and then subsequently turn on “sync”? Nobody can quite tell me if the data uploaded in these conditions is the same. These differences could really matter.

The changes make hash of the Chrome privacy policy
The Chrome privacy policy is a remarkably simple document. Unlike most privacy policies, it was clearly written as a promise to Chrome’s users — rather than as the usual lawyer CYA. Functionally, it describes two browsing modes: “Basic browser mode” and “signed-in mode”. These modes have very different properties. Read for yourself:

Untitled 2Untitled 3

In “basic browser mode”, your data is stored locally. In “signed-in” mode, your data gets shipped to Google’s servers. This is easy to understand. If you want privacy, don’t sign in. But what happens if your browser decides to switch you from one mode to the other, all on its own?

Technically, the privacy policy is still accurate. If you’re in basic browsing mode, your data is still stored locally. The problem is that you no longer get to decide which mode you’re in. This makes a mockery out of whatever intentions the original drafters had. Maybe Google will update the document to reflect the new “sync” distinction that the Chrome developers have shared with me. We’ll see.

Update: After I tweeted about my concerns, I received a DM on Sunday from two different Chrome developers, each telling me the good news: Google is updating their privacy policy to reflect the new operation of Chrome. I think that’s, um, good news. But I also can’t help but note that updating a privacy policy on a weekend is an awful lot of trouble to go to for a change that… apparently doesn’t even solve a problem for signed-out users.

Trust is not a renewable resource
For a company that sustains itself by collecting massive amounts of user data, Google has  managed to avoid the negative privacy connotations we associate with, say, Facebook. This isn’t because Google collects less data, it’s just that Google has consistently been more circumspect and responsible with it.

Where Facebook will routinely change privacy settings and apologize later, Google has upheld clear privacy policies that it doesn’t routinely change. Sure, when it collects, it collects gobs of data, but in the cases where Google explicitly makes user security and privacy promises — it tends to keep them. This seems to be changing.

Google’s reputation is hard-earned, and it can be easily lost. Changes like this burn a lot of trust with users. If the change is solving an absolutely critical problem for users , then maybe a loss of trust is worth it. I wish Google could convince me that was the case.

Conclusion
This post has gone on more than long enough, but before I finish I want to address two common counterarguments I’ve heard from people I generally respect in this area.

One argument is that Google already spies on you via cookies and its pervasive advertising network and partnerships, so what’s the big deal if they force your browser into a logged-in state? One individual I respect described the Chrome change as “making you wear two name tags instead of one”. I think this objection is silly both on moral grounds — just because you’re violating my privacy doesn’t make it ok to add a massive new violation — but also because it’s objectively silly. Google has spent millions of dollars adding additional tracking features to both Chrome and Android. They aren’t doing this for fun; they’re doing this because it clearly produces data they want.

The other counterargument (if you want to call it that) goes like this: I’m a n00b for using Google products at all, and of course they were always going to do this. The extreme version holds that I ought to be using lynx+Tor and DJB’s custom search engine, and if I’m not I pretty much deserve what’s coming to me.

I reject this argument. I think It’s entirely possible for a company like Google to make good, usable open source software that doesn’t massively violate user privacy. For ten years I believe Google Chrome did just this.

Why they’ve decided to change, I don’t know. It makes me sad.

Title: Tim Berners radical plan to upend the world wide web.
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 30, 2018, 05:47:13 AM


https://www.fastcompany.com/90243936/exclusive-tim-berners-lee-tells-us-his-radical-new-plan-to-upend-the-world-wide-web
Title: Life after Google continued, George Gilder Part Three
Post by: DougMacG on September 30, 2018, 07:03:19 AM
https://www.wnd.com/2018/08/tech-icon-envisions-prosperous-new-world-after-google/

"...privacy in terms of ownership of your own data and ownership of your identity and the ability to conduct transactions without exposing all your personal information to be used and abused...
That’s what the new cryptocosm affords.
The technology is not easy to explain without using unfamiliar terms.

Gilder describes it as essentially “a new security architecture that allows you to keep your own personal details to yourself and transact anonymously across the network."
....
Even though he's probably about 20 years ahead of his time again, let's hope he is right.
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: ccp on September 30, 2018, 11:57:28 AM
The concept makes sense.
Title: Pence goes after Goolag
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 05, 2018, 02:09:11 PM
Pence Calls on Google to Drop Mobile Search Project in China
Vice President Pence said U.S. companies should reconsider turning over intellectual property as they expand in China
Vice President Mike Pence called on Google to immediately end developing a mobile search app in China, which he said would strengthen Communist Party censorship. Shown, the vice president at the Hudson Institute on Thursday.
Vice President Mike Pence called on Google to immediately end developing a mobile search app in China, which he said would strengthen Communist Party censorship. Shown, the vice president at the Hudson Institute on Thursday. Photo: Joshua Roberts/Bloomberg News
53 Comments
By Michael C. Bender and
Dustin Volz
Updated Oct. 4, 2018 5:10 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON—The Trump administration took aim at Google Thursday, calling on the tech giant to halt development of a project it said would accelerate censorship efforts in China.

In a speech that outlined the White House’s long list of frustrations and grievances with Beijing, Vice President Mike Pence called on companies to reconsider business practices in the world’s second-largest economy that involve turning over intellectual property or “abetting Beijing’s oppression.”

“For example, Google should immediately end development of the Dragonfly app that will strengthen Communist Party censorship and compromise the privacy of Chinese customers,” Mr. Pence said in his speech at the Hudson Institute, a conservative, Washington-based think tank focused on security and economic issues.
Related

    Google Woos Partners for Potential China Expansion (Aug. 12)
    U.S. Confronts China Over Suspected Cyberattack as Fugitive Guo Wengui Appears in Washington (Oct. 6, 2017)

Mr. Pence’s speech was the latest sign from the White House that the warm relations between President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping haven’t trickled through the administration ranks. Trade tensions between the two countries have been escalating for months, and disputes continue over military cooperation, espionage and territorial claims in the South China Sea.

Mr. Pence said Thursday that China is working to remove Mr. Trump from office and described a broad effort to influence political opinion and manipulate academic institutions and U.S. companies.

Last week, President Trump accused China of trying to interfere in the U.S. midterm elections in November to hurt him and the Republican Party in retaliation for his stance on trade.

Senate Democrats asked the Trump administration Thursday for evidence to support assertions of election meddling. In a letter to Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats, three senators asked whether the accusation from Mr. Trump “aligns with the intelligence community’s assessments of Beijing’s intentions, plans and activities.”

Sens. Ron Wyden of Oregon, Martin Heinrich of New Mexico and Kamala Harris of California, who all serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee, asked for a response by Oct. 8 “so that the public and members of Congress have the information in advance of the election.”

A spokeswoman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said the letter had been received and that Mr. Coats would respond to it. Chinese officials have said they don’t interfere internally in other countries.

In a project dubbed “Dragonfly,” Google is testing a mobile version of its search engine that would adhere to China’s strict censors. While it has drawn pointed questions from a bipartisan group of senators, Mr. Pence’s speech was the first public condemnation from the White House.

A spokeswoman for Google, a unit of Alphabet Inc., declined to comment on Mr. Pence’s speech and instead referred to a previous statement that described the company’s work as exploratory and “not close to launching a search product in China.”

Mr. Pence repeated Mr. Trump’s warning that U.S. tariffs on $250 billion in Chinese imports could increase, and vowed the White House would “stand strong” to support national security.

Beijing, Mr. Pence said, “is also taking steps to exploit its economic leverage, and the allure of China’s large domestic market, to advance its influence over American corporations.”
Related Video
Tensions Rise Between Washington and Beijing
Tensions Rise Between Washington and Beijing
Defense Secretary Jim Mattis canceled a trip to China, and President Trump accused China of election interference. The WSJ's Gerald F. Seib explains how U.S.-China tensions are rising. Photo: Getty

He said Delta Air Lines was forced to apologize for not identifying Taiwan as a “province of China,” and Marriott was pressured to fire a U.S. employee who used a company account to “like” a Tibetan separatist group’s Twitter post.

Mr. Pence criticized Chinese censors who object to criticism “even in minor ways,” pointing to the 2012 remake of the iconic 1984 movie “Red Dawn” that was digitally edited to portray North Korea as the villain, instead of China. He also accused China of seeking to “foster a culture of censorship” in academia. He cited a speech from Yang Shuping, a University of Maryland student from China who became a target of criticism there after praising the “fresh air of free speech” in America.

He said Ms. Yang was the “victim of a firestorm of criticism” on China’s tightly controlled social media and her family back home was harassed.

He said the Hudson Institute was the target of a suspected cyberattack from Shanghai after it hosted an event with Guo Wengui, a fugitive Chinese businessman and political dissident who has alleged corruption within China’s leadership. “You know better than most that the Chinese Communist Party is trying to undermine academic freedom and the freedom of speech in America today,” Mr. Pence told the group.

Write to Michael C. Bender at Mike.Bender@wsj.com
Title: Re: Pence goes after Goolag
Post by: DougMacG on October 05, 2018, 07:44:37 PM
This is a great move in a number of ways. Google is called out and put on notice. US companies are advised to stop signing away technology rights to China. The squeeze on China's economy is increased. The effort of Xi to outlast Trump the person as president is foolhardy because even if Democrats took the house, impeach the president and somehow got 67 votes for removal from office in the Senate, it would make Mike Pence president and he has just promised to continue the same policies until China stops its cyber and technology war.

It looks to me like Mike Pompeo is the author of this, President Trump fully approved, Mike Pence is elevated on a world stage and our allies should follow suit and dial up the pressure on China.
Title: Re: Pence goes after Goolag
Post by: G M on October 05, 2018, 10:39:02 PM
This is a great move in a number of ways. Google is called out and put on notice. US companies are advised to stop signing away technology rights to China. The squeeze on China's economy is increased. The effort of Xi to outlast Trump the person as president is foolhardy because even if Democrats took the house, impeach the president and somehow got 67 votes for removal from office in the Senate, it would make Mike Pence president and he has just promised to continue the same policies until China stops its cyber and technology war.

It looks to me like Mike Pompeo is the author of this, President Trump fully approved, Mike Pence is elevated on a world stage and our allies should follow suit and dial up the pressure on China.

It is almost disorienting to see such competent people in power, working on our behalf.

Title: Goolag hid user data breach
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 08, 2018, 07:09:52 PM
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/10/08/report-google-hid-user-data-breach-from-public-out-of-fear-congress-would-take-action/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_content=links&utm_campaign=20181008
Title: The new FaceHugger home camera!
Post by: G M on October 09, 2018, 02:16:04 PM
https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a23643766/facebook-portal-privacy/

Facebook Takes a Break from Privacy Scandals to Release a Smart Camera That Films You in Your Home
The news comes weeks after another high-profile data breach rocked the company.


By Sam Blum
Oct 8, 2018

On Monday morning Facebook announced Portal, a new hardware component similar to an iPad that allows people to video chat with friends via the social network. As a video released by the company explains, a roving camera built in to the device can track your movements to ensure you're in frame during a conversation. You know, exactly the kind of thing any reasonable person would be enthused to purchase from Facebook right now.

The product's debut comes in the wake of myriad high-profile scandals that have dogged Facebook this year. Only weeks ago, the company confirmed a security breach by hackers affected 50 million accounts. A day prior, reporting from Gizmodo detailed the company's invasive advertising practices. In April, the Cambridge Analytica data-mining crisis saw Mark Zuckerberg grilled by the United States Senate over a tense and highly publicized two days in Washington DC.

Unlike everything else offered by Facebook, Portal and its larger counterpart Portal+ can be yours for a price, at $199 and $349, respectively. Portal's rollout speaks to the company's ambition to trade in hardware in addition to web content. It draws parallels to Facebook's ill-fated partnership with HTC, which twice delivered to market smartphones with baked-in Facebook apps. (Zuckerberg promised Facebook phones would be a very big thing in 2011, but you're not holding one now, are you?)

Portal comes with an AI-enabled smart camera and sound, with Amazon's Alexa serving as its home assistant. The company ensures that Portal's cameras run locally and not on Facebook's servers. "Portal conversations stay between you and the people you’re calling," the company says. Users can also disable Portal's microphone or physically shutter its camera in the Zuckerberg style. In other words, Facebook maintains that your data will remain yours—which you have every reason to take as a cold comfort.

In a world already full of video chat apps and home assistance, Facebook's addition is late to the party and and arriving with awkward timing given the company's past year of PR nightmares. And that's to say nothing of Facebook's business model syphon your data for the sake of advertising revenue when it's not leaking that data to outside sources. On top of all that, Portal is sure to add fire to the common (but mostly unfounded) conspiracy theory that Facebook's app eavesdrops on conversations to target people with ads.

But if you're still using Facebook in spite of all that's been unfolding, maybe it actually makes sense to just dive all the way in.

Title: Get out the (DEMOCRAT) vote
Post by: ccp on October 10, 2018, 05:25:08 PM
big IT trying to get the Dem vote out.

I log into the Yahoo page this evening and at the top is a register to vote link

They assume this will get the Democrat vote but pretend this is politically neutral
we know its no
https://search.yahoo.com/search?p=register+to+vote&fr=regvotefp&type=regvotefp

 
Title: As NOT seen on TV: Goolag exec lets us know what he really thinks
Post by: G M on October 11, 2018, 02:41:56 PM
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10-08/fuk-you-all-hell-google-exec-threatens-gop-over-kavanaugh-confirmation

Correctly if I am wrong, but the MSM totally memory-holed this story, correct?
Title: Sweden and FB censor gang rape
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 12, 2018, 06:40:10 AM
https://gellerreport.com/2018/10/media-cover-up-migrant-rape.html/
Title: The Goolag admits concerns about bias have gone mainstream
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 13, 2018, 12:04:04 PM
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/10/09/the-good-censor-google-admits-concerns-about-political-neutrality-are-now-mainstream/
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: ccp on October 13, 2018, 03:05:46 PM
I am surprised we don't hear more about law enforcement aimed at getting hackers and increasing the penalties

no they ain't all in bulgaria or manchuria somewhere

and we need to have extremely strong punishment against the foreigners but going after their governments

you don't turn these criminals over you will be penalized bigtime

Yeah we can yell all we want about FB GOOGLE etc but what about the criminals actually doing these crimes

I would think a politician who adds strong enforcement of cyber crime to his platform would be a winner



Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: DougMacG on October 15, 2018, 06:55:38 AM
"I would think a politician who adds strong enforcement of cyber crime to his platform would be a winner"

Yes.  Cyber security and cyber privacy.  There is a role for government.  Stop trespassing and theft.
Title: Facebook account hack check
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 15, 2018, 07:34:48 AM
https://www.popsci.com/facebook-account-hack-check?CMPID=ene101418
Title: "Google+" trickery
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 15, 2018, 08:01:50 AM
https://www.wsj.com/video/whats-google-and-how-do-i-know-if-i-have-an-account/9EF651BA-7050-40DD-98CB-C17F3130E521.html?mod=trending_now_video_4

Title: Gilder's new "cosm"
Post by: ccp on October 15, 2018, 09:06:01 AM
For any of us who may have missed GG on Levin.  I am listening again  :-o.

He was excellent I must say.  GG has won me back.  He did make me millions in the late 90s to 2000s- only to lose it all in the crash  My fault not his .  :cry:

The "cryptocosm " is one of different subjects Mark and GG discuss.

The cryptocosm

The description of the new architecture would seem to prevent mass theft and spying in a mass scale .  Such as stealing a lot of data from millions or ID information etc.
but for individuals or single entities I don't see how it would protect them .  He suggests each entity has its own lifelong unique blueprint , ID .  I am not sure why another sleuth could not just find that blueprint and use it.  I can think of a few ways this could be avoided but a lot of food for thought

It would certainly take a lot of the power away from the big tech and give it back to ourselves.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZuluc2NpHM
Title: Mastercard goes after David Horowitz
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 16, 2018, 08:45:38 PM
   
 

 

 
 
Dear Fellow Patriot,

By now I'm sure you've heard of Facebook and Twitter's efforts to silence conservatives, but that was just the tip of the iceberg.

Just weeks ago, MasterCard colluded with the Southern Poverty Law Center and other left-wing fringe organizations to shut down my Freedom Center's online fundraising without so much as a warning.

The Southern Poverty Law Center blacklisted my organization as a "hate group" because we dare question the Left's agenda, and now big finance is using this bogus label to come after us.

Shortly after MasterCard launched this crippling attack, Discover Card came after us. And now, I have no choice but to take these credit card processors to court.

Because this isn't about me. This is about you and your free speech. The Left doesn't care if you're a politician, a pundit or a plumber — if you don't embrace their radical agenda, they want to destroy you.

I'll be honest — the legal fees are steep. But a generous donor has pledged to match all donations between now and October 20th. So anything you give today will have double the impact.

Will you follow this link to give $15, $25, $50 or more and take on the Left's corporate cronies trying to silence everyone that dares question them?

You see, I didn't break any of MasterCard's or Discover Card's rules. This was one step in an ongoing campaign to cripple the conservative movement one by one, organization by organization — then person by person.

And they couldn't have picked a better target.

I'm David Horowitz and the Left came after me because I've dedicated the last three decades of my life to fighting their plan to transform America with my Freedom Center's campaigns, literature and research.

But it won't stop with me, and that's why I'm taking MasterCard and Discover Card to court. So you don't have to. Because they won't stop until all conservatives are destroyed or silent.

So I'm counting on you to make an urgent, tax-deductible donation that will be matched dollar for dollar by a generous donor.

Remember — if you give $15, your true impact will be $30. If you give $25, your true impact will be $50. If you give $50, your true impact will be $100.

After we were first shut down, I spent two days in meeting after meeting with our attorneys until MasterCard finally backed down.

Fortunately, the Freedom Center is once again able to accept credit card donations. But this legal battle is just beginning, and it won't be pretty.

I know this won't be their last assault on Free Speech, and now we know that they'll stop at nothing to cripple conservatives like you and me. This lawsuit will set the precedent for decades to come. You and I must stand up to the Left's corporate cronies and let them know we won't be strong armed, silenced, or censored.

But with the legal fees expected to exceed $103,484 — I'm counting on your generous donation of $15, $25, $50 or more that will be matched dollar for dollar by a generous donor.

They don't just want to "censor" conservatives like you and me. They want to wipe us out.

In fact, Discover Card and MasterCard still have bans on Jihad Watch: our dedicated program for exposing the Islamic agenda.

And if we're going to protect Free Speech for all Americans, we can't play on defense. It's time for us to bring the fight to them. We need all hands on deck.

So I'm asking you to make a tax-deductible donation of $15, $25, $50 or more that will be matched dollar for dollar up to $50,000 between now and October 20th.

The Left wants to shut me up because my Freedom Center has exposed millions of Americans to the truths the mainstream media works to suppress. We've proven the dangers of radical Islam, the consequences of open borders, the cost of political correctness.

But they made one mistake — and that was thinking we'd lie there and take it.

The Freedom Center will never stop fighting for you. But as a nonprofit organization, we don't take a penny of government handouts. We rely entirely on patriots like you to sustain this battle.

Please follow this link right away to DOUBLE YOUR IMPACT so we can fight like we've never fought before.

And remember — a generous donor will match your gift, so your contribution will go that much farther.

Thank you in advance for your support.

Sincerely,
David Horowitz

P.S. The Left doesn't just want to silence conservatives like you and me — they want to destroy us. That's why it's so important that we're on a united front against them. Please follow this link to prepare for this gruesome legal battle and protect free speech for ALL Americans.

P.P.S. Don't forget that your urgent donation of $15, $25, $50 or more will be matched dollar for dollar by a generous donation up to $50,000!
DONATE NOW
 

 
 
 
 
 

 
© David Horowitz Freedom Center
 
www.horowitzfreedomcenter.org/

 
Mailing Address
P.O. Box 55089
Sherman Oaks, CA 91499
 
The David Horowitz Freedom Center is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. All donations are tax-deductible to the extent allowed by law.




 

 






Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Life after Google, George Gilder, Cryptocosm
Post by: DougMacG on October 17, 2018, 05:43:53 AM
https://townhall.com/columnists/georgegilder/2018/07/17/exclusive-10-laws-of-the-cryptocosm-n2501167

I see his point, I don't fully see the path there yet.
Title: The Goolag and Dragonfly
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 18, 2018, 09:17:09 AM
https://patriotpost.us/articles/58922-googles-search-for-communist-money?mailing_id=3804&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3804&utm_campaign=digest&utm_content=body
Title: Bezos bucks the bullies
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 18, 2018, 10:35:10 AM
second post

https://www.wsj.com/articles/bezos-bucks-the-bullies-1539818350
Title: FB censors Gosnell movie
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 20, 2018, 09:42:48 PM
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/facebook-blocks-gosnell-ads-labels-film-about-serial-killer-abortionist-pol?fbclid=IwAR2EymP0kPn5th1fe7OzrU-aPqnUfyCEuVdFoSiLSNXUfLZVyBiLtcC8GYM
Title: Information Manipulator Goolag teaming up with Chinese Authorities
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 21, 2018, 02:33:48 PM
Second post

https://clarionproject.org/google-is-teaming-up-with-chinese-authorities/
Title: Re: FB censors Gosnell movie
Post by: DougMacG on October 22, 2018, 05:17:44 AM
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/facebook-blocks-gosnell-ads-labels-film-about-serial-killer-abortionist-pol?fbclid=IwAR2EymP0kPn5th1fe7OzrU-aPqnUfyCEuVdFoSiLSNXUfLZVyBiLtcC8GYM

Half the country should leave Facebook over this and so many other transgressions.  Same for Google, Twitter, NYT, WashPost etc.  We need either conservative or unbiased alternatives!
Title: Apple takes on the Goolag?!?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 24, 2018, 11:58:22 PM
http://www.jordantimes.com/news/business/apple-chief-pushes-us-privacy-law-stop-%E2%80%98weaponising%E2%80%99-data
Title: The Ministry of propaganda Facebook purges; recent list
Post by: ccp on October 26, 2018, 03:20:44 PM
https://www.westernjournal.com/facebook-purge-list-pages-deleted/
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 26, 2018, 06:46:43 PM
 :-o :-o :-o

That they would not give the full list is a very, very bad sign  :x :x :x
Title: The Creepy Line documentary
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 27, 2018, 03:15:57 PM
https://www.thecreepyline.com/?intro=skip&utm_source=breitbart&utm_medium=email
Title: Twitter deletes conservatives, but keeps Farrakhan
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 29, 2018, 07:42:28 AM
https://ijr.com/farrakhan-twitter-termites-dorsey/
Title: Facebook's script lower case "i"
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 29, 2018, 10:15:58 PM
On FB when I post a URL there now appears a script lower case “I” to the side of it.  Clicking on the “i” brings up a brief background on the site.  I confess my initial reaction is that I like this.
Title: China exports internet censorship in anme of cyber sovereignty
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 02, 2018, 05:49:59 AM


https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/01/asia/internet-freedom-china-censorship-intl/index.html?fbclid=IwAR2cwA76Bh7BVRu-G5DxgB1Dr-JptqpXe391zAGllRRX_qlhnUaRufzDYhY


The term herein of “cyber sovereignty” really caught my attention.  Is this not what many here in America assert vs. Russian and other hostile powers fake news interventions here in the US?
Title: Re: China exports internet censorship in anme of cyber sovereignty
Post by: DougMacG on November 02, 2018, 07:22:38 AM


https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/01/asia/internet-freedom-china-censorship-intl/index.html?fbclid=IwAR2cwA76Bh7BVRu-G5DxgB1Dr-JptqpXe391zAGllRRX_qlhnUaRufzDYhY


The term herein of “cyber sovereignty” really caught my attention.  Is this not what many here in America assert vs. Russian and other hostile powers fake news interventions here in the US?

Orwellian. The censorship term only tells only part of the story.  Keeping things out of the news is different than telling us things that aren't so. What they do is report falsely and sensor anyone correcting or opposing it. Shameful that American companies like Google are involved.

We use the Pravda analogy here but a Soviet survivor says the US msm is worse. They had one news source and they knew it was false, State propaganda. We have a plethora of sources that act as an echo chamber for fake or biased news, NYT, LAT, CBS, NBC, ABC, Washington Post, the Atlantic, the New Yorker, slate, CNN, MSNBC, Minneapolis Star and Sickle, Scientific American, and on and on. The other day it took 55 Google results from a search to get to a different viewpoint.

There is a difference I suppose between invading our news against our will and being hired by a government to alter it.
----------

Red is gray and yellow white, but we decide which is right - and which is an illusion.
Title: The Goolag enables totalitarian fascism
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 03, 2018, 12:15:09 PM
https://www.ted.com/talks/yuval_noah_harari_why_fascism_is_so_tempting_and_how_your_data_could_power_it
Title: Facebook deletes President Trump ad
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 06, 2018, 12:23:52 PM
https://www.westernjournal.com/facebook-removes-trumps-ad-network-24-hours-midterms/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=AE&utm_campaign=can&utm_content=2018-11-06
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: ccp on November 06, 2018, 01:34:24 PM
The Lefts answer to the caravan.

No threat to us.
No biggie
Is not even a real issue - is made up - by Trump. 

And Notice how the MSM has stopped discussing it much!

If they don't show it other then to turn the reality of the threat around to bash Trump , then it is not a problem.
Only a problem in the minds of the awful people who support Trump.
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: bigdog on November 10, 2018, 10:03:21 AM
https://www.cnet.com/news/how-your-privacy-gets-cooked-by-those-restaurant-waitlist-apps/
Title: Deplatforming
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 15, 2018, 09:42:07 PM
Thugs Disrupt MEF Congressional Event

News from the Middle East Forum

November 15, 2018

https://www.meforum.org/articles/2018/thugs-disrupt-mef-congressional-event
Title: Facebook deletes Anne Frank Center post
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 18, 2018, 04:44:31 AM
https://forward.com/fast-forward/409218/facebook-removes-anne-frank-centers-post-promoting-holocaust-education/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sumome_share&fbclid=IwAR2axXcI_o_mWy4JLhBPNW-Z8nyV54LUjhiuIMn9xrfpFcEbPGc83xPfTR0

met with this:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2018/08/30/facebook-criticised-taking-anne-frank-center-post-promoting/?fbclid=IwAR3YkDuPMBOKwKjEtzV5x-Ft0CPHA00qIc0PIU536xmp7Nit3biNfPOANIE
Title: in response to Bigdog's post about restaurants using data
Post by: ccp on November 18, 2018, 11:30:00 AM
to sell to marketers  ( 3 posts previously)

reminds of when I want to a place where I used to get my haircut.  When they started asking me questions about my email my phone number to enter in to *their* data base
I protested and never went back there again

"For goodness sakes", I exclaimed, "I am just coming in here for a haircut".

do you want my social sec # too ?
Title: And we knew this was coming...
Post by: G M on November 19, 2018, 02:41:02 PM
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2018/11/18/democratic-2020-candidate-wants-government-sponsored-social-credit-system-comparable-to-chinas-694640

Title: just something wrong with this
Post by: ccp on November 22, 2018, 04:15:00 AM
work for the government fighting antitrust for the "people" then get bought out by the big money to fight the government and the "people" for Zuck.
I know every in gov does this but just so screwed up:

https://techcrunch.com/2018/11/21/facebook-has-poached-the-dojs-silicon-valley-antitrust-chief/
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 22, 2018, 08:58:25 AM
The opening entry in the Trump Promises Kept thread references an EO that I remember as prohibiting this sort of thing.  Can we find a citation?
Title: The Goolag plays public affairs hardball
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 22, 2018, 09:06:52 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/21/technology/definers-public-affairs-tim-miller.html?fbclid=IwAR2QxY_Mp5SjYllBxFgayXvJt4k3bAV0H-nuw9nFlmfBVZf6_gDf_5rWcgs
Title: Disarm thoughtcriminals
Post by: G M on November 23, 2018, 02:58:58 AM
https://www.wivb.com/news/new-legislation-calls-for-social-media-search-before-pistol-permit-in-ny/1612876779

No guns for badthinkers.
Title: The Chinese Goolag
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 25, 2018, 03:11:13 PM
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-21/beijing-to-judge-every-resident-based-on-behavior-by-end-of-2020?fbclid=IwAR0anodbMEwanEG40qXZ7ZnhCtHHIAeUo7EX0QxoOGs8JOXIP47s2_URCsQ

Edited to add:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-social-credit-system-flight-booking-blacklisted-beijing-points-a8646316.html?fbclid=IwAR2CLnBWSiTFKT-oePzZOLgM2twuPV8j1ncac0JuOyoLWexJ5XTmT59dbdk
Title: Re: The Chinese Goolag
Post by: G M on November 25, 2018, 03:17:38 PM
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-21/beijing-to-judge-every-resident-based-on-behavior-by-end-of-2020?fbclid=IwAR0anodbMEwanEG40qXZ7ZnhCtHHIAeUo7EX0QxoOGs8JOXIP47s2_URCsQ

Already coming into being here.
Title: Twitter's Red Queen Rules
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 27, 2018, 10:53:42 AM
https://www.dailywire.com/news/38697/twitter-vs-science-twitter-changes-rules-will-bar-ben-shapiro?utm_source=shapironewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=112718-news&utm_campaign=position2
Title: The Creepy Line
Post by: G M on November 30, 2018, 05:47:54 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqlDtjnwyPA

Just saw it. A very important movie.
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: ccp on November 30, 2018, 06:48:46 AM
Looks like a good movie
I want to see it.

Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: G M on November 30, 2018, 07:07:39 AM
Looks like a good movie
I want to see it.



You can watch it on Amazon Prime, who of course tracks and sells the media you watch...
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: ccp on November 30, 2018, 07:58:21 AM
"You can watch it on Amazon Prime, who of course tracks and sells the media you watch..."

 :-o

( could i venture to guess it is censored through Google or FB or listed on the 100th page of a search on their sites.)
Title: Big Tech's Authoritarian Practices Are Accelerating. Will You Submit?
Post by: G M on November 30, 2018, 10:03:10 PM
https://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/do-you-hear-the-people-tweet/

Big Tech's Authoritarian Practices Are Accelerating. Will You Submit?
 BY RICHARD FERNANDEZ NOVEMBER 26, 2018

Glenn Reynolds has deactivated his Twitter account, citing the banning of Jesse Kelly for no apparent reason as the immediate cause of his disillusionment with the platform. Explaining his decision, he wrote:

Why should I provide free content to people I don’t like, who hate me? I’m currently working on a book on social media, and I keep coming back to the point that Twitter is far and away the most socially destructive of the various platforms. So I decided to suspend them, as they are suspending others. At least I’m giving my reasons, which is more than they’ve done usually.
He may have beaten the digital bouncers to the door by only a little. The Thought Police are rushing to ensure that everyone toes the line. The Straits Times reports that "Facebook will allow French regulators to 'embed' inside the company to examine how it combats online hate speech, the first time the wary tech giant has opened its doors in such a way, President Emmanuel Macron said."

The trial project is an example of what Mr Macron has called "smart regulation", something he wants to extend to other tech leaders such as Google, Apple and Amazon.
The move follows a meeting with Facebook's founder, Mr Mark Zuckerberg, in May, when Mr Macron invited the chief executive officers of some of the biggest tech firms to Paris, telling them they should work for the common good.

The officials may be seconded from the telecoms regulator and the interior and justice ministries, a government source said. Facebook said the selection was up to the French presidency.

It is unclear whether the group will have access to highly sensitive material such as Facebook's algorithms or codes to remove hate speech. It could travel to Facebook's European headquarters in Dublin and global base in Menlo Park, California, if necessary, the company said.

This is the same Emmanuel Macron who is worried that protests by the French miserables against his crushing environmental fuel taxes could hurt the government's image:

The French president told ministers at a cabinet meeting on Monday that the government must respond after images were relayed around the world of police firing teargas and water cannon at protesters who set up barricades, lit fires and smashed restaurants and shopfronts on the Champs-Élysées.
It's not just Macron who is leaning on Google. The government of China is also exerting pressure on the tech companies to help them to build a social media surveillance state. Here's Ben Gomes, Google's search engine chief who "joked about the unpredictability of President Donald Trump and groaned about the ongoing trade war between the U.S. and China, which has slowed down Google’s negotiations with Communist Party officials in Beijing, whose approval Google requires to launch the censored search engine":

China I think is one of the most interesting markets, arguably the most interesting market in the world today. Just by virtue of being there and paying attention to the Chinese market, we will learn things, because in many ways China was leading the world in some kinds of innovation. We need to understand what is happening there in order to inspire us. It’s not just a one-way street. China will teach us things that we don’t know. And the people, as you work on this, both in the Chinese offices and elsewhere, paying attention to the things that are happening there is incredibly valuable for us as Google, potentially not just in China, but somewhere else entirely.
One of the things China will pioneer, as the New York Times reports, is to use "A.I., shame and lots of cameras" to control its population:

With millions of cameras and billions of lines of code, China is building a high-tech authoritarian future. Beijing is embracing technologies like facial recognition and artificial intelligence to identify and track 1.4 billion people. It wants to assemble a vast and unprecedented national surveillance system, with crucial help from its thriving technology industry ...
China is reversing the commonly held vision of technology as a great democratizer, bringing people more freedom and connecting them to the world. In China, it has brought control.

...

“The goal is algorithmic governance.”

The control system China is implementing creates two classes of citizens: the Woke and the Haters.  The former will be rewarded and the latter banned from any responsible role in life:

China’s plan to judge each of its 1.3 billion people based on their social behavior is moving a step closer to reality, with Beijing set to adopt a lifelong points program by 2021 that assigns personalized ratings for each resident ... The Beijing project will improve blacklist systems so that those deemed untrustworthy will be "unable to move even a single step."
As Tyler Grant notes in The Hill, the basic algorithms behind the Chinese social scoring system and Western hate speech systems are essentially the same. "It’s tempting to think this government overreach is purely reserved to China, after all they did just forfeit significant freedom by electing Xi Jinping president for life. This is incorrect thinking. The rest of the world is steps away from trailing the Chinese into a surveillance state":

The U.K. fines and even imprisons people for hate speech or speech deemed abhorrent to the prevailing norms of society. The U.S. is not far behind. Last week, a Manhattan judge ruled a bar can toss Trump supporters for their political viewpoints. A recent proliferation of politically motivated boycotts seeks to punish "bad" viewpoints; protesters are eager to shout down incorrect speech. In this political climate, it’s not difficult to imagine businesses or the government assessing social benefit or worth based upon a variety of factors including political speech.
With incredible data collection, the plumbing is already in place for such a system to take hold. Our tech companies catalogue large quantities of data on everyone. As we saw with Cambridge Analytica in the 2016 election, this data can be used to steer particular viewpoints; it’s not a far cry to imagine information being used to control viewpoints.

There's nothing to lose by quitting if they're coming for you anyway. At least you get a head start.
Title: Goolag lies
Post by: G M on December 06, 2018, 04:44:27 PM
https://pjmedia.com/trending/study-finds-googles-incognito-mode-is-a-lie-its-an-illusion/
Google Tracks Users in Incognito Mode, Study Finds

 BY TYLER O'NEIL DECEMBER 5, 2018

Google Incognito mode screenshot.

On Tuesday, Google competitor Duck Duck Go released a study showing that Google gives users personalized search results, even when a user goes into "incognito mode." Dr. Robert Epstein, a Ph.D. psychologist who focuses on search engine manipulation, drew the logical conclusion Duck Duck Go refused to state.

"The incognito mode is a lie, that's what they found," Epstein, whose research features prominently in the recent film "The Creepy Line," told PJ Media on Wednesday. "The kind of search results they were getting from people in incognito mode and in normal mode were extremely similar, and of course the results that one person got were extremely different than the results that another person got."

"That's another way of saying that incognito mode is a lie. It's an illusion," the psychologist explained. "They didn't say that, but that's what they found."

While incognito mode "may hide certain kinds of things from certain kinds of websites," letting users get around paywalls of various kinds, it does not hide a user's identity from Google. This means Google still carries out surveillance to know what users want and applies its advertising to leverage the algorithm to their profit, even in "incognito mode."

Epstein admitted that the study had problems. "We have a credibility problem for sure — they didn't tell us how they found their volunteers, for example," he said. He also faulted the study for "just showing you the raw numbers without using statistical methods to see whether these numbers are significant statistically. They didn't do that, for some reason."

However, the psychologist did a deep dive into the results and found them rather credible, so long as the volunteers were truly chosen at random. That said, Epstein did not side with Duck Duck Go over Google.

"I don't recommend Duck Duck Go to people, even though I believe they don't track data and I think that's great," he explained. "I don't recommend it because I don't find the quality of their search results to be very good."

Google may offer a better product, but the company does not deserve users' trust. "I don't think Google is an honest company and I think this study is another indicator of that," Epstein said.

Google Bias Against Conservative News Is 'Much More Dangerous' Than China's Actions, Expert Says
"They routinely favor search results that benefit the company," he explained, noting multiple fines from the European Union, India, and Russia for abusing its dominant position on the Google Play store.

Some people might see the potential for shenanigans in re-ordering the search results, but Epstein warned that manipulation starts even with the underlying algorithm. "It doesn't matter whether someone is deliberately re-ranking. What matters is how they build the algorithm," he explained. "It favors the company's own values, products and services. That's how they build the algorithm."

The psychologist responded to an article by the Guardian's Oscar Schwartz, which re-assures audiences that Google has no biases against conservatives or others, but just gives the user what users want.

"All the article does is toe the line. It just repeats Google's own claims about what it does and it repeats them uncritically," Epstein shot back. He argued that Schwartz "doesn't understand when a search algorithm favors one product, candidate, or cause more than another. To say that it's because of user behavior is to say nothing. That's Google's defense, and it's absurd."

Epstein referenced a very recent example of Google auto-fill bias. He typed in "The republican party is," and the top suggestions included "the single greatest threat," "dead in california," and "about to drown." The top results for "The democratic party is" were "an example of a 527 organization" and "based on the following ideas."

View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter

Dr. Robert Epstein
@DrREpstein
 Here's another example of how #GSA (fka #Google) manipulates people's thinking by suppressing negative search suggestions for causes it supports. I captured these images early this morning (Dec 5, 2018). Notice how negatives are suppressed for #Democrats but not for #Republicans:

12
1:17 AM - Dec 5, 2018
16 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
"If you looked up Google trends and you looked for these phrases, you’d find that virtually no one has ever searched for 'the democratic party is based on the following ideas,'" the psychologist explained. Indeed, I checked Google Trends, and sure enough there was not enough data.


Google Trends screenshot for "The Democratic Party is based on the following ideas."
As Epstein suggested, however, there were a great many results for "The Democratic Party is corrupt."


Google Trends screenshot for "The Democratic Party is corrupt."
If the "corrupt" angle gets far more searches from users than the "ideas" angle, why does the search suggestion favor "ideas" over "corrupt"?

"Why don't we see that? Because we know from research that the simplest way to support any cause or candidate is to suppress negatives," the psychologist explained. "It's a simple manipulation which we know can dramatically shift the opinions and preferences of undecided voters."

Google Exec Boasted About Helping Hillary Clinton by Boosting Latino Turnout in 2016
Epstein also referenced a study he had performed in 2016, showing that Google suppressed negative search results about Hillary Clinton, while Bing and Yahoo did not.

View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter

Dr. Robert Epstein
@DrREpstein
 So @toco8a believes that #GSA (formerly #Google) doesn't use search suggestions to manipulate people. See the images below (from Aug. 3, 2016), and see what you think. For further info, see my research summary here: http://aibrt.org/downloads/EPSTEIN_MOHR_&_MARTINEZ_2018-WPA-The_Search_Suggestion_Effect-SSE-WP-17-03.pdf …

17
9:00 AM - Nov 25, 2018
21 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
The psychologist's research has shown that suppressing negative results can shift a 50-50 split among undecided voters to a 90-10 split. "Negatives draw attention, negatives can draw ten to fifteen times as many clicks," thanks to "negativity bias."

His research also concluded that this kind of manipulation is "subliminal" — people don't notice it.

Ironically, when someone like Epstein calls foul on one-sided results, the behemoth search engine company merely alters the system.

"When they get caught, they usually make a change. It's absurd for them to say that all of this is just occurring because of impartial algorithms. That's just not true," the psychologist said.

Then there are the leaks. Google executives bragged about increasing Latino turnout in 2016, hoping it would help Hillary Clinton. In September, The Wall Street Journal uncovered emails in which Google workers discussed manipulating search results to disfavor President Trump's travel ban. Last week, the Daily Caller unveiled more emails, showing Google executives scheming against conservative media outlets.

Yet journalists like Schwartz can't accept the fact of manipulation. Epstein explained that, too. "People can see the human hand when they're reading an article and on a television or radio show, but when they're dealing with algorithmic output, they don't see the human hand so they trust algorithms more than any other type of media."

Google has three major manipulation strategies. The company "personalizes search suggestions, search results, and answer boxes." The "answer box" effect proves most powerful, the psychologist explained.

"When you query Google either using the search engine's 'I'm feeling lucky' or the home device or Google assistant, they just give you the answer," Epstein said. "When they give you the answer, three things happen: people spend less time searching; they click on fewer search results; and the shift in opinions increases between 10 and 30 percent."

"Giving someone the answer has a more powerful effect than search results that favor one cause or candidate or company," Epstein explained. Google is excellent at personalizing results, and "the better you are at personalizing them, the greater impact you're going to have on people's opinions."

The company also knows how to mask its manipulations, and the psychologist suggested that it may use more obvious manipulations as a red herring, to distract from the more fundamental attempts to shape public opinion. The "fake news" freakout has only made this strategy more effective.

New Movie Claims Google Handed the Popular Vote to Hillary Clinton in 2016
"Google and Facebook have co-operated to combat fake news stories and Russian-placed ads," Epstein noted. "I think these companies are loving that our attention is drawn away from what they themselves are doing."

The psychologist often refers to Google as "GSA." "I call it Google Surveillance and Advertising, L.L.C.," he told PJ Media. "Surveillance is what they do and advertising is how they make their money."

This surveillance and advertising combine to form an effective money-making machine and give the company tremendous power to influence public opinion. Indeed, Epstein's research has found that Google's bias in favor of Hillary Clinton accounts for her margin of victory in the popular vote.

Thanks to Duck Duck Go, Americans know that "incognito mode" cannot hide users from Google's personalized results. If "incognito mode" is a lie, what else is?

Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 06, 2018, 06:08:22 PM
Posting this forward!
Title: The Neo-Luddites?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 07, 2018, 03:40:10 PM
In the movie "Terminator" what was the name of the computer network that came alive?


-------------------

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/04/will-2018-be-the-year-of-the-neo-luddite?fbclid=IwAR1rhhtlBYPsz26D4o80Deb3HWKjVM28JxAPrfIOwsBetgaDYi7GrPWdYsQ
Title: WSJ: Facebook censors at random
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 10, 2018, 06:28:18 AM
Facebook Censors at Random
The social network’s rules on political advertising burden nonprofits and are impossible to understand.
65 Comments
By Daniel Gallant
Dec. 9, 2018 5:52 p.m. ET
Facebook Censors at Random
Photo: David Gothard

If you used Facebook in late November, you probably saw a stream of fundraising campaigns for charities and cultural organizations. That’s because Facebook offered up to $7 million in matching donations for nonprofits that used its platform to raise funds on Giving Tuesday. But this gesture masks the negative impact Facebook’s newly adopted advertising policies have had on nonprofit organizations that rely on social media.

In response to public scrutiny stemming from the Cambridge Analytica scandal this year, Facebook has implemented enforcement measures aimed at improving election security and discouraging anonymous political messages. These measures have been poorly executed and inconsistently applied. They unfairly burden charitable organizations and small businesses, yet are easy for organized or well-funded actors to circumvent.

Several paid advertising campaigns run by my colleagues and clients have been inexplicably obstructed by Facebook’s policing in the past several months. Facebook refused to allow my New York cultural nonprofit, the Nuyorican Poets Cafe, to pay to promote a post encouraging people to vote in the midterms because our page was not “authorized to run ads related to politics.” A campaign promoting a lecture about sculpture at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts was blocked because Facebook’s censors mistakenly believed it was intended to influence an election in Ireland.

Similarly, Arts Japan 2020, an entity that highlights Japan-related cultural programs in the U.S., was unable to promote a post celebrating an award given by the emperor of Japan to an American arts curator. Facebook claimed the topic was of “national importance.” These harmless posts remain on Facebook in unpromoted form, but unpromoted content has a limited reach.

The problem is widespread. The Atlantic reported on Nov. 2 that Facebook’s election-security policies have caused it to block advertising campaigns from organizations including community centers, national parks and charities that serve wounded veterans.

Representatives of charities are often reluctant to register as political advertisers on Facebook because of privacy concerns. Facebook requires users to disclose significant personal information before promoting posts about politics or national issues. To be authorized to run such advertisements on behalf of my nonprofit organization, I would have to send Facebook my residential address, my Social Security number, and a photo of myself holding my passport or driver’s license. I’m loath to entrust any entity with all of that sensitive information—especially Facebook, which could use its facial-recognition software to match my personal information with photos of me that might appear online.

But suppose I did submit those items and was therefore allowed to promote political content. If I subsequently broke the rules, Facebook wouldn’t necessarily hold the nonprofit I represent responsible. Under Facebook’s policies, the person who operates an ad account is accountable for any ads placed by that account.

The only real protection Facebook’s identification requirements might provide is a guarantee that Facebook users can determine the true identity of the marketer responsible for a political advertisement. Or can they? A well-resourced advertiser with nefarious intent could simply hire a patsy (or use fake credentials) to pass Facebook’s screening process and establish a nominal presence at an American address.

As several reporters have recently discovered, Facebook allows many advertisers who pass its invasive screening process to run political ads under any identity they choose. A recent Vice article describes how Facebook approved political ads by reporters who pretended to be 100 different senators. And Business Insider was able to post political Facebook ads that purported to be from Cambridge Analytica.

In the name of election security, Facebook has implemented an opaque and shape-shifting definition of “issues of national importance” and an intrusive vetting process that is poorly enforced. These don’t protect users or the American public. Unless Facebook offers more transparency and accountability, determined marketers will remain able to circumvent the process. And despite benevolent gestures on Giving Tuesday, nonprofits and small businesses will continue to suffer under Facebook’s arbitrary restrictions.

Mr. Gallant, a social-media marketing consultant, is executive director of the Nuyorican Poets Cafe.
Title: Sharia apps cool with the Goolag
Post by: G M on December 10, 2018, 07:04:59 AM
https://bigleaguepolitics.com/google-approves-app-for-muslims-to-report-people-who-commit-blasphemy/

Don't be evil.
Title: Google goes after Breitbart
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 10, 2018, 06:30:49 PM


https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/12/10/exclusive-senior-google-employees-target-breitbart-adsense/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_content=links&utm_campaign=20181210
Title: Sara Carter: Gaetz grills Google CEO
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 11, 2018, 07:02:32 PM


https://saraacarter.com/gaetz-grills-google-ceo-over-employee-resist-plot/?fbclid=IwAR1Q-SKkrKIUMNnfvJBFeOSfOJPA3QOfCk4AWoanR-vJ6T8wrCY4tighS4U
Title: Suddenly the LEFt is annoyed
Post by: ccp on December 12, 2018, 05:25:43 AM
what a coincidence that all this stuff is suddenly front and center news only because of Cambridge Analytica

The Left was happy to take money and look the other way when supporting oBama but as soon as the perception that  *they* were crossed  and suddenly this is a scandal that needs to be addressed.
Title: Re: Suddenly the LEFt is annoyed
Post by: DougMacG on December 12, 2018, 08:14:59 AM
what a coincidence that all this stuff is suddenly front and center news only because of Cambridge Analytica

The Left was happy to take money and look the other way when supporting oBama but as soon as the perception that  *they* were crossed  and suddenly this is a scandal that needs to be addressed.

Just saying how would you like it if it happened to you doesn't substitute for when it really happens to them.

Everyone thought is was hip and cool that Obama people were experts at "data mining".  I allege they had nearly complete lists of welfare rolls, because their people work there and why wouldn't they, moral ethics?  AFSCME and Club for Growth have no overlap.  Now we know 63% of "non-citizen" residents are listed on the welfare rolls, all likely Democrats and great turnout enhancement opportunities if you don't mind a little law breaking.  Facebook got Obama's data miners to nearly everyone too and they can target it for left thinking Democrats like a whole foods store.  As ccp says, then Trump does it and now they care about data privacy.  Belated welcome.
Title: Coulter calls on Trump to abandon Twitter and join Gab
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 13, 2018, 12:02:05 PM


https://bigleaguepolitics.com/ann-coulter-urges-trump-to-snub-twitter-join-free-speech-supporting-gab/
Title: Youtube and Hamas
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 16, 2018, 08:37:38 PM


https://israelunwired.com/hamas-live-streaming-terror-event-on-youtube/
Title: Goolag memory hole-ing Hillary info
Post by: G M on December 17, 2018, 04:04:17 PM
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/378734.php

Title: How Totalitarian Regimes will take over social media
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 18, 2018, 02:37:00 PM
https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Terra-Incognita-How-totalitarian-regimes-will-take-over-social-media-and-destroy-the-West-574595?fbclid=IwAR0DcnDA5---DzooERL_LoCXu7_DP5Cd9i1fkrWNX9_4-LTxE39pRzou3T8
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: ccp on December 18, 2018, 03:13:16 PM
   
"How Totalitarian Regimes will take over social media"

Like the present state and stated goals of the Democratic Party
Title: I strongly suspected this
Post by: G M on December 19, 2018, 03:59:28 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/technology/facebook-privacy.html

You are the product.

Title: Re: I strongly suspected this
Post by: G M on December 19, 2018, 04:05:54 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/technology/facebook-privacy.html

You are the product.



http://ace.mu.nu/archives/378757.php
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: ccp on December 19, 2018, 04:44:21 PM
 I imagine we are all duped into signing off on this data "sharing" during our excursions on the net

you know their shysters with their stock options have it the fine print some where.

I don't use FB and would rather be dead then sign up to that little shits site
Title: Skullduggery in Amazonia
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 21, 2018, 08:13:34 AM
https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/19/18140799/amazon-marketplace-scams-seller-court-appeal-reinstatement
Title: Cong. Gohmert introduces bill removing liability protection
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 22, 2018, 07:02:55 AM
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=59592&fbclid=IwAR35SiMuaOPrezlY0ZBthcnMpdedAfOfn19VYgQY3Oc442C56h5lZ2sVGKc
Title: The man turning China into a quantum superpower
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 23, 2018, 12:00:50 PM
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612596/the-man-turning-china-into-a-quantum-superpower/?utm_source=pocket&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pockethits
Title: impressive though I don't understand it well
Post by: ccp on December 23, 2018, 12:33:52 PM
"The man turning China into a quantum superpower"

*Jian-Wei Pan, China’s “father of quantum”

I posted once before if I could come back to life again I would want to be  a great physicist .

This guy sounds amazing.

"1 and 0 simultaneously"  What??????

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/quantum-physics-may-be-even-spookier-than-you-think/
Title: FB paying Snopes to push propaganda
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 24, 2018, 02:40:50 PM


https://neonnettle.com/news/5930-snopes-paid-to-push-propaganda-by-facebook-former-editor-reveals
Title: Goolag sends Kurdistan down the memory hole at request of Turkey
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 26, 2018, 11:28:31 PM


http://www.kurdistan24.net/en/news/e6a0b65e-84fa-447b-9ed4-5df8390961d3?fbclid=IwAR30IC0JMtdHb-BQ1Ti0_vQkCIa0Rg1L-bNbGhj7ix8pLGHQny1pY5FulOY
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: ccp on December 27, 2018, 04:16:47 AM
Yes and the Turks already to move in where the US troops were in Syria and exactly where Kurdish fighters are.

Sickening how we screwed them over - again .
Title: How Much of the Internet Is Fake?
Post by: bigdog on December 27, 2018, 07:41:30 AM
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/how-much-of-the-internet-is-fake.html
Title: youtube changes algo due to lessen pro-life videos search results
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 27, 2018, 11:34:11 AM


https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/youtube-cowers-liberals-pro-life-videos-top-abortion-search-results/?ff_source=push&ff_medium=westernjournalism&ff_campaign=manualpost&ff_content=2018-12-27
Title: Facebook censors for "illegal immigrant"
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 01, 2019, 12:04:31 PM
https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/facebook-suspends-account-calling-alleged-cop-killer-illegal-immigrant/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=westernjournalism&utm_content=2018-12-31&utm_campaign=manualpost&fbclid=IwAR0j6ZhsRyj2OJR2whQ8q-lPfU2vRKqffndWubOEKLrEsJl_0SJiNeEMHpA
Title: FaceHugger Book goes for direct brain interface
Post by: G M on January 01, 2019, 02:22:17 PM
https://www.businessinsider.com/chan-zuckerberg-research-implantable-brain-device-primates-2018-12

Zuck promises it will be for therapeutic use only!
Title: CA court case
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 02, 2019, 07:56:18 AM

http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/a-california-court-finds-social-media-posts-arent-a-first-amendment-right/
Title: why can't right wing lawyers do the same against FB for sharing info with Obama?
Post by: ccp on January 10, 2019, 07:06:25 AM
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/how-an-experimental-billion-dollar-lawsuit-could-clobber-facebook-1174468
Title: Goolag prepares for complete Big Brother
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 13, 2019, 11:14:19 AM


https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/11/25/google-wants-sensors-and-cameras-in-every-room-of-your-home-to-watch-analyze-you-patents-show?utm_content=bufferc42fd&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=theblaze
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: ccp on January 13, 2019, 03:36:59 PM
They will control all intellectual property

people will be amazed to see their ideas miraculously already being done
by others
Title: Facebook Speech Rule Book
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 14, 2019, 01:33:58 PM
https://clarionproject.org/facebooks-secret-rulebook-against-free-speech/



Title: FaceHugger's 10 year challenge
Post by: G M on January 21, 2019, 02:43:02 PM
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/379267.php

"Soypunk Dystopia:" Is FaceBook's #10YearChallenge Meme Just A Sneaky Way to Get People to Upload Pictures of Themselves So That FaceBook Can Improve Its Facial Recognition and Aging Effects Projection Software?
"Soypunk dystopia" coined by Tim Pool.

So, if you've noticed people posting pictures of themselves in current year along with a picture of themselves from ten years ago, that's because >FaceBook told them it would be a fun, cool, hip, harmless game to do so.

But is it?

If you use social media, you've probably noticed a trend across Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter of people posting their then-and-now profile pictures, mostly from 10 years ago and this year.

Instead of joining in, I posted the following semi-sarcastic tweet:


Kate O'Neill

@kateo
 Me 10 years ago: probably would have played along with the profile picture aging meme going around on Facebook and Instagram
Me now: ponders how all this data could be mined to train facial recognition algorithms on age progression and age recognition

24.7K
1:25 PM - Jan 12, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
11.6K people are talking about this


My flippant tweet began to pick up traction. My intent wasn't to claim that the meme is inherently dangerous. But I knew the facial recognition scenario was broadly plausible and indicative of a trend that people should be aware of. It’s worth considering the depth and breadth of the personal data we share without reservations.

Of those who were critical of my thesis, many argued that the pictures were already available anyway. The most common rebuttal was: "That data is already available. Facebook's already got all the profile pictures."

Tim Pool (not the author of the piece) says his reaction to that wasn't one of relief, but of alarm: Oh shit, that's right. I've already given them all this personal shit about me without having thought about it at all.

But that's not quite true. I'm guessing that most people who do this "Ten Year Challenge" stage a new photo in which they are angled and posed exactly as they were in their photo from ten years ago, to better show Now Vs. Then.

Which is exactly what you'd want to sharpen a facial-aging-projection program. You wouldn't want to have to compare a three-quarters semi-profile with a straight-on shot. You'd want the faces to be in the same postures and in the same angles, so that the programming as a true apples to older apples database to work with.

This is creepy shit and these people are no one's friends.
Title: Surveillance capitalism
Post by: G M on January 23, 2019, 01:16:31 PM
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/20/shoshana-zuboff-age-of-surveillance-capitalism-google-facebook

A rare piece from the RedGuardian worth reading.
Title: The internet of things is not your friend
Post by: G M on February 07, 2019, 12:35:42 PM
https://boingboing.net/2019/01/29/fiat-lux.html

Anyone think this is a good idea?
Title: The Weaponization of Civil Conflict
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 08, 2019, 01:47:18 PM


https://medium.com/deep-code/the-weaponization-of-civil-conflict-c3204a912c15
Title: Google and Facebook worsen media bias
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 11, 2019, 08:41:34 AM
Google and Facebook Worsen Media Bias
Silicon Valley’s advertising monopoly translates into editorial influence.
23 Comments
By Mark Epstein
Feb. 10, 2019 3:04 p.m. ET

After the news industry laid off some 2,100 workers from Vice, Gannett, McClatchy, BuzzFeed and the Huffington Post, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez blamed “tech monopolies” that have no “incentive to disseminate high-quality, true information.” President Trump blames the press itself: “Fake News and bad journalism have caused a big downturn.”

While these diagnoses of journalism’s ills appear contradictory, both stem from the same root. Allowing a few platforms to control financing and distribution exacerbates the groupthink Mr. Trump rails against.

More than two-thirds of Americans get news from social media. Google and Facebook control a large majority of the digital advertising market that used to be a major source of revenue for the news industry. Tech companies have leveraged their control of news distribution to entrench their advertising dominance. Facebook’s Instant Articles publishes the full text of an article in the platform and shares ad revenue with the publisher. Google punishes publications that raise revenue through subscriptions rather than advertising by downgrading search results of paywalled sites that don’t provide free clicks. Google loosened its restrictions after criticism from publishers and threats of European antitrust enforcement, but it also introduced a “Subscribe With Google” service.

Instant Articles and Subscribe With Google may be convenient, but they also give the duopoly more control over the media’s revenue and data, further centralizing news distribution. Google and Facebook have gained editorial influence over the press. They enact content guidelines as a condition for participation in advertising services. Both companies consult with left-wing groups such as Media Matters to determine what sites to exclude.

Now Google and Facebook are offering journalism grants to try to make up for their impact on the news industry. Last March the Google News Initiative pledged $300 million to aid publishers, and Facebook promised a similar amount last month. Charity from Big Tech makes the news industry more dependent.

The flow of funds also reflects the companies’ Democratic tilt. In 2016 Google sponsored the “Electionland” initiatives with ProPublica, the New York Times, USA Today and Univision, among others, for the stated purpose of “ensuring all Americans could freely exercise their right to vote by shining a light on problems that might get in their way.” In practice Electionland’s scores of articles universally criticized then-candidate Donald Trump or reinforced the liberal position on issues like voter ID and voter fraud.

Arthur Schlesinger Jr. observed that power in America is control of the means of communication. Mr. Trump—who has also accused Google, Facebook and Twitter of political bias—should be more concerned about the concentrated power of Big Tech than any news outlet.

While antitrust law focuses on economic effects, the Supreme Court said in Red Lion Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission (1969) that it also complements the First Amendment’s “uninhibited marketplace of ideas,” which does not “countenance monopolization of that market.” The antidote to media bias isn’t schadenfreude over a few publications’ travails but antitrust policies to ensure news outlets across the political spectrum can be independent of Silicon Valley.

Mr. Epstein is an antitrust attorney and freelance writer.
Title: AI Fake Text generator to dangerous to release?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 15, 2019, 11:47:42 AM


https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/feb/14/elon-musk-backed-ai-writes-convincing-news-fiction?fbclid=IwAR0zuK-7FQXyfld2XEVKBCRW0afuXRlMCitVLRUr061kmiJf8u12mLk0Sk0
Title: From PJ media listed quotes good food for thought
Post by: ccp on February 17, 2019, 09:52:29 AM
https://pjmedia.com/trending/15-devastating-quotes-that-show-you-how-dangerous-social-media-has-become-to-our-society/

Marc:  Pasting these here so they don't get vaporized:


Fifteen Devastating Quotes That Show How Dangerous Social Media Has Become to Society
By John Hawkins February 14, 2019
chat 112 comments
Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook headquarters in Palo Alto, Calif. (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma, File)

Once you get beyond the government, the greatest threats to free speech and free thought in America are the social media companies that have been allowed to become monopolies. If there is such a thing as a public square in the modern world, these companies increasingly control it and decide who gets heard, who doesn’t, and what ideas the public is ALLOWED to see. This is much more dangerous to our republic than most people realize. You'll get a better idea of why that is as you read these quotes.

1. “A handful of people, working at a handful of technology companies, through their choices will steer what a billion people are thinking today. I don’t know a more urgent problem than this. It’s changing our democracy, and it’s changing our ability to have the conversations and relationships that we want with each other.” – Former Google employee Tristan Harris

2. “Randomized, controlled experiments conducted with more than 10,000 people from 39 countries suggest that one company alone — Google LLC, which controls about 90 percent of online search in most countries — has likely been determining the outcomes of upwards of 25 percent of the national elections in the world for several years now, with increasing impact each year as Internet penetration has grown.” – Robert Epstein

Watch Our Trending Videos

3. "The YouTube algorithm that I helped build in 2011 still recommends the flat earth theory by the *hundreds of millions.* This investigation by @RawStory shows some of the real-life consequences of this badly designed AI.... So basically we have the two best AIs of the world, on Instagram and YouTube, competing to convince people that the earth is flat. Because it yields large amounts of watch time, and watch time yields ads. This is a #raceToTheBottom....Flat Earth is not a ‘small bug.’ It reveals that there is a structural problem in Google's and Facebook's AIs: they exploit weaknesses of the most vulnerable people, to make them believe the darnedest things." -- Former YouTube and Google employee Guillaume Chaslot

4. “The dynamics of the attention economy are structurally set up to undermine the human will. If politics is an expression of our human will, on individual and collective levels, then the attention economy is directly undermining the assumptions that democracy rests on. If Apple, Facebook, Google, Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat are gradually chipping away at our ability to control our own minds, could there come a point, I ask, at which democracy no longer functions?” – Former Google strategist James Williams
Sponsored

5. "Social networking sites might tap into the basic brain systems for delivering pleasurable experience. However, these experiences are devoid of cohesive narrative and long-term significance. As a consequence, the mid-21st-century mind might almost be infantilised, characterised by short attention spans, sensationalism, inability to empathise and a shaky sense of identity." – Oxford professor Susan Greenfield

6. “Twice as many teenagers now have depression as a generation ago. This high rate of depression has no biological explanation. Instead, it appears to be caused by engagement with social media on smartphones. It’s now clear that there’s a strong association between use of social media and depression in adolescents. The more depressed adolescents are, the more they use social media; the more they use social media, the more depressed they are. Which causes which is unclear, but whatever the cause, it’s a vicious cycle.” -- Dr. Nassir Ghaemi

7. "Just before July fourth, for example, Facebook automatically blocked a post from a Texas newspaper that it claimed contained hate speech. Facebook then asked the paper to 'review the contents of its page and remove anything that does not comply with Facebook’s policies.' The text at issue was the Declaration of Independence." -- Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)

8. “Core assumption in tech: personalized ads are better for users. Ads exploit your insecurities to manipulate you into buying stuff you don't need. Who wants their personal insecurities amplified?" – Former Google employee James Damore

9. "Shallow emotions. An incapacity to feel genuine love. A need for stimulation. Frequent verbal outbursts. Poor behavioral controls. These are just some of the things that social media are encouraging in all of us. They're also a pretty comprehensive diagnostic checklist for sociopathy — in fact, that's where I got the list." -- Milo Yiannopoulos

10. “Cosmetic surgery procedures have increased 137 percent since 2000, according to a report by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, with young people contributing to the rise significantly. In what scientists have called ‘Snapchat dysmorphia,’ young people are increasingly getting plastic surgery to look like the versions of themselves they see in social media filters. ‘There's less guilt about undergoing procedures,’ says plastic and reconstructive surgeon Dr. Lara Devgan. ‘Five or 10 years ago, people might have brought in pictures of a magazine cover supermodel. Now, they're bringing in pictures of themselves, but just in a slightly optimized way.’ – Broadly

11. "One of the things I've been very interested in is feats of concentration that people used to perform all the time — [such as] writing a book in six weeks or a computer program in a few days. I don’t think that’s impossible now, but I do think it’s become considerably harder in our environment to enter important and deep states of focus and concentration, because we surround ourselves with technology, whose business model is to distract us.

"Our computers are ostensibly productivity-enhancing machines, but they also are loaded with platforms whose business model is to consume as much of your time as possible with ads and noise and distraction.

"There’s nothing wrong with taking a break, but we've engineered our environment for distraction. We bob from one thing to another, perpetually. And I don't know if it's so great for our culture or even ourselves." -- Tim Wu, author of The Attention Merchants.

12. "Facebook and Google assert with merit that they are giving users what they want. The same can be said about tobacco companies and drug dealers. The people who run Facebook and Google are good people, whose well-intentioned strategies have led to horrific unintended consequences. The problem is that there is nothing the companies can do to address the harm unless they abandon their current advertising models.” -- Roger McNamee, a venture capitalist who was an early investor in Google and Facebook

13. “I don't know if I really understood the consequences of what I was saying, because [of] the unintended consequences of a network when it grows to a billion or 2 billion people and... it literally changes your relationship with society, with each other... It probably interferes with productivity in weird ways. God only knows what it's doing to our children's brains. The thought process that went into building these applications, Facebook being the first of them... was all about: 'How do we consume as much of your time and conscious attention as possible?' And that means that we need to sort of give you a little dopamine hit every once in a while, because someone liked or commented on a photo or a post or whatever. And that's going to get you to contribute more content, and that's going to get you... more likes and comments. It's a social-validation feedback loop... exactly the kind of thing that a hacker like myself would come up with, because you're exploiting a vulnerability in human psychology.”-- Facebook's first president, Sean Parker, on social media

14. "[Users of my service], trust me. Dumb f*cks." – Mark Zuckerberg

15. “The short-term, dopamine-driven feedback loops that we have created are destroying how society works—no civil discourse, no coöperation, misinformation, mistruth.... I feel tremendous guilt. I think we all knew in the back of our minds, [our children] are not allowed to use this sh*t." -- Chamath Palihapitiya, the former vice president of Facebook user growth
Title: Hoax suppressed by FaceHugger
Post by: G M on February 18, 2019, 02:25:45 PM
https://pjmedia.com/trending/censored-facebook-bans-conservative-articles-on-jussie-smollett-hate-hoax/
Title: Google's hidden wiretap
Post by: G M on February 20, 2019, 12:50:02 PM
https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/02/20/the-nest-secure-has-a-hidden-microphone-and-google-didnt-tell-owners-for-18-months
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: ccp on February 20, 2019, 04:23:18 PM
It is simply not enough for politicians to speak of regulating this or a corporate fine on a company that has a makert cap of several hundred billion.
executives need to serve time.

But on second thought ,
Of course government lawyers against the army of $1000/  hr attorneys Google can muster , is I guess a mere child's fantasy anyway.

These people are no different the mafia bosses really .
never any real accountability.
Title: AI and the end of high trust society
Post by: G M on February 25, 2019, 12:19:07 PM
https://medium.com/s/story/when-tech-leaves-no-space-for-humans-89becafa3a20

Nothing you see or hear can be trusted.
Title: Amazon's "Spy-Ring"
Post by: G M on February 25, 2019, 02:18:10 PM
https://nypost.com/2019/01/11/employees-at-amazons-ring-have-been-spying-on-customers/
Title: FUtube deplatforms ret. Navy SEAL
Post by: G M on February 26, 2019, 06:34:01 PM
https://pjmedia.com/trending/youtube-deplatforms-retired-navy-seal-who-exposed-tribal-elder-nathan-phillips-stolen-valor/
Title: Silicon Valley Sharia
Post by: G M on February 27, 2019, 12:37:03 PM
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin022719.php3
I've Been Silicon Valley Sharia'd
Michelle Malkin
By Michelle Malkin
Published Feb. 27, 2019

 I've Been Silicon Valley Sharia'd



Last week, the little birdies in Twitter's legal department notified me that one of my tweets from 2015 is "in violation of Pakistan law." It seems like ancient history, but Islamic supremacists never forget — or forgive.
My innocuous tweet featured a compilation image of the 12 Muhammad cartoons published by Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in 2005. It also linked to my Jan. 8, 2015, syndicated column on the Charlie Hebdo jihad massacre in Paris. There's no hate, violence, profanity or pornography, just harmless drawings and peacefully expressed opinions about the Western media's futile attempts to appease the unappeasable enforcers of sharia law, which bans all insults of Islam.

The Twitter notice assured me that the company "has not taken any action on the reported content at this time," yet advised me that I should "consult legal counsel about this matter" in response to complaints from unnamed "authorized entities."

Don't worry, lawyer up? Gulp.

I'm used to getting threats directly from bloodthirsty cartoon jihadists. In 2006, I spearheaded a "Mohammed cartoons blogburst" in support of the Danish cartoonists at Jyllands-Posten. After posting all 12 of the drawings to educate the public about the publication's brave stand against sharia-enforced self-censorship in the West, death and rape threats from radical Muslims around the world poured into my email inbox. Vengeful thugs based in Turkey and Germany called me a "whore" and "prostitute," vowing "We will kill you" unless I deleted the pictures from my server. My website was targeted by jihadist hackers who launched a week of denial-of-service attacks.


Thirteen years later, however, who knew that using an American company's microblogging service from my secluded mountaintop in Colorado could get me in hot water with foreign Muslim stone-age goons 8,000 miles away still hung up on the cartoons.

Who knew Twitter would act as dutiful messenger pigeons for the oppressive anti-blasphemy police squad that sentences people to death for disparaging Islam.

Welcome to Silicon Valley sharia.

Over the past few months, several other prominent critics of Islamic extremism have received similar warning letters from Twitter's legal department, including Saudi-Canadian activist Ensaf Haidar, the wife of imprisoned Saudi blogger Raif Badawi; Imam Mohammad Tawhidi, an Iranian-born Muslim scholar and reform advocate from Australia; Jamie Glazov, a Russian-born Canadian columnist who just released a new book called "Jihadist Psychopath"; and Pamela Geller, an anti-jihad blogger and activist.

Jacob Engels, another conservative activist and blogger, was suspended from Twitter this weekend without explanation. His last tweet linked to video of a black Christian street preacher being arrested for "breaching the peace." Engels opined that the scene depicted "America's future thanks to (Rep. Ilhan Omar). Roaming rape gangs ... cops do nothing. Massive terrorist attacks."

There's no violence, hate, profanity or pornography, just an informed opinion about the consequences of open borders and capitulation to Islamic extremism. So why was Engels censored for condemning violent Muslims? Jack Morrissey, the Disney film producer who publicly called for the falsely accused Covington Catholic high school students to be fed into a woodchipper "screaming, hats first," was allowed to retain his verified Twitter status without any punishment for his bloody death wishes.

This is all of a piece. As I reported in December, citizen journalist Laura Loomer was banned from Twitter for stating true facts about radical Muslim Rep. Ilhan Omar's embrace of sharia laws that threaten gays, Jews and women. Loomer has since been deplatformed from PayPal and just learned she can no longer sell T-shirts protesting Twitter's ban with the hashtag #StopTheBias on Teespring.


Paypal's CEO admitted this week that he relied on the Southern Poverty Law Center's powerful smear machine for input on which conservatives to blacklist in order to uphold the company's alleged values of "diversity and inclusion." SPLC's de-Paypal'd victims include Tommy Robinson, an English anti-jihad activist; VDARE, a nationalist immigration news and commentary site that publishes my syndicated column; and Gavin McInnes, a humorist, social critic and media entrepreneur whose fans have raised nearly $140,000 at DefendGavin.com for his powerful defamation lawsuit against the SPLC. McInnes was also de-Twittered and temporarily de-YouTube'd.

Among others targeted by SPLC, which collaborates with credit card companies and banks to silence influential thinkers and activists on the right: David Horowitz, a venerable scholar and investigative author who successfully beat back Mastercard's attempt to drop him over his organization's opposition to Islamic radicalism and illegal immigration, and the Center for Immigration Studies, which is suing the SPLC for labeling its mainstream think tank a "hate group."

Deplatforming dissenting voices is a ruthless, bizarre and unprogressive way to achieve "diversity and inclusion." So is conspiring with repressive regimes that are hell-bent on destroying the West. Twitter has become America's version of Islam's morality police — the dreaded "mutaween."

I will not. As an American citizen who is subject to America's laws — not Pakistan's or Mohammed's — I'll retweet my harmless little Mo cartoons to my 2.1 million followers every day from now on and stand with other targets on the side of free speech and free thought. How about you, Twitter?
Title: FTC Task Force
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 27, 2019, 03:05:29 PM
https://www.foxnews.com/tech/facebook-google-in-crosshairs-of-new-ftc-competition-task-force?fbclid=IwAR1SH3iGY76YRPSMFgHG3gdQ6x5GsBVslj2NKLA28JhMv11U-d8oUCXBbxI
Title: Project Veritas: Deboosting and related matters
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 27, 2019, 03:06:12 PM


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/02/27/project_veritas_facebook_insider_explains_deboosting_troll_report_and_political_targeting_of_conservatives.html?fbclid=IwAR2tCyElGObpBhBok_Uqc_3gNAJ_nDyzYLGD0pDVfX041xOVnmfuWt9QEDA
Title: Dems make antitrust noises
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 06, 2019, 05:09:28 PM
The world retains its ability to surprise:

https://www.youngresearch.com/researchandanalysis/technology/will-democrats-break-up-big-tech-companies/?awt_l=PWy8k&awt_m=3j8mW0ZDD7zlu1V
Title: Zuckerberg announces pivot to privacy?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 09, 2019, 03:52:23 PM
Interesting , , ,

https://www.newyorker.com/news/current/mark-zuckerberg-announces-facebooks-pivot-to-privacy?utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_source=nl&utm_brand=tny&utm_mailing=TNY_Daily_030719&utm_medium=email&bxid=5be9d3fa3f92a40469e2d85c&user_id=50142053&esrc=&utm_term=TNY_Daily
Title: Re: Zuckerberg announces pivot to privacy?
Post by: G M on March 09, 2019, 06:26:23 PM
Trusting FaceHugger with your privacy is like trusting your children with a Michael Jackson sleepover.


Interesting , , ,

https://www.newyorker.com/news/current/mark-zuckerberg-announces-facebooks-pivot-to-privacy?utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_source=nl&utm_brand=tny&utm_mailing=TNY_Daily_030719&utm_medium=email&bxid=5be9d3fa3f92a40469e2d85c&user_id=50142053&esrc=&utm_term=TNY_Daily
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: DougMacG on March 10, 2019, 01:43:24 PM
"Trusting FaceHugger with your privacy is like trusting your children with a Michael Jackson sleepover."

Good one GM.  Even more private than Facebook's new privacy policy is  to NOT JOIN FACEBOOK!  Don't give your most personal information to someone who is openly selling it to everyone who wants it - and then expect privacy.
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: G M on March 10, 2019, 02:05:36 PM
"Trusting FaceHugger with your privacy is like trusting your children with a Michael Jackson sleepover."

Good one GM.  Even more private than Facebook's new privacy policy is  to NOT JOIN FACEBOOK!  Don't give your most personal information to someone who is openly selling it to everyone who wants it - and then expect privacy.

If you have an android phone, even if you have never joined FaceHugger, FaceHugger is tracking you.
Title: Squaw Forked Tongue gets a big one right
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 10, 2019, 06:32:22 PM
https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-elizabeth-warren-amazon-facebook-google-20190308-story.html?fbclid=IwAR0dMBRNfvjpDdU_YfpDwN6phAOnGB_oFhcPlc8QWNYN84NamIOAjMQgd7c
Title: Re: Squaw Forked Tongue gets a big one right
Post by: G M on March 10, 2019, 07:25:18 PM
https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-elizabeth-warren-amazon-facebook-google-20190308-story.html?fbclid=IwAR0dMBRNfvjpDdU_YfpDwN6phAOnGB_oFhcPlc8QWNYN84NamIOAjMQgd7c

In her case, it's probably a ploy to shake down Zuckerberg for some sweet, sweet campaign cash.
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: G M on March 10, 2019, 08:17:41 PM
"Trusting FaceHugger with your privacy is like trusting your children with a Michael Jackson sleepover."

Good one GM.  Even more private than Facebook's new privacy policy is  to NOT JOIN FACEBOOK!  Don't give your most personal information to someone who is openly selling it to everyone who wants it - and then expect privacy.

If you have an android phone, even if you have never joined FaceHugger, FaceHugger is tracking you.

https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/5/18252397/facebook-android-apps-sending-data-user-privacy-developer-tools-violation

(https://www.indiewire.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/facehugger.jpg)
Title: Re: Squaw Forked Tongue gets a big one right
Post by: DougMacG on March 11, 2019, 08:22:56 AM
https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-elizabeth-warren-amazon-facebook-google-20190308-story.html?fbclid=IwAR0dMBRNfvjpDdU_YfpDwN6phAOnGB_oFhcPlc8QWNYN84NamIOAjMQgd7c

In her case, it's probably a ploy to shake down Zuckerberg for some sweet, sweet campaign cash.

They should be broken up not because of bigness but because of unfair trade practices, and not because of allegations but because of facts.

Our right of privacy is constitutional?  Their violations of privacy are unconstitutional?  It's not that we should regulate 'these' companies.  Laws should be written to be clear to all.  Consent to gather, use and sell our information shold be clear.

When I accepted g(google)mail I consented to them reading my emails for their advertising purposes in exchange for a host of free services I received in return.  When I use google map directions, did I consent to have my location and all moves tracked and have that sold for the rest of my life?

Long before smartphones were market ready a Gilder tech newsletter predicted these teleputers and plans would be free.  A rider on a Tokyo subway could see restaurant advertisements for the next stops and the advertisers would pay the users for the right to track locations.  Or (presumably) you could opt out of tracking and pay for your own equipment and service.  Instead we pay and they double collect by tracking and selling our data.
Title: YouTube Changes Search Algorithm to Suppress Criticism Of Brie Larson
Post by: G M on March 11, 2019, 01:55:01 PM
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=59905

Control speech, control thought.


Title: How TechOctopus conspired to drive down engineers wages
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 12, 2019, 08:15:52 AM
https://pando.com/2014/01/23/the-techtopus-how-silicon-valleys-most-celebrated-ceos-conspired-to-drive-down-100000-tech-engineers-wages/?fbclid=IwAR390ldv7BPG-mKCNAbNtT4BqXQRly4E-wJLtGzVqwyWHI-rMnXQx8G59Z8
Title: Facebook censors Squaw Forked Tongues adds
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 12, 2019, 12:35:46 PM


https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/03/facebook-removes-elizabeth-warrens-ads
Title: What Goolag knows about you
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 12, 2019, 01:00:17 PM
Third post

https://www.axios.com/what-google-knows-about-you-3f6c9b20-4406-4bda-8344-d324f1ee0816.html?utm_source=pocket&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pockethits
Title: Josh Hawley ready to take on big orwellian tech
Post by: ccp on March 13, 2019, 10:46:22 AM
The Technology 202: Freshman Sen. Josh Hawley emerges as one of toughest Republican critics of Big Tech

By Cat Zakrzewski
March 13 at 8:35 AM
Ctrl + N

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) speaks during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Capitol Hill.  (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) is still the new guy on Capitol Hill. But the freshman senator is swiftly emerging as one of the Republican Party’s toughest critics of Big Tech.

Hawley’s rigorous grilling of Google executive Will DeVries was the most heated exchange during yesterday’s privacy hearing:

He slammed Google for collecting people's location data on Android phones — even after they try to disable the tracking function. He compared the practice to an Eagles song — saying, “You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.”

“To see the Google witness push back on me and attempt to say consumers should anticipate this would be the case, are you kidding me?” Hawley told me in an interview after the hearing. “That’s just insane. It’s not just insane, it’s insulting.”

As Democrats such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) come out swinging against Big Tech, Hawley could prove to be an ally across the aisle. While Republicans have historically been wary of government intervention in private industry, Hawley has made it clear it's time for the government to do more to rein in Silicon Valley.

As he uses his new position in Congress to press the Federal Trade Commission to step up its investigations of competition and privacy issues, he is welcoming the stepped-up attention from Democrats campaigning for 2020.

Warren’s proposal to break up Amazon, Google and Facebook will lend a spotlight to these issues, he says. “It’s going to help make sure there’s a conversation on the national level."

Hawley isn't the only Republican complimenting Warren. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), another strong critic of the technology industry in the Republican party, said yesterday:

First time I’ve ever retweeted @ewarren But she’s right—Big Tech has way too much power to silence Free Speech. They shouldn’t be censoring Warren, or anybody else. A serious threat to our democracy.
Elizabeth Warren
✔@ewarren

Curious why I think FB has too much power? Let's start with their ability to shut down a debate over whether FB has too much power. Thanks for restoring my posts. But I want a social media marketplace that isn't dominated by a single censor. #BreakUpBigTech https://twitter.com/viaCristiano/status/1105235358596386821 …


At 39, Hawley brings a fresh perspective to the technology debate in Congress as the country’s youngest senator. While many of his more senior peers have been criticized for their gaffes during technology hearings, Hawley's line of questioning showed that he has a deep understanding of how Google’s products work.


ADVERTISING
Hawley wants Google to give consumers a clear way to opt out of invasive location tracking. He says many members of the committee — including Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Caif.) — told him they were not aware that Google tracks people at this level.

Hawley's questions even drew praise from the the Judiciary Committee's top Democrat.

“Senator Hawley, I thought your questions were very well placed and really very good," Feinstein said during the hearing. “For someone — and I'm not all that computer sophisticated — it was revolutionary because I really see the breadth and depth of what we're dealing with, and the unknowns of what the future brings."

Hawley has already shown he’s able to work with the Democrats. His top tech priority right now is passing an amended version of the Children’s Online Privacy and Protection Act that he introduced with Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) yesterday.

“As someone who has two young children at home, this is not a theoretical issue for me,” he said.

The legislation would update a more than 20-year-old children’s privacy law and would require companies to provide parents with an eraser button to delete data that companies collected about their children.

“In order to enact the strong privacy protections that Americans deserve, it is going to take dedication and collaboration from members of Congress from both sides of the aisle,” Markey told me in an email. “Senator Hawley has proven himself to be a tenacious privacy advocate, and it has been a pleasure working with him to update the rules for children’s privacy online.”

Markey has been trying for years to update the children’s privacy law, but his efforts have not gained traction in the Republican-controlled Senate. Hawley said the urgency on privacy issues is accelerating, and he can say for certain that there is broad bipartisan interest. He’s calling on his Republican colleagues to ensure that children’s privacy restructuring passes quickly.

“We know that COPPA worked in the past, and we know it needs to be updated,” Hawley told me. “Let’s proceed with deliberate speed.”

Title: EU Media Literacy
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 15, 2019, 07:51:09 AM
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13864/eu-media-literacy
Title: Deep implications here
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 15, 2019, 11:09:07 AM
WSJ

Facebook, YouTube, Twitter Scramble to Remove Video of New Zealand Mosque Shooting

Social media companies have struggled to block, uncover and remove violent content despite increasing public outcry and political pressure

In front of one of the mosques.

At least 49 people were killed and dozens wounded in shootings at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand. Above, armed police responded near one of the mosques.

People on their phones after the shooting at one of the mosques in Christchurch on Friday.

Police respond to the shooting at a mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand on Friday.

A frame from footage showing the attack, which appeared on sites including Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. At one point in the 17-minute video, a shooter appears to gun down a man at close range, then reload and continue the rampage. On other occasions, he fires point-blank at people lying on the floor.

Another frame from the video showing a gun covered in writing. An account that Twitter said it suspended in response to the shooting posted a half-dozen photos of rifle magazines with names written on them in the days before the attack, according to a publicly available cached version.

‘This can now only be described as a terrorist attack,’ said Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, who called the day one of the darkest in New Zealand's history.

Scenes of the mosque shooting in New Zealand on Friday were streamed live on Facebook and posted on YouTube and Twitter, in a gruesome example of how social media platforms still can be misused to spread terror despite heavy spending by their owners to contain such content.

New Zealand police said the footage—related to the attack on a pair of mosques that left 49 dead Friday—was “extremely distressing” and urged people not to circulate it.

The 17-minute video shows a gunman walking through a mosque and firing at worshipers who slumped to the floor. At one point a man, whose face is visible in parts of the video, appears to gun down a victim at close range before reloading and continuing the rampage.

The video remained on YouTube several hours after the shootings.

A Facebook Inc. FB -2.42% spokeswoman said the company removed the video after New Zealand police flagged it to the social network. Twitter Inc. TWTR +0.72% said it was working to remove the video.

A YouTube spokesman said it has removed thousands of videos related to the incident and that “shocking, violent and graphic content has no place on our platforms.” The spokesman said YouTube, a unit of Alphabet Inc.’s GOOGL +0.04% Google, is working with authorities.

All three platforms have struggled to block, uncover and remove violent content despite an increasing public outcry and political pressure.

Facebook says it has more than 15,000 contractors and employees reviewing content, part of a 30,000 person team working on safety and security issues at the company. The broader team includes engineers who are building technical tools to block graphic content, as well as employees dubbed “graphic violence specialists” who make decisions about whether violent images posted on the site have social or news value or whether, as in the case of beheadings, they are meant to terrorize and have no place on the site, Monika Bickert, head of global policy management at Facebook, said in an interview in February.

But the sheer volume of material posted by the platforms’ billions of users, along with the difficulty of distinguishing the social value of similar types of violent videos, has created a minefield for the companies.
New Zealand Mosque Shootings Called a ‘Terrorist Attack’
New Zealand Mosque Shootings Called a ‘Terrorist Attack’
Dozens of people were killed in shootings at two mosques in the city of Christchurch, New Zealand, which Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said could only be described as "a terrorist attack." Witnesses recount the deadly shooting. Photo: AP

“This latest atrocity only underscores the fact that there is no responsible way to offer a live-streaming social media service,” said Mary Anne Franks, a law professor at the University of Miami and president of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, which advocates for legislation to address online abuse. “By its very nature, live-streamed content cannot be meaningfully moderated, and Facebook must finally be forced to take responsibility for the role it has played in encouraging and amplifying horrific acts of violence.”

Facebook and YouTube say they are each putting a lot of effort into developing artificial intelligence software and machine learning that can automatically remove or flag objectionable material.

AI experts said there is no technology available that would allow for the foolproof detection of violence on streaming platforms. Even teaching machines to recognize a person brandishing a gun is difficult, as there are many different types of guns, and many different stances for holding them. Computers also struggle to distinguish actual acts of violence from violence in fictional films.

“There’s a perception that AI can do everything and detect everything, but it’s a matter of how much room do you leave to produce false alerts,” said Itsik Kattan, the CEO of Agent Video Intelligence, a video analytics company specializing in AI applications for surveillance.

Preventing violent videos from being streamed would require Facebook and other platforms to establish a buffer period where videos could be vetted before being posted to the site, he said.
More

    Shootings at New Zealand Mosques Leave 49 People Dead

AI also suffers from the limited amount of available footage of real-life violence available to train the computers, said Yan Shuicheng, a professor specializing in artificial intelligence at the National University of Singapore.

Facebook in particular has faced intense criticism from U.S. lawmakers and others over the past year for the way its platform can be abused by violent actors. United Nations investigators said the platform contributed to the demonization of ethnic Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, in the lead up to a brutal purge of the minority by the country’s military. Facebook promised to take steps to fight the problem, such as hiring more Myanmar-speaking moderators to improve its ability to identify and remove hateful content.

A Cleveland man posted a video of a murder on Facebook in 2017, drawing attention to the company’s inability to reliably catch violent videos before they are published on its platform. At the time, Facebook acknowledged its process for reviewing content contained flaws.

That same month, a Thai man killed his baby daughter in a video posted live to Facebook. A spokeswoman for Facebook condemned the act and said the video would be removed.

Facebook has made inconsistent decisions in the past. The company removed and then reinstated a video in 2016 of a man’s body after police shot him. Facebook added a “graphic content” warning to that video and said it planned to continue to make improvements to live video.

Taking down violent video after the fact may not eliminate the harm. Sidney Jones, director of the Institute for Policy Analysis of Conflict in Jakarta, says that by the time big tech companies remove violent videos, they’ve often been spread via email and messaging applications and remain accessible. She said Islamic State live-streamed terrorist attacks as a way to gain followers and attention, and now other violent actors are using social media in a similar way.

“It’s the classic objective of terror, which is to sow the idea that you will be next,” Ms. Jones said.

Write to Jon Emont at jonathan.emont@wsj.com, Georgia Wells at Georgia.Wells@wsj.com and Mike Cherney at mike.cherney@wsj.com
Title: "Delete Facebook now"
Post by: G M on March 16, 2019, 02:30:28 PM
https://www.sfgate.com/technology/article/Delete-Facebook-now-What-s-App-co-founder-13691107.php

They should.
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: ccp on March 16, 2019, 03:30:34 PM
"Acton, who sold his company to Facebook for $19 billion, criticized Mark Zuckerberg of abusing users' privacy by allowing ads on Facebook."

 I remember early on Zuck was against this practice too.
But the Wall Street people made him do it.  (or convinced him) from what I recall
remember when the stock opened ~ 36 then tanked to 17 then they announced will do ads etc and the price rebounded and never looked back from there.

Those wolves of wall streeter guys/(gals  - hey I don't want to be accused of sexism) need to be held accountable too!
Title: The Goolag unpersons Greenpeace founder for thoughtcrime
Post by: G M on March 18, 2019, 12:05:24 PM
https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/google-does-evil-to-patrick-moore/

Down the memory hole.
Title: The twitter division of Minitrue
Post by: G M on March 19, 2019, 11:13:05 AM
https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1107736676602925056

Sean Davis

Verified account
 
@seanmdav
Follow Follow @seanmdav
More
Twitter confirmed to me today via e-mail that it did shadowban one of my tweets about Lisa Page's congressional testimony in order to "keep people safe[.]" Twitter deliberately deleted the tweet/URL, yet kept it visible for me when I was logged in so I'd think it was still up.

Title: State AGs beginning to get fired up
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 19, 2019, 08:42:40 PM
https://www.breitbart.com/radio/2019/03/19/jeff-landry-all-options-are-on-the-table-to-break-big-tech-monopolies/?fbclid=IwAR0TQGRsQxm7tnOc3Og1RiB59tr_8i16oGaEb8mJM3ZaJy7tpIN1i-bAtcM
Title: WSJ: EU fines Goolag bigly on anti-trust grounds
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 20, 2019, 08:53:12 AM
By Sam Schechner and
Valentina Pop
Updated March 20, 2019 8:57 a.m. ET

BRUSSELS—Alphabet’s Google was fined €1.49 billion ($1.7 billion) by the European Union for limiting how some websites could display ads sold by its rivals, the tech giant’s third antitrust penalty from the bloc since 2017.

Wednesday’s decision, which is smaller than the total of €6.76 billion ($7.67 billion) levied against Google in two previous decisions, is the last among formal charges the EU’s antitrust regulator has so far filed against the tech giant, drawing to a close at least one part of the nearly decadelong investigation into the company.

The fine deals with abusing the dominance of its search engine to block competitors in the niche market of selling text ads on the search results that appear on third-party websites.

It doesn’t come with a specific order to change Google’s business practices because the commission says Google ended the last type of anticompetitive behavior at issue in the case shortly after charges were filed nearly three years ago.

“Google has cemented its dominance in online search adverts and shielded itself from competitive pressure by imposing anticompetitive contractual restrictions on third-party websites,” said Margrethe Vestager, the EU’s antitrust chief. “This is illegal under EU antitrust rules,” she added.

Even though Google has stopped this behavior in 2016, Ms. Vestager said that “at a minimum our decision requires Google to put a stop to those restrictions or any other restrictions with an equivalent effect and not to reinstate them.”
EU Antitrust Probes Into Google
A scorecard of where each case stands


Google’s senior vice president of global affairs, Kent Walker, said, “We’ve already made a wide range of changes to our products to address the Commission’s concerns. Over the next few months, we’ll be making further updates to give more visibility to rivals in Europe.”

In the past, the company has said that while it believes it behaved legally with the business at issue in Wednesday’s decision, it ended the allegedly anticompetitive behavior to resolve the issue expeditiously.

The latest ruling continues a run of heavy antitrust enforcement from the EU against Google, led by Ms. Vestager. But some antitrust experts and Google rivals say that Wednesday’s relatively narrow decision, along with Google’s continued dominance of areas the European Commission has investigated over the last decade, from mobile phone search to online shopping ads, suggests that current antitrust enforcement is too slow and toothless to deal with fast-moving tech giants—and needs updating.

“I think Google has outmaneuvered the commission in many ways,” said Alec Burnside, a competition lawyer at Dechert LLP who has represented complainants against Google in other cases. “There is great soul searching in the antitrust community about whether the rulebook is adequate for this.”

In the U.S., Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts Democrat running for president, called for the breakup of some big tech firms. Ms. Vestager, however, has been reluctant to endorse corporate splits and defended the EU’s more targeted responses.

“We try with the casework, with cease and desist orders, with follow-up, to have a competitive marketplace,” Ms. Vestager said during an appearance at a conference in Texas earlier this month. “I hope we won’t have to turn to this tool of very last resort.”
Google has said that while it believes it behaved legally with the business at issue in Wednesday’s decision, the company ended the allegedly anticompetitive behavior to resolve the issue expeditiously.
Google has said that while it believes it behaved legally with the business at issue in Wednesday’s decision, the company ended the allegedly anticompetitive behavior to resolve the issue expeditiously. Photo: charles platiau/Reuters

Google, to be sure, has had to make significant changes to how it operates in the EU to comply with the bloc’s rulings, and people close to the company say they now must consider these decisions when launching new products. They also say it is too early to judge the effect of the most significant EU finding in July 2018 that Google had abused the dominance of its Android operating system for mobile devices to entrench its search engine and Chrome web browser. Google only began implementing its remedy to comply with that ruling in October.

Google also faces other preliminary investigations into its conduct in the EU, including into its handling of local search results, Ms. Vestager said Wednesday, but it isn’t clear if or when those cases might lead to any formal charges.

Some antitrust experts note as well that enforcement action is designed to remove hindrances to competition, not to push for specific market outcomes. That is why some argue that antitrust investigations and remedies must be implemented more quickly to have an impact before it is too late. A recent report conducted on behalf of the U.K. government also recommended that when evaluating mergers, antitrust officials should assign more weight to the future, not just current, consumer welfare.

The EU has also exerted pressure on Google to improve the remedies it has made in the two previous cases. On Tuesday, Google said it would make additional concessions it has made in an effort to put the complaints against its behavior to rest. Those concessions include plans in coming months to ask all existing Android users in Europe whether they would like to use rival search engines or web browsers on their phones.

“It is welcome that Google is stepping up its efforts with regard to the Google Android decision,” Ms. Vestager said Wednesday, noting the commission will monitor the rollout.

At issue in the latest case is a service called AdSense for Search, in which Google allows website owners to monetize search results that appear on their own websites.

The European Commission found that Google’s contracts with websites at times breached antitrust rules by unfairly restricting how third-party websites could integrate ads sold by Google competitors into the search results on those sites. Google began to change some of those practices—including eliminating an exclusivity clause—in 2009, and made other changes shortly before the EU filed its formal charges in 2016.

Google pulled in $20.98 billion—or about 15% of its overall revenue—in 2018 by selling ads on other companies’ websites. But that percentage is down from 17% of revenue two years earlier. It isn’t clear how much came from the so-called AdSense ads in third-party search results, but the company has previously said AdSense for Search is a “legacy business” that is shrinking.

Ms. Vestager said Wednesday that the smaller fine reflected the fact that brokering search ads on other websites was a smaller business during the period of infringement than those in the EU’s prior decisions.

Write to Sam Schechner at sam.schechner@wsj.com and Valentina Pop at valentina.pop@wsj.com
Title: FB data deals being investigated
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 20, 2019, 12:15:37 PM
second post

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/13/technology/facebook-data-deals-investigation.html?fbclid=IwAR0B2rwtkefGIZgPUBc3w3WEcB2oHsqsBDYNw4r_qEMCAEOyQLNIT6ziUgw
Title: General Dunford vs. Goolag
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 23, 2019, 06:07:48 PM
https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2019/03/not-about-me-and-google-says-dunford-who-will-meet-execs-next-week/155742/?oref=defenseone_today_nl
Title: Re: General Dunford vs. Goolag
Post by: G M on March 23, 2019, 08:18:11 PM
https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2019/03/not-about-me-and-google-says-dunford-who-will-meet-execs-next-week/155742/?oref=defenseone_today_nl

 “Typically if a company does business in China, they are automatically going to be required to have a cell of the Communist Party in that company.”

The Chinese are fine with registered democrats. Close enough.
Title: FB goes after white nationalism
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 27, 2019, 02:33:00 PM


https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/27/18284174/facebook-ban-white-nationalist-separatist-content?fbclid=IwAR1yPy-3NVpHzxE3X44om8sb2H0FGhLCcbir_gspJ8RdrWOWX8JnEhngHsM
Title: Twitter vs. Unplanned
Post by: Crafty_Dog on March 30, 2019, 02:22:51 PM
https://www.theblaze.com/news/twitter-suspends-unplanned-movie?utm_content=buffer7abf1&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=glennbeck&fbclid=IwAR0E7DrQjvgbEufbiNLECGHwOw8AtinJtrMJLo-9Pzo0Cq4ExW8xxFCwixU
Title: WSJ: Zuckerberg for Regulation
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 02, 2019, 02:28:10 PM
Zuckerberg for Regulation
Beware of tech CEOs bearing gifts from government.
By The Editorial Board
March 31, 2019 3:51 p.m. ET

Sooner or later you knew it would happen: Big tech would invite government regulation to deflect even greater intervention such as an antitrust breakup.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is the latest to welcome governments to play a “more active role” in governing the internet, presumably including his company. In an op-ed Saturday in the Irish Independent and Washington Post, Mr. Zuckerberg invited European-style privacy rules for the U.S. and called on regulators to set clearer rules on “harmful content, election integrity, privacy and data portability.”


This plea for big government to regulate big business will go down well in liberal precincts, where the tech giants have lost the political immunity they had during the Obama years. Politicians like nothing better than to claim to be taming unpopular businesses, and Mr. Zuckerberg may think he’s buying some protection from calls to break up the company.

The rest of us should be wary of CEOs bearing government gifts. The costs of regulation, such as privacy rules, are easier for bigger businesses to bear and they can create higher barriers to entry for competitors. And forgive us if we’re wary of letting politicians on the right or left dictate content decisions. Before he invites the protection of the political class, Mr. Zuckerberg should have Facebook fix Facebook.
Title: Goolag buys Burning Man
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 03, 2019, 09:46:05 AM
https://mixmag.net/read/google-burning-man-news?fbclid=IwAR0pWbBpCHAldgwHLrrYMuFK_z0UaanoPrn0v8n5jIM2EDb8FfTEtCIR36w
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: ccp on April 03, 2019, 02:30:57 PM
haven't been to burning man

can't say I have any desire to go

I am sure the googlelites have their own fancy tents and accommodations

read somewhere recently it has already lost its novelty and has become hokey.





Title: Hawley : twitter on notice
Post by: ccp on April 03, 2019, 05:09:18 PM
second post

go Josh:

https://pjmedia.com/trending/gop-senator-puts-twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-on-notice-time-for-a-third-party-audit-of-de-platforming-policies/
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 03, 2019, 06:43:46 PM
Key point in the article:

"Social media platforms have been given a "sweetheart deal," according to Hawley, which includes "immunity from liability for illegal content posted by third parties." They were given special consideration, he said, because they promised to provide "a forum for a true diversity of political discourse.”"
Title: Government-run Facebook
Post by: DougMacG on April 09, 2019, 07:32:11 AM
https://reason.com/blog/2019/04/05/mark-zuckerberg-calls-for-government-reg

"Zuckerberg is joined not only by progressive Democrats such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) but conservative Republicans such as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who are calling for the equivalent of a Fairness Doctrine for Twitter and similar services."

Good God.  Where was government when they bought their largest competitor?
Title: Leaked Documents: Google Doesn't Just Blacklist Sites Via Its Neutral Algorithm.
Post by: G M on April 10, 2019, 09:34:15 PM
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/380771.php

Read it all.


Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 11, 2019, 09:50:55 AM
Saw Ted Cruz on Laura Ingraham last night.  He responded to the argument made by many that FB et al are privately owned  by pointing out the difference between platform and publisher and that those who are granted protection from libel suits by being considered platforms should not then be censoring.
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: DougMacG on April 11, 2019, 10:55:05 AM
Saw Ted Cruz on Laura Ingraham last night.  He responded to the argument made by many that FB et al are privately owned  by pointing out the difference between platform and publisher and that those who are granted protection from libel suits by being considered platforms should not then be censoring.

I'm not sure I agree with Ted Cruz on this [nor do I think he can get where he wants to go  partnering with Elizabeth Warren]. 

It is a widely used platform, but Facebook also is a product people can choose to join, avoid, or leave when dissatisfied. 

The issue is not which way FB leans which is obvious but what level of involvement government should have. 

When the company begs for "regulation", I smell a rat.

Unfair business practices, lack of privacy options and real consent agreements are areas for public policy to address, but let's not allow regulation, which can be government sponsorship, to make permanent a system we already know is incapable of being neutral.

Regulation generally locks in the monopoly status of the most entrenched players, cf oil companies, Wall Street, energy utilities.

I'd rather have Facebook be a bad company that takes our money and privacy than have it be a branch of government.
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 11, 2019, 04:23:59 PM
I understand Cruz's point to be a REMOVAL of governmental exclusion from libel laws.
Title: Amazon listening in via Alexa
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 11, 2019, 04:31:35 PM
https://www.theblaze.com/news/amazon-admits-listening-in-on-conversations-via-alexa?utm_content=bufferf32c6&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=glennbeck&fbclid=IwAR2BHHGAADWHEh621NlweMeGRXiZvulGvKCUY6SUzZyIDMAxn0kjYiyHu4Q
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: DougMacG on April 11, 2019, 05:08:33 PM
I understand Cruz's point to be a REMOVAL of governmental exclusion from libel laws.

In that case, good, I think. At least he is calling them out publicly on their bias which for Google and Facebook should chip away at their monopoly.

More:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/04/10/ted-cruz-threatens-regulate-facebook-twitter-over-alleged-bias/3423095002/
Title: Where we are now
Post by: G M on April 14, 2019, 03:17:47 PM
(http://ace.mu.nu/archives/crazy%20map.jpg)
Title: Twitter drops SPLC?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 16, 2019, 06:51:02 AM


https://dailycaller.com/2019/04/15/splc-facebook-conservatives/?utm_medium=email

Title: 3 to 5 billion to facebook is punk change
Post by: ccp on April 25, 2019, 03:00:58 PM
response take a $  3 billion expense, chump change, and then pretend you want some regulation (with eagerness to help write it)

https://pjmedia.com/trending/the-federal-trade-commission-is-coming-after-facebook-to-the-tune-of-3-5-billion/

Look at the chart ;  from low right back up in a several months:

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/FB/chart?p=FB#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%3D%3D
Title: Facebook sends more down the Memory Hole
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 04, 2019, 07:56:03 AM
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-02/facebook-bans-alex-jones-yiannopoulos-other-far-right-figures?fbclid=IwAR1rL64NBySVzECDUlG0EMxTVNa6XChQVQNjjJexDoEGsgbcx99XLxUoKsA
Title: China's Big Brother Tech being tested in Australia
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 09, 2019, 07:04:19 AM
Pasting GM's post here as well:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/chinas-big-brother-social-control-goes-to-australia_2898104.html
Title: The Goolag using SPLC data for comment moderation
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 09, 2019, 10:46:46 AM
second post

https://dailycaller.com/2019/05/09/google-jigsaw-using-splc-data-comment-moderation/?utm_medium=email
Title: FB goes after Michelle Malkin
Post by: ccp on May 11, 2019, 10:56:55 AM
FB bans MM  (I recall the day when that stood for Mantle - Maris   :-o)

F'er Z'er troops do it again to Conservatives:

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/05/10/michelle-malkin-censored-on-facebook-for-opposing-censorship/
Title: Re: FB goes after Michelle Malkin
Post by: G M on May 11, 2019, 04:50:56 PM
FB bans MM  (I recall the day when that stood for Mantle - Maris   :-o)

F'er Z'er troops do it again to Conservatives:

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/05/10/michelle-malkin-censored-on-facebook-for-opposing-censorship/

Of course.
Title: Twitter blocks expert psychologist on transgenderism.
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 13, 2019, 02:44:38 PM
https://pjmedia.com/trending/expert-psychologist-blocked-on-twitter-for-expressing-clinical-opinion-on-transgenderism/?fbclid=IwAR2W69Fh-hDqU1wK5kFmG6Q-xxErurEoZE56dmmXXsAzoH6L5bKGpxA164o
Title: Re: Twitter blocks expert psychologist on transgenderism.
Post by: G M on May 13, 2019, 03:33:27 PM
https://pjmedia.com/trending/expert-psychologist-blocked-on-twitter-for-expressing-clinical-opinion-on-transgenderism/?fbclid=IwAR2W69Fh-hDqU1wK5kFmG6Q-xxErurEoZE56dmmXXsAzoH6L5bKGpxA164o

I am sure he is now getting the standard progressive death threats.

Title: twitter ousts David Horowitz
Post by: ccp on May 14, 2019, 04:15:35 PM
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/david-horowitz-dark-agenda-twitter-suspension-ilhan-omar/2019/05/14/id/915997/
Title: Goolag technology at work? Wikipedia blocked in China
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 14, 2019, 06:09:44 PM
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/technology-48269608?__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR3MfBPM1XF-KZHQ44H5s-APQ-AqgdvVjrawcYV7KjoCRZtVxYyXcfE-Jyw
Title: Re: Goolag technology at work? Wikipedia blocked in China
Post by: G M on May 14, 2019, 08:36:35 PM
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/technology-48269608?__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR3MfBPM1XF-KZHQ44H5s-APQ-AqgdvVjrawcYV7KjoCRZtVxYyXcfE-Jyw

Good thing that isn't happening here!
Title: NRO: Countering Foreign Dis-info on social media
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 17, 2019, 07:53:06 AM


https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/countering-foreign-disinformation-social-media-russian-campaign/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NR%20Daily%20Monday%20through%20Friday%202019-05-16&utm_term=NRDaily-Smart
Title: THE PURGE: Facebook and YouTube are silencing voices. Be afraid — be very afraid
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 21, 2019, 06:43:08 AM


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=SYfRMDTo-EA
Title: Twitter and Al Jazeera
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 21, 2019, 07:05:12 AM


https://dailycaller.com/2019/05/20/twitter-al-jazeera-holocaust/?utm_medium=email
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: ccp on May 21, 2019, 08:26:12 AM
invoking Copyright?

who believes that?

I wouldn't waste my time with twitter
Title: Louder w Crowder
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 22, 2019, 07:34:42 AM
If I have it right, Crowder is one of the ones sent down the memory hole by FB and Twitter.

To help him stay on the radar screen, here is his website:

https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/
Title: Goolag engineer hits company's outrage mobs.
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 23, 2019, 01:06:40 PM
https://patriotpost.us/articles/63197-google-engineer-slams-companys-outrage-mobs?fbclid=IwAR0YYn59yu_sgVUqxMq_WVgUa-KhDJYI6m5iFss6iiLS3ZdfagNhTjMpg9g
Title: cryptocurrency ala zucker berg
Post by: ccp on May 25, 2019, 09:41:28 AM
oh my God:
https://www.newsmax.com/finance/streettalk/facebook-zuckerberg-winklevoss-cryptocurrency/2019/05/24/id/917467/

is there no end.......... :-(
Title: Re: cryptocurrency ala zucker berg
Post by: G M on May 25, 2019, 05:41:35 PM
oh my God:
https://www.newsmax.com/finance/streettalk/facebook-zuckerberg-winklevoss-cryptocurrency/2019/05/24/id/917467/

is there no end.......... :-(

Zuckerbux!

Hooray!
Title: 5G advantages and "disadvantages"
Post by: ccp on May 26, 2019, 07:01:03 AM
https://www.tutorialspoint.com/5g/5g_advantages_disadvantages.htm

notice how as an afterthought the most gigantic disadvantage , privacy security and centralized control and certain state private criminal and corporate abuse is on the very last line :

" Security and privacy issue yet to be solved."

Why not just say there will NOT be privacy security and whatever patches will be will be forever too late, too insufficient and too feeble.
Title: Trump supporters being disappeared
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 29, 2019, 01:00:29 PM
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/05/05/paul_joseph_watson_virtually_every_prominent_online_personality_who_helped_get_trump_elected_has_been_banned_from_one_or_all_social_media_sites.html?fbclid=IwAR2sPAG4N_H_2mgRmVSU8Hv6rdV_QnSEzEir-NOCan6Ku2bgosZuU1KhAPc
Title: Samizdat in the Age of Digital Totalitarianism
Post by: G M on May 29, 2019, 07:30:16 PM
https://gatesofvienna.net/2019/05/samizdat-in-the-age-of-digital-totalitarianism/

Samizdat in the Age of Digital Totalitarianism
Posted on May 27, 2019 by Baron Bodissey

 Samizdat: 'Chronicle of Current Events' #22 Nov 10 1971

A couple of days ago we posted about the blocking of BitChute in Australia via a process known as “DNS poisoning”. It seems that the emergence of BitChute as a source of uncensored videos was enough of a threat for the Powers That Be in Oz to decide that it must be neutralized.

During the same time period the process of de-platforming dissidents has accelerated. Almost anyone who is well-known and has a slightly right-of-center political opinion can expect to have Tweets and Facebook posts deleted, YouTube videos pulled, and — if he is prominent enough to require complete excommunication — the closing of his account. Dissidents with the greatest celebrity status, such as Tommy Robinson and Milo Yiannopoulos, can expect to lose their accounts on multiple platforms simultaneously, as if their suppression were being coordinated by some trans-national censorship board.

Vlad Tepes is on BitChute and BitTube now, which is why the topic of DNS poisoning came up. His videos are now going up and staying up, thanks to BitChute; hence the establishment’s efforts to cut off viewers’ access to BitChute.

As it happens, all of these methods of censorship and repression are being implemented not by the state, but by private corporations. This gives repressive governments cover so that they can deny responsibility: “Facebook [or Twitter, or Instagram, or Google, etc.] is a private company, and may enforce its terms of use without government interference.” The ISPs in Australia that are sabotaging BitChute’s IP on their domain name servers are also private corporations, as far as I know — the Australian government doesn’t have to do the dirty work.

Torquemada: The Spanish Inquisition
This doesn’t mean that governments are not arresting, charging, trying, and convicting citizens for “hate speech”. Britain, Sweden, and Germany seem to be vying with each other to see who can rack up the largest number of state prosecutions for hate speech. The rest of Western Europe, Australia, and Canada are no slouches, either. The USA has the First Amendment, so it’s not so bad here, but we’re only hanging on by the skin of our teeth. If Hillary had been elected in 2016, and had thus been able to appoint two Supreme Court justices, we’d probably be following the Canadian model right now.

Nevertheless, private companies are doing most of the heavy lifting when it comes suppressing free speech. Some of them are probably following the inclinations of their CEOs (think Mark Zuckerberg), but a quiet government word about antitrust action or a tax-evasion investigation must do wonders to convince them to help the state suppress Internet dissent.

A few days ago we posted an interview with a French communist MEP from back in 1992. This was one of Vlad’s videos, so it was uploaded to BitChute. However, I happened to find a mirror of it on a minor YouTube channel, and posted that instead.

Group of radio listeners
How was that channel able to post the video? Even if Vlad still had a YouTube channel, that video would have been immediately deleted by Google, because it said naughty things about the European Union. How come the other channel gets a pass?

The answer is obvious: Vlad’s channel was very popular, and had turned into a major influence in the realm of online videos. The other channel is relatively minor, and evidently doesn’t attract enough viewers to warrant being suppressed.

There’s a lesson for us dissidents in that.


If your opinions are politically incorrect, and you become prominent enough on the internet, you will be suppressed. You will be banished from Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and all those other platforms that I can’t remember the names of. If you make public appearances, you will repeatedly find your venues being cancelled at the last minute. Your PayPal account will be closed. And — as part of the latest wave of corporate censorship — credit card companies may refuse your business.

All of this can happen without your being prosecuted. You might not even get milkshaked (milkshaken?) or beaten up by antifas, although both of those are likely to happen, too. But state action and violence are not necessary to incapacitate you. By shutting down all your normal means of electronic communication, private corporations can make you vanish from the public forum. To use an old-fashioned word, you become an unperson. You can still walk and talk and eat and drink and go about your daily routine, but to the larger world you no longer exist.

However, the YouTube video of the French communist provides us with an alternative way of doing things. A small channel without many subscribers can without consequence upload the same video that gets Alex Jones banned. And it may get only a thousand views. However, if 10,000 little YouTube channels do the same thing, it means that TEN MILLION PEOPLE will see that video.

Baran Nets -- Centralized, decentralized, and distributed networks
This is an example of the functioning of a distributed network, in which many thousands of small nodes are laterally connected without having to feed their messages up a hierarchical tree to a central clearinghouse. Information is thus propagated horizontally along multiple pathways, making it very difficult to suppress entirely.

This is a 21st-century digital version of samizdat, the underground communication that thrived in the Soviet Union without having access to the state’s monopoly on publishing and broadcasting. In order for it to work, however, ordinary people are going to have to become part of a process that’s different from what they’re used to. There are three main things you’ll need to do or think about differently:

1. Become a node in the distributed network.

Under the hierarchical model, a passive media consumer receives information from a central provider — a television network, a metropolitan radio station, a major newspaper. The same process has continued into the digital age, so that people can go to Huffington Post, PJMedia, or Rotten Tomatoes to get their news and entertainment. They have thousands more choices, but it’s still a hierarchical system: major providers deliver content to thousands or millions of passive consumers.

In contrast, a distributed network shuttles information from node to node in a lattice where no individual provider has a huge number of recipients. In order for such a system to work, consumers must also be producers — they need to pass along what they receive.

So you need to get yourself a YouTube channel. It’s easy enough; you just set up a Gmail email address, which automatically comes with a Google account and a YouTube channel. Yes, it means you’ll have to give some personal information to Google. But chances are, if you’ve ever used Google, it already knows a lot about you, anyway.

Then, when you see a video you think is important (on YouTube, BitChute, BitTube, or any other platform), you download a copy of the video file and upload it to your own channel. You may eventually acquire a couple of hundred subscribers — who will also be lateral nodes in the network — and thereby become one of the 10,000 providers that help the video propagate. As long as your audience remains relatively small, YouTube will leave you alone and not take your videos down.

If you don’t know how to download a video file, visit Vlad Tepes and look for information there. If you don’t see it, leave a comment asking Vlad about it, and he’ll explain.

The same principle applies to Facebook, Twitter, and any other platform: acquire an account, keep your audience small, and repost anything that seems useful and important. As long as you don’t get too many reposts or retweets, the provider will leave you alone.

2. Stop looking to Big Media as your main source of information.

Get in the habit of acquiring information without visiting Google News, CNN, Huffington Post, or any other major provider. This doesn’t mean you’ll never look at an MSM article, but that you’ll find out about it through the distributed network, rather than from the main aggregation pages of the MSM sites.

Sites such as Conservative Treehouse, Gateway Pundit, and Power Line do a great job of collecting interesting news from the MSM or otherwise. Yes, each uses its own filters, but they’re up front about that. If you check a variety of sites you’ll see everything you might want to know about, without having to visit Google News or any other major provider.

I’ve reached the point where Drudge is the only large site I visit, to make sure that I catch any breaking news about a major catastrophe or terrorist attack. [Drudge seems to have wandered off track nowadays, concentrating mainly on celebrity news and perversion, but that’s a topic for another post.]

I’m also fortunate to have such diligent tipsters for the news feed — they read all the news so I don’t have to.

3. Give up any idea of become rich and/or famous.

A node in the distributed network is by definition not prominent. If you become prominent, and you post something that violates the Narrative, you risk having your virtual head cut off, as has happened, to Tommy, Milo, Lauren Southern, and many others.

A blogger or YouTuber naturally wants to expand his audience, especially if he monetizes his content through advertising. But if he becomes too large, he gets squashed by the Powers That Be, and loses his effectiveness.

Gates of Vienna has a relatively small audience, and I aim to keep it that way. We don’t have ads, anyway; we just raise money once a quarter through fundraisers that tap our readers for individual donations. It provides enough for subsistence, but Dymphna and I are so old now that we don’t need all that much, anyway.


 Typists, 1888 (odd jobs)

Unfortunately, there is a time limit on everything I said above: I expect a window of opportunity that will last only two to five years. After that, the combination of 5G wireless technology and the universal use of sophisticated artificial intelligence will allow the major social media companies — not just the government — to observe everything you do and restrict your activities when you attempt to propagate forbidden thoughts.

1984
The connection of virtually all electronic devices to the Internet — commonly known as the “Internet of Things” will mean that everything you do will be known by the government, ISPs, and major corporations. Every phone call you place, every line of text you type, every trip in your car, every visit to a website, every retail purchase you make will become part of the Great Database in the Cloud.

Phone eavesdroppingRight now it still requires humans to examine and make decisions about how to act on all that information. There aren’t enough employees in the Ministry of Information to examine all the data on everybody, so the functionaries charged with suppressing dissent concentrate on the big fish — they spend their time thwarting Tommy Robinson and Alex Jones, and leave the little fish alone.

AI will change all that. With many thousands of artificial brains to monitor for dissent, even the smallest nodes in the net can be suppressed. Your little 100-subscriber YouTube channel could be shut down without the intervention of any flesh-and-blood corporate drone.

After that, dedicated dissidents will have to resort to old-fashioned non-digital forms of communication, such as two-way radio, handwritten messages, and possibly even carrier pigeons. If you want to be well-versed in alternative forms of secure communication, become a regular reader of Western Rifle Shooters.

The dedicated samizdatchik will want to use the next few years wisely. We can accomplish a lot in that time, but we need to remain small, and distributed, and savvy.
Title: An accident, with very interesting timing
Post by: G M on June 01, 2019, 05:54:10 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/01/business/twitter-china-tiananmen.html

Twitter Takes Down Accounts of China Dissidents Ahead of Tiananmen Anniversary
Chinese tourists at the south gate of the Forbidden City, next to Tiananmen Square, in Beijing.

By Paul Mozur
June 1, 2019

SHANGHAI — Three days before the most sensitive political anniversary on the Chinese calendar, Twitter suspended the accounts of Chinese political commentators in what it said was an accident. The move showed starkly the global political ramifications of Silicon Valley slip-ups.

Twitter’s action, which one human rights worker said affected more than 100 users, came over several hours late Friday and early Saturday. It hit human rights lawyers, activists, college students and nationalists, who use workarounds to get access to Twitter, which is banned in China. Just about every part of the raucous, if small, Chinese language Twitter world was affected.

The accounts began rapidly disappearing just days before the 30th anniversary of the crackdown on a student-led pro-democracy demonstration in Tiananmen Square in Beijing. Many online assumed the worst: a coordinated attack by Beijing to project its suffocating internet censorship outside its own digital borders. Senator Marco Rubio, a Florida Republican, tweeted about his concern.

Yet the culprit was not Chinese censors but Twitter’s own overactive filters.

In a statement, Twitter said that as a part of its routine efforts to stop spam and inauthentic behavior, it had inadvertently gone after a number of legitimate Chinese-language accounts.

“These accounts were not mass reported by the Chinese authorities — this was routine action on our part,” the company said in a statement on Twitter. “Sometimes our routine actions catch false positives or we make errors. We apologize.”

Online, many users said they did not believe Twitter’s statement told the whole story. One human rights lawyer, whose account had been taken down, said that in protest he tweeted an image of Twitter’s bird mascot colored red with five yellow stars to evoke the Chinese flag.

The routine action set off real fears. In China, the June 4 anniversary of Tiananmen brings an extra dose of censorship to one of the world’s most controlled corners of the internet. Tools that help users jump the Great Firewall to get access to the broader online world often sputter inexplicably.

Within China, Twitter users have faced escalating pressures. At the end of 2018, China’s Ministry of Public Security began to target Chinese Twitter users. Although Twitter is blocked, many use virtual-private network software that enables access.

In a campaign carried out across the country and coordinated by a division known as the internet police, local officers detained Twitter users and forced them to delete their tweets, which often included years of online discussion, and then the accounts themselves. The campaign is continuing, according to human rights groups.


In the past, Twitter has come under fire for its political tone deafness, especially overseas. After the United Nations found that deliberate social media manipulation helped encourage a genocide in Myanmar, Twitter’s founder, Jack Dorsey, chose the country as the destination for a meditation retreat. While there, he declined to meet with organizers who were fighting violent propaganda and dangerous rumors spread on the platform.

Twitter said that all users in China who had their accounts recently suspended should be able to recover them, though a day later, some accounts remained locked, according to Yaxue Cao, editor of ChinaChange.org, a website dedicated to writings on civil society and human rights.

“I do believe Twitter is trying to do good,” Ms. Cao said. “No questions about that. But the results are mixed.”


SIGN UP
Lin Qiqing contributed research.
Title: Barr's DOJ going after Goolag for Anti-trust?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 02, 2019, 08:43:26 PM
https://thefederalistpapers.org/opinion/barr-bringing-anti-trust-lawsuit-google-targeting-conservatives?fbclid=IwAR2vlmQnQIYMWaZM1QLgq1BZgA1VPMitdT9K8Yw0gBGrkYUYPpLnWuduoVw
Title: Re: Barr's DOJ going after Goolag for Anti-trust?
Post by: G M on June 02, 2019, 09:23:20 PM
https://thefederalistpapers.org/opinion/barr-bringing-anti-trust-lawsuit-google-targeting-conservatives?fbclid=IwAR2vlmQnQIYMWaZM1QLgq1BZgA1VPMitdT9K8Yw0gBGrkYUYPpLnWuduoVw


I sure hope so!
Title: Re: Barr's DOJ going after Goolag for Anti-trust?
Post by: DougMacG on June 03, 2019, 06:17:28 AM
https://thefederalistpapers.org/opinion/barr-bringing-anti-trust-lawsuit-google-targeting-conservatives?fbclid=IwAR2vlmQnQIYMWaZM1QLgq1BZgA1VPMitdT9K8Yw0gBGrkYUYPpLnWuduoVw


I sure hope so!

Yes, a ray of hope.
Title: This could be the beginning of something good
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 03, 2019, 04:50:32 PM
https://thehill.com/policy/technology/446733-house-judiciary-launches-antitrust-investigation-into-tech-giants?userid=188403
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: ccp on June 03, 2019, 06:13:41 PM
I guess Cambridge Analytica might turn out to be a good thing
or all this would be squashed by Dems and their media friends

That is the only reason they are doing anything.
Title: Escape the Silicon Curtain
Post by: G M on June 03, 2019, 08:33:30 PM
Browser: Use Brave

www.Brave.com You can use Startpage as your default search engine in Brave.


Search engines:

www.startpage.com

www.Duckduckgo.com
 
Dump Goolagmail!

www.Protonmail.com
Title: Re: Escape the Silicon Curtain
Post by: DougMacG on June 04, 2019, 05:52:58 AM
Browser: Use Brave
www.Brave.com You can use Startpage as your default search engine in Brave.
Search engines:
www.startpage.com
www.Duckduckgo.com
Dump Goolagmail!
www.Protonmail.com

Thank you G M!  I will try these.
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: ccp on June 04, 2019, 06:40:37 AM
I get duckduckgo  on my mac but it is nowhere near as good as a search function as Google search

so I wind up having to go to google anyway   :cry:
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 04, 2019, 09:40:26 AM
I've been using Firefox; why use Brave (of which I have never heard) instead?

Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: ccp on June 04, 2019, 09:42:53 AM
I have heard security is very bad on firefox  the worst of any of them
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: G M on June 04, 2019, 12:49:31 PM
I get duckduckgo  on my mac but it is nowhere near as good as a search function as Google search

so I wind up having to go to google anyway   :cry:

https://support.startpage.com/index.php?/Knowledgebase/List/Index/22/google
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: G M on June 04, 2019, 12:52:39 PM
I've been using Firefox; why use Brave (of which I have never heard) instead?

https://thetinhat.com/blog/thoughts/brave-browser.html
Title: Behind the Silicon Curtain, GoolagMail reads YOU!
Post by: G M on June 04, 2019, 07:05:19 PM
https://easydns.com/blog/2019/06/03/googles-gmail-scans-parses-analyzes-and-catalogs-your-email/


Google’s Gmail scans, parses, analyzes and catalogs your email
June 3, 2019 by Mark E. Jeftovic



Recently I came across this story  by Todd Haselton that describes how the author located an obscure “purchases” page in his Google account settings and there found a methodical list of his online purchasing history, from third-party outside vendors, going back to 2o12.

The upshot of the story was that:

Google saves years of information on purchases you’ve made, even outside Google, and pulls this information from Gmail.
It’s complicated to delete this private information, and options to turn it off are hidden in privacy settings.
Google says it doesn’t use this information to sell you ads.
Naturally, I flagged this story for the next edition of our #AxisOfEasy newsletter.  Haselton reports that it isn’t easy to locate and delete this information, nor is there a straight-forward path to find it in your privacy settings to disable this behaviour.

This can’t be true (can it?)
The more I thought about this the more I thought “this can’t be true”. I apologize for doubting Haselton, but I thought he had to have it wrong, that maybe he had a stored credit card in his browser that he had forgotten or something, because the ramifications if true, are dire.

First, it means that in order to isolate and parse purchases, Google must then be scanning every email, otherwise, how would they know what’s a purchase and what isn’t?

Further, if they were scanning every email for purchases, what else where they scanning for? Either now, or in the future? The important mechanism, the infrastructure and methodology to scan and parse every inbound email is clearly in place and operational now, adding additional criterion is just a matter of tweaking the parameters.

Then, there is the matter that Google is doing this without informing their users. We can probably wager that there is buried down the rabbit hole of the ToS some clause that alludes to the possibility that Google reserves the right from time to time (including all the time) to do something or another with your email that may or may not involve machine reading it and dissecting it for your behavioural patterns; none of us have ever read it.

More importantly, it didn’t require an explicit opt-in to fire it up.

[ As a belated aside – everybody in tech already knew that the point of Gmail was it was free, and they would scan the contents to target ads. At some point I think they may have announced that they stopped doing that, I can’t remember. But the vast majority of normies (defined as people who don’t dream in XML), don’t realize this, or haven’t given it much thought. However this, parsing out financial transaction data specifically, takes it to a new level.]

I’ve personally verified this is happening
As I said, I initially thought that Haselton had perhaps stored credit cards in his Chrome browser and his purchase history was being populated from that. I still couldn’t believe that Google was in essence reading your email and cataloging your purchases on it’s own.

My Google purchases page existed, but was empty. To test it, I configured my gmail account (which I barely use, for anything other than Google news alerts) to receive any email from my Amazon account.  None of my web browsers have any credit cards stored. Then I went and picked up a new audiobook.

Sure enough…within seconds, my heretofore empty purchases page, suddenly had an entry:



Hovering over the “info” icon anticipates the question, how did this get here?



And so we click to find out…



We get it from Google’s mouth:

“This purchase was found in your Gmail” (emphasis added, because properly rendered it should read “We found this financial transaction sifting through your email”).

Why this is problematic
Before this revelation, I was already habitually remarking how it simply astounded me whenever I came across a law firm, or an investment fund, or medical professional, or financial services firm, or any outfit that routinely carries out propriety or confidential communications (you know them by the typical disclaimer they append to every single email they send):

“This email and any accompanying attachments contain confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named above. Any dissemination or action taken in reliance on this email or attachments by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited.”

…and find they’re using Gmail? Yikes. Those disclaimers should be modified to read:

This firm’s email and all accompanying attachments and any of your replies to us will be scanned, parsed and analyzed by our email provider. Hope you’re cool with that.”.

Because that’s what’s actually happening. Here’s the shortlist of problems with this:

We don’t know what else they are scanning for, what else they are parsing out, where they are storing it and what they are doing with it.
Google says they are not using this info to target ads, as if that settles matters. Then what are they doing with it or why else would they even bother? Further, Google says a lot of things, some of them turn out to be disingenuous. Google once testified before the US Congress that they don’t manually intervene in search results, it was later revealed that they …manually intervene in search results.
Whatever data mining and collation and cataloging systems and resources are in place could be abused by Google staff. There are ample cases of tech giant employees abusing their positions and their visibility into user data.
These same systems could be abused or exploited by partners, as has been reported in #AxisOfEasy in previous instances.
These systems could be used (or are being used) under a larger umbrella of State surveillance, which we all know is happening – thanks to the likes of Edward Snowden (see his recent talk to Dalhousie University here). Google’s startup financing came in part from the US intelligence apparatus and, as is frequently observed here and elsewhere, now a major contractor to world governments and the US military.
[ Added – later] As pointed out by a reader, it may also violate data privacy laws of various locales, regardless of what’s actually in the ToS.
Objections and Rationalizations
There will no doubt be people who read this and object to this being a problem on three grounds:

“Everybody does it”, in the sense that any email provider who is running virus or spam filters at their edge are in essence scanning every inbound email. This is true, but only in the sense that they are actively seeking to separate noise, which costs everybody, including the recipient, from signal – stuff the recipient wants to receive. They are not parsing non-infected, purportedly non-spam email. Let’s call it “real email”.  They aren’t parsing, and cataloging your real email based on its contents.
It’s free so shut up. For most gmail users, this is true. But they should also realize that if they don’t want to shut up about this, then the correct response is to move one’s email away from Gmail and pay a provider you trust not to inspect and datamine your private and business correspondence.Remember the old adage: “If you’re not paying for the product, you are the product”.
If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. Often quipped by people who have never read a history book. There isn’t much to say about these unfortunates other than, go read a few.
I frequently recommend the biography of Joseph Fouché, the man who ran Napoleon’s secret police, who also cast the deciding vote to behead King Louis XVI. He is credited therein with having invented the modern police state as we know it. If you want to see a long trail of people who had nothing to hide become separated from their wealth, their liberty and their heads… start there.
What to do about it
Maybe you know all this and you really don’t care, and that’s fine. As long as your cultural choices and your political beliefs and your lifestyle match the accepted norms of a rapidly shrinking Overton Window of what constitutes “acceptable”, then you shouldn’t have to worry about anything. Really.

If you’re an easyDNS client and you use Gmail, you should probably be made aware that many of the domain packages here come with email hosting included. If you have lots of historical email at Gmail (or anyplace else) you can use our IMAP migration tool to painlessly copy everything over from Google, except, alas, your purchase history.
Title: Youtube and Crowder
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 05, 2019, 05:37:38 PM


https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/06/05/youtube-steven-crowder-did-not-violate-sites-policies/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_content=links&utm_campaign=20190605

Title: Have not had time to read this yet
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 05, 2019, 06:35:42 PM


https://victorygirlsblog.com/congress-to-big-tech-were-investigating-you-wink-wink/
Title: Made in the USA!
Post by: G M on June 07, 2019, 05:41:37 PM
https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/chinas-scary-social-credit-system-made-in-usa-by-google-facebook/

Good thing it isn't here!
Title: Roomba
Post by: G M on June 08, 2019, 07:46:39 PM
https://www.libertynation.com/privacy-report-roomba-vacuums-floor/

Retro-tech is the way of the future.
Title: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, What the Tech Oligarchs Have in Mind
Post by: DougMacG on June 20, 2019, 10:56:15 AM
https://quillette.com/2019/06/19/what-do-the-oligarchs-have-in-mind-for-us/
------------------------------------

Joel Kotkin makes many valid points here to sound a warning.

My view, don't give these temporary monopolies permanent status by giving them the regulation they seek.  Mostly I would block them from unfair trade practices like buying their competitors and let newer, creative destruction be their demise.
Title: Ditch Goolag Chrome
Post by: G M on June 21, 2019, 07:53:53 PM
https://www.siliconvalley.com/2019/06/21/google-chrome-has-become-surveillance-software-its-time-to-switch/

Be Brave.

Brave.com

Go to settings and select startpage as your search engine.
Title: Russia Today: Goolag pulls youtube videos on its election tampering
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 25, 2019, 06:48:15 PM
Oh the irony!  RT reports

https://www.rt.com/usa/462619-google-removes-veritas-report/?fbclid=IwAR3Rcr2fSr8_AdaTo07kMQIguScM9GHS7MrAORr5wMei4qaXxmnBOHfztu8
Title: Sen. Cruz vs. Goolag
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 26, 2019, 11:12:45 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1YENAvOveE&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR3BIwgI2K8rpj07cW46HoNCoz85KUVZS2kIguLPgFbkecjHi1dQRTFdkYY
Title: Reddit is part of the Goolag
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 26, 2019, 01:29:26 PM
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/techwatch/corinne-weaver/2019/06/17/reddit-suspends-users-who-post-project-veritas-videos?fbclid=IwAR1w-KOHm2hCJGzlfdd35sN_as74l-YnOk_rBIhyujBozEsoob9J_amwm0k
Title: Dan Crenshaw questions Google, Facebook for targeting conservatives
Post by: DougMacG on June 27, 2019, 09:25:49 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=bTOIL2PeG6w
Congressman Dan Crenshaw Questions Google For Targeting Conservative Media Platforms
Title: FB delisted from ethical companies list
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 28, 2019, 09:44:34 AM
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/06/13/facebook-gets-boot-sp-500-ethical-index/?fbclid=IwAR2LhPIv-rzmSLjE54-Vc5dlT8ozcdTWY53g7Ka38puk_CETAv_E_noxs2k
Title: Big Government And Big Tech Are Partnering To Track Us Everywhere
Post by: G M on June 28, 2019, 11:34:20 PM
https://www.redstate.com/setonmotley/2019/06/27/big-government-big-tech-partnering-track-us-everywhere/

Big Government And Big Tech Are Partnering To Track Us Everywhere
Posted at 9:07 am on June 27, 2019 by Seton Motley

George Orwell was a brilliant individual.  A man of incredible insight – and foresight.

In his unfathomably predictive novel 1984, Orwell warns of Big Brother:

“(O)stensibly the leader of Oceania, a totalitarian state wherein the ruling party Ingsoc wields total power ‘for its own sake’ over the inhabitants.

“In the society that Orwell describes, every citizen is under constant surveillance by the authorities, mainly by telescreens.…The people are constantly reminded of this by the slogan ‘Big Brother is watching you’: a maxim that is ubiquitously on display.

“In modern culture, the term ‘Big Brother’ has entered the lexicon as a synonym for abuse of government power, particularly in respect to civil liberties, often specifically related to mass surveillance.”

As brilliant as Orwell was, something continuously struck me as incorrect as I read 1984.

Orwell’s government – was extraordinarily competent in its totalitarian imposition of technological power.

In Reality – no government in the history of man has ever been even remotely close to that competent.

For Orwell’s Big Brother dystopia to become Reality – Big Government would need private sector help.

Enter private sector Big Tech.

Seton Motley | Red State | RedState.com

Big Tech has delivered much of the technology Orwell envisioned.  As but one of many examples – Orwell’s telescreens:

“(D)evices that operate as televisions, security cameras, and microphones….(T)elescreens are used by the ruling Party in the totalitarian fictional State of Oceania to keep its subjects under constant surveillance, thus eliminating the chance of secret conspiracies against Oceania.”

We’re already all the way there – via Big Tech.

How Google and Amazon Are ‘Spying’ on You:

“The study found that digital assistants (Google Home and Amazon Echo) can be ‘awake’ even when users think they aren’t listening….

“(T)he devices listen all the time they are turned on – and Amazon has envisioned Alexa using that information to build profiles on anyone in the room….

“Amazon filed a patent application for an algorithm that would let future versions of the device identify statements of interest, such as ‘I love skiing’, enabling the speaker to be monitored based on their interests and targeted for related advertising.

 

 
“A Google patent application describes using a future release of it smart Home system to monitor and control everything from screen time and hygiene habits, to meal and travel schedules and other activities.

“The devices are envisioned as part of a surveillance web in the home to chart a families’ patterns….”

Why Google’s Spying on User Data Is Worse than the NSA’s

Is Amazon Spying on Users Through Alexa? Thousands of Employees Listen to Conversations

Amazon-Owned Ring Has Reportedly Been Spying on Customer Camera Feeds

Microsoft Windows 10 Is Spying on Almost Everything You Do

Yes, Webcams Can Spy on You

Eleven Insanely Creepy Ways Facebook Is Spying on You Right Now

This is ALL insanely creepy.

Big Tech is…insanely big.

Microsoft (Market Cap: $1.1 trillion)

Amazon (Market Cap: $942 billion)

Google (Market Cap: $775 billion)

Facebook (Market Cap: $550 billion)

These four spying companies – are currently worth a combined $3.7 trillion.  Our nation’s entire economy – is $19.4 trillion.

Which mans these four companies – all by themselves – are worth 19% of the United States.

But it’s Big Tech doing the spying – not Big Government.

Anyone who looks at Big Tech’s all-encompassing spying ability and thinks Big Government is capable of doing anything remotely similar – hasn’t paid attention to the past 10,000 years of human history.

The ONLY way Big Government can impose Big Brother – is to partner with Big Tech.

Uh oh.

The Role of Tech Companies in Government Surveillance

Tech Companies Concede to Surveillance Program

Four High-Tech Ways the Federal Government Is Spying on Private Citizens:

“Right now, the government is tracking the movements of private citizens by GPS, reading private citizens’ emails, and possibly even reading what you’re saying on Facebook.”

Big Tech once offered at least token resistance to Big Government’s demands – at least after being outed for acquiescing to Big Government’s demands.

Facebook, Amazon, Google Call for Government Surveillance Reform:

“It first gained attention after the revelations of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden in 2013. Congress is in the process of weighing reforms for the program. It must vote to renew Section 702 before the end of the year, otherwise it will expire.

“The letter, addressed to the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, asks Congress to consider several reforms to the program to ensure greater transparency and privacy protections.”

We can now officially refer to those – as the Good Old Days.

Why would Big Tech fight Big Government – when they can get paid to join them?

And the Big Government-Big Tech surveillance state – is getting closer and closer to home.

In fact – just outside…and inside it.

Amazon’s Helping Police Build a Surveillance Network with Ring Doorbells:

“Police departments across the country, from major cities like Houston to towns with fewer than 30,000 people, have offered free or discounted Ring doorbells to citizens, sometimes using taxpayer funds to pay for Amazon’s products.

“While Ring owners are supposed to have a choice on providing police footage, in some giveaways, police require recipients to turn over footage when requested….

“(T)he sheer number of cameras run by Amazon’s Ring business raises questions about privacy involving both law enforcement and tech giants….(C)ritics have pointed out the retail giant’s (other) ventures with law enforcement, like offering facial recognition tools….

“More than 50 local police departments across the US have partnered with Ring over the last two years, lauding how the Amazon-owned product allows them to access security footage in areas that typically don’t have cameras — on suburban doorsteps….

“‘What we have here is a perfect marriage between law enforcement and one of the world’s biggest companies creating conditions for a society that few people would want to be a part of,’ said Mohammad Tajsar, staff attorney at the ACLU of Southern California.”

That’s the outside of your home.  Here’s the in….

The Government Just Admitted It Will Use Smart Home Devices for Spying:

“If you want evidence that US intelligence agencies aren’t losing surveillance abilities because of the rising use of encryption by tech companies, look no further than the testimony…by the (then) director of national intelligence, James Clapper….

“Clapper made clear that the internet of things – the many devices like thermostats, cameras and other appliances that are increasingly connected to the internet – are providing ample opportunity for intelligence agencies to spy on targets, and possibly the masses. And it’s a danger that many consumers who buy these products may be wholly unaware of….

“Privacy advocates have known about the potential for government to exploit the internet of things for years. Law enforcement agencies have taken notice too, increasingly serving court orders on companies for data they keep that citizens might not even know they are transmitting. Police have already been asking Google-owned company Dropcam for footage from cameras inside people’s homes meant to keep an eye on their kids.”

Orwell got the tech right – just not Big Government’s ability to create it for totalitarian ends.

Freedom has allowed for the free markets – that allowed the rise of the private sector Big Tech Orwell thought Big Government would produce.

And now Big Tech and Big Government are partnering – to end that freedom.

Well…for we plebeians, anyway.

I’m sure Big Tech and Big Government will be just fine.
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 29, 2019, 11:26:29 AM
Four companies with market cap equal to 19% of GDP?

FK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

===============================================

Google must be destroyed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeqPqwE3Ar0&fbclid=IwAR1AFmvchfu5ES60gm039L7ZFhB4IouZv_qnOM88CKqdSeZw25tdSfQ5vfQ
Title: Amazon
Post by: ccp on June 29, 2019, 01:30:01 PM
private companies taking over our space programs

military on amazon cloud ?  not sure:

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-amazon-tweet-fight-affect-military-deal-2018-3

Not much different than what the Chinese communists are doing to their people
Here we have the tech capitalists controlling US.
Title: Re: Amazon
Post by: G M on June 29, 2019, 06:11:16 PM
private companies taking over our space programs

military on amazon cloud ?  not sure:

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-amazon-tweet-fight-affect-military-deal-2018-3

Not much different than what the Chinese communists are doing to their people
Here we have the tech capitalists controlling US.

The Chinese couldn't do what they do without our tech companies.

We already have a version of China's social credit system in place here, it's just not codified into law. Yet.
Title: Anti-extremism expert loses job due to Antifa smears
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 03, 2019, 01:05:07 PM


https://pjmedia.com/trending/anti-extremism-expert-loses-jobs-twitter-account-after-antifa-smears/?utm_source=pjmedia&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm&newsletterad=&bcid=52f016547a40edbdd6de69b8a7728bbf&recip=18183372
Title: Not quite sure how to react to this one 2.0
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 03, 2019, 03:57:24 PM
second post

https://dailycaller.com/2019/07/03/gop-chooses-censors-winred-fundraising/?utm_medium=email
Title: Re: Not quite sure how to react to this one 2.0
Post by: G M on July 05, 2019, 05:46:27 PM
second post

https://dailycaller.com/2019/07/03/gop-chooses-censors-winred-fundraising/?utm_medium=email

The stupid party goes full retard.

Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 05, 2019, 05:50:22 PM
It never ends , , ,
Title: Facebook Silent on Banning Antifa After Portland Violence Against Andy Ngo
Post by: G M on July 05, 2019, 08:14:53 PM
https://pjmedia.com/trending/facebook-silent-on-banning-antifa-after-portland-violence-against-andy-ngo/
Facebook Silent on Banning Antifa After Portland Violence Against Andy Ngo
 BY TYLER O'NEIL JULY 5, 2019

A flag bearing the logo of the group Antifa is seen at a rally held in solidarity with anti-fascist demonstrators in Berkley. CA.
A flag bearing the logo of the group Antifa is seen at a rally in Berkeley, California. (Photo by Albin Lohr-Jones)(Sipa via AP Images)
On Wednesday, 19 conservative leaders called on Facebook to apply its Community Standards against antifa, deplatforming the group in the wake of the violent assault on Quillette editor Andy Ngo in Portland, Ore. last weekend. PJ Media reached out to Facebook for comment, but Facebook has remained silent on the issue. Facebook has banned Gavin McInnes and the Proud Boys, but it seems unwilling to extend the same ban to violent leftists intent on punching "Nazis."

Various groups on Facebook have named themselves antifa, affiliating with the violent movement. Rose City Antifa, the group responsible for the unlawful assembly leading up to the beating of Andy Ngo (which gave him brain bleed), is indeed one of these groups, although a Facebook search for them will not bring up the group.

The Rose City Antifa Facebook page posted a statement defending the violent attack on Ngo. Conservatives condemned the group's continued presence on Facebook.

"Rose City Antifa uses its Facebook page to foment hate and train their goons on tactics to anonymously harrass, disrupt, and assault anyone who disagrees with their radical agenda," Jim Lakely, interim president of the Heartland Institute, said in a statement. "The latest result is the attack on journalist Andy Ngo – which is not fake news, is not merely words that people claim is hurtful, but is a serious and violent crime."

"Facebook needs to explain why it moves to deplatform and stifle the voices of peaceful conservatives while allowing its platform to be used by radical leftist fascists like Rose City Antifa to organize events that routinely result in violent assaults against innocent bystanders," Lakely declared.

"By continuing to allow Antifa related groups to spew hate on its platform, Facebook executives and its board of directors are now tacitly encouraging violence against conservatives," Justin Danhof, general counsel at the National Center for Public Policy Research, said. Danhof engages with companies by attending shareholder meetings and asking tough questions about liberal bias. He has proposed that Facebook put a balance of liberals and conservatives on its board.

Conservative Journalist Andy Ngo Beaten Up and Hit With Cement by Antifa in Portland, Says Police Did Nothing
"Facebook’s opposition to my proposal seeking ideological balance on the company’s board is proof positive that it has no interest in hearing from conservatives. But this latest instance of Antifa violence against conservative journalist Andy Ngo – and Facebook’s unwillingness to take down Antifa pages – proves that the company needs to hear from conservatives if it’s going to operate as a neutral platform," Danhof concluded.

"The Antifa-led assaults in Portland this past weekend were not the first instance of violence from this militant-leftist group. Antifa’s core principles condone and encourage the harassment and physical assault of those that disagree with their beliefs. The Department of Homeland Security has classified their activities as 'domestic terrorist violence,'" Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center (MRC), wrote in a statement.

He argued that Facebook's "community standards certainly condemn violence and they claim to have 'always banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence and hate, regardless of ideology.' And yet no action has been taken to de-platform this domestic terrorist organization."

"In allowing Antifa to retain its accounts, Facebook is enabling these extremists to commit more violent acts and further spread their hateful message," Bozell charged. "Facebook must enforce its policies equally. This is not a partisan issue. There should be no place for violent extremists of any kind on Facebook. Period."

Jenny Beth Martin, president of Tea Party Patriots, argued that the case of Andy Ngo "clearly demonstrates the lack of appreciation that the left and Antifa thugs have for our constitution and our 1st Amendment rights. ... Americans should wake up to the threat to our 1st Amendment liberties coming from everyone from Facebook de-platforming conservatives to violence against mainstream conservatives."

"Facebook allows AntiFa, the flipside of the same coin as Neo Nazism," Raheem Kassam, editor-in-chief of Human Events, declared. "And yet they routinely ban middle of the road conservatives, including gay, Muslim, black, and other minorities simply because they’re on the political right. If Facebook wants to highlight why they deserve no legislative protections like S230 of the Communications Decency Act, and should be treated as a biased monopoly, they could do no better favor to us than continuing this heinous practise."

Amy Kremer, co-chair of Women for Trump, said Facebook has "blood on their hands."

"Facebook's refusal to remove Antifa and these leftist hate filled groups from their platform, shows their support of these groups and their actions," she declared. "Facebook has blood on their hands and should be held accountable."

Report Shows Online Ties Linking HuffPost, the Guardian, and SPLC to Antifa
Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, shared her personal experiences facing antifa on America's college campuses. "I know what it's like for Antifa protestors to try and stop peaceful, pro-life speech, and have had to arrange for security just to address the human rights issue of our day. For Facebook to block or suppress conservative speech because of a bias against ideas — like helping both mother and preborn baby — while allowing those who advocate for actual violence shows a political bent that ignores common sense and common decency," she said.

"For all the attacks leveled at groups like ours – who just want less government intrusion in our lives, and to be left alone to enjoy our family and friends – the real dangers to freedom are those like Antifa who perpetuate violence against people they disagree with politically, and platforms like Facebook who support them by giving them a semblance of credibility," Tom McCabe, CEO of the Freedom Foundation, said in a statement. "That Facebook bans conservatives because the company doesn’t like their words, but Antifa remains in good standing after many examples of destroying property and causing serious harm to other people, tells us everything we need to know about Facebook’s concern for ‘dialogue’ and ‘inclusion’. The hypocrisy is outrageous."

"Antifa has no business operating and organizing their riots and violence on Facebook and other social media platforms," Brigitte Gabriel, founder and president of ACT for America, declared. "For years now, Antifa has demonstrated to be a radical left-wing terror organization that regularly uses violence and intimidation tactics to silence their political enemies. Is this the type of people Facebook wants to enable? Are these the kind of events Facebook wants to play a role in organizing?"

"Freedom of Speech is vital, and Facebook should never ban organizations and people simply for being controversial. They should ban them for engaging in acts of domestic terror," Gabriel concluded.

While it may be impractical for Facebook to ban every single group that identifies itself as "antifa" in some way, it does not seem unreasonable for Facebook to ban Rose City Antifa after the violence against Andy Ngo.

Facebook's silence on this issue is disgusting.

Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 05, 2019, 09:53:57 PM
Quelle surprise , , ,
Title: The Woz says dump Facehugger!
Post by: G M on July 08, 2019, 01:06:41 PM
https://gizmodo.com/apple-cofounder-steve-wozniak-says-most-people-should-g-1836178238/amp

Think.
Title: Amazon lobbying, Wash Post, and center near DC
Post by: ccp on July 20, 2019, 08:30:29 AM
https://www.newsmax.com/headline/republicans-amazon-pentagon-cloud/2019/07/19/id/925262/

Move along folks , nothing to see here or be worried about.
Title: Facebook suspends Candace Owens
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 24, 2019, 07:22:18 AM
https://va.news-republic.com/a/6692010243641065989?app_id=1239&gid=6692010243641065989&impr_id=6712210743515023621&language=en&region=us&user_id=6712210135688709126&c=fb&fbclid=IwAR34gTNFmXkfUN8hXJttECxo34DYRoJ-zf6Xm126QjaMrPR1jAGExnDKpbQ
Title: Twitter bans Canadian free speech advocate
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 24, 2019, 11:56:36 AM

https://www.thepostmillennial.com/breaking-twitter-silences-canadian-free-speech-activist-lindsay-shepherd/?fbclid=IwAR3vj9UZHZudvluqNnukMKY5qk4G452c413gozmDZNU0MgfRg8P_K5nk584
Title: Amazon deletes documentary
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 24, 2019, 03:24:06 PM
https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2019/07/24/amazon-removes-danish-filmmakers-islam-documentary/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_campaign=20190724&utm_content=B
Title: Re: Facebook suspends Candace Owens
Post by: DougMacG on July 24, 2019, 05:09:26 PM
https://va.news-republic.com/a/6692010243641065989?app_id=1239&gid=6692010243641065989&impr_id=6712210743515023621&language=en&region=us&user_id=6712210135688709126&c=fb&fbclid=IwAR34gTNFmXkfUN8hXJttECxo34DYRoJ-zf6Xm126QjaMrPR1jAGExnDKpbQ

They've gone too far this time.

Nice platform you have there little Zuckie.  It would be a shame if something happened to it.
Title: WSJ: FB's settlement with the FTC
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 25, 2019, 10:57:00 AM

Facebook Settlement Vindicates Consumer Privacy
The FTC imposes a historic fine and creates a strong protocol to prevent further abuses of data.
By Noah Joshua Phillips
July 24, 2019 6:40 pm ET
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg speaks in San Jose, Calif., May 1, 2018. Photo: Marcio Jose Sanchez/Associated Press

The Federal Trade Commission’s case against Facebook has come to represent a general reckoning for the many ills attributed to the company. So it’s important to understand what the case,  which was settled Wednesday, was actually about: the privacy commitments Facebook made to its users and the government.

In its 2012 consent order with the FTC, Facebook promised not to misrepresent how it shared user data with third parties and how users could control that data-sharing. It also promised to maintain a reasonable privacy program. The FTC alleged that Facebook broke those promises.

Facebook’s privacy settings that purportedly allowed a user to limit data sharing just to “friends” did not restrict access by third-party apps used by those friends. Facebook set user controls over this third-party app access apart from its privacy settings, making it more difficult for users to exercise control. And after announcing in 2014 that it was discontinuing the third-party app access, Facebook continued to allow it. (This access was at issue in the Cambridge Analytica matter, a related case we have also resolved.)

Facebook also misrepresented the steps users needed to take to control privacy for facial-recognition technology. The company allowed financial considerations to affect how it enforced violations of its policies against third-party app developers, which isn’t a reasonable way to conduct a privacy program. Finally, Facebook violated the FTC Act by deceiving consumers about its use of phone numbers, which were ostensibly collected for security purposes but in fact also used for advertising.

These are serious violations, and the settlement is a serious response. It forces Facebook to pay a historic fine and change fundamentally its approach to privacy. It’s a watershed moment in data-privacy enforcement and governance that will reverberate across the digital economy.

The $5 billion penalty Facebook must pay to U.S. taxpayers is the largest privacy fine in history. It’s orders of magnitude greater than previous record privacy fines in the U.S. and Europe. The sum is nearly a quarter of Facebook’s 2018 profits—an amount no corporation pays out lightly. For violating its 2012 commitments to the FTC, Facebook will pay an amount on par with some of the steepest civil penalties ever imposed by the U.S. government, such as the one paid by BP for the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, an environmental disaster that killed 11 Americans and decimated livelihoods.

Perhaps more significant than the monetary penalty, the settlement also includes an order that forces Facebook to revamp the way it deals with privacy. First, the order requires Mark Zuckerberg and other executives to certify personally, on pain of civil and criminal penalty, Facebook’s compliance with its privacy program—the privacy equivalent of the accounting obligations Congress imposed on CEOs following early-2000s financial frauds like Enron and WorldCom.

Second, Facebook must create a new, independent privacy committee on its board of directors. The members will be selected by an independent nominating committee and protected from removal. (Facebook has not had an independent nominating committee, a best practice in corporate governance. It will now.) This committee will oversee privacy at Facebook and will receive briefings from both management and an independent third-party assessor. For the first time, Facebook must give privacy concerns board-level attention, on par with audit, executive-compensation and governance functions.

Third, the settlement imposes substantial new obligations on Facebook for protecting consumer privacy. It sets new limits on Facebook’s sharing user data with third parties. Facebook must also provide an “opt in” user consent option for changes to its use of facial-recognition data and delete from its servers any data users delete. And Facebook employees must consider and document the privacy implications of new or modified products and services.

Finally, the independent third-party assessor and the FTC will provide external oversight. Each will have extraordinary access to internal documentation. When there is a privacy breach involving 500 or more users, Facebook must inform the assessor and the FTC. The assessor will work for the FTC, not Facebook, and report to us every two years, as well as regularly brief the board’s privacy committee. We must approve the assessor and can terminate him if he fails to live up to the task.

Today’s settlement addresses directly the violations we found, penalizing Facebook in a historic fashion and forcing it to confront privacy in a dramatic new way. Still, not everyone will be satisfied, perhaps because the settlement does not address Facebook’s size, or the role social media plays in American elections, or Mr. Zuckerberg’s role at the company, or Facebook’s business of selling targeted advertising. All those are important issues and matters of substantial national conversation and congressional deliberation.

But the FTC is a law-enforcement agency, not a legislature. This settlement was meant to resolve Facebook’s violation of its 2012 commitments and its deception of consumers. We penalized Facebook for its deceit and imposed far-reaching reforms that make it less likely that such deceit can happen again. In all likelihood, the settlement will accomplish far more, far sooner, than could have been achieved through litigation.

The political debate over “big tech” and social media will continue. In the meantime, the settlement sends a powerful message about the importance of privacy. The cost of privacy violations like Facebook’s just increased dramatically. And if the need for companies to take privacy commitments seriously was not clear before, it is now.

Mr. Phillips is a commissioner at the Federal Trade Commission.
Title: Youtube monetization
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 28, 2019, 10:51:54 AM


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=110&v=EUxxLZz_2NU
Title: Josh Hawley and tech
Post by: ccp on July 30, 2019, 03:36:04 PM
As I have posted previously I am not sure if Hawley is on the money or not with "us vs elites" or "us vs tech" etc

One PJ media writer is against it but suggest read comments for other supportive opinions on the matter:

https://pjmedia.com/trending/josh-hawley-wants-to-be-your-social-media-babysitter/

I think big tech IS a problem on multiple fronts but I am not sure how to deal with
 it

From making them utilities , to subjecting them to government oversight to Gilder's market approach
I just find it too hard to wrap my brain around it all.

The best ones to know are BIG TECH themselves but of course they ain't talking or going to be truthful.

Title: Michael Yon and "Goolag Snowden"
Post by: G M on August 08, 2019, 07:53:55 PM
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/382734.php

Michael Yon: A Google Insider, Who I'm Calling a "Google Snowden," Is Set to Reveal The Extent of China's Penetration of Google, and Google's Algorithmic Interventions to Convince America That Patriotism Towards The United States is Racist and Evil

Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 08, 2019, 10:33:35 PM
I find myself remembering that the Chinese hacked into the applications for security clearances of some 2.5 million Americans , , ,
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: G M on August 08, 2019, 10:35:34 PM
I find myself remembering that the Chinese hacked into the applications for security clearances of some 2.5 million Americans , , ,

Yes, but that happened with his preciousness was president, so no outrage and almost no media coverage of it.
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 09, 2019, 10:32:08 AM
My point is that I wonder if somehow the Chinese are putting the personal knowledge acquired about serious patriotic Americans to malevolent use.
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: G M on August 09, 2019, 11:00:25 AM
My point is that I wonder if somehow the Chinese are putting the personal knowledge acquired about serious patriotic Americans to malevolent use.

In what way exactly?
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 09, 2019, 02:49:58 PM
I haven't a fg clue.

I don't know what is in Security Clearance applications, but I'm guessing it includes some real personal info that a team of clever Chinese intel folks could come up with some crafty ways to fk with some of them.
Title: Twitter Goolag censors ClintonBodyCount
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 10, 2019, 02:15:50 PM
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/08/what-censorship-twitter-removes-clintonbodycount-with-84000-mentions-from-trending-list-after-epstein-death-replaces-with-trump-barr-hashtags/
Title: This could get interesting
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 14, 2019, 09:12:35 PM
https://saraacarter.com/exclusive-google-insider-turns-over-950-pages-of-docs-and-laptop-to-doj/?fbclid=IwAR1YeRmwbyVwiICL5FVNY_RdSRgs7A1gsi2_KkcVB6xL1xEAVNklz_s-Azc
Title: FBI and swat to Google whistle blower home
Post by: ccp on August 16, 2019, 02:26:01 PM
https://pjmedia.com/trending/retaliation-google-whistleblower-claims-fbi-swat-bomb-squad-appeared-at-his-home/

but not to Hillary's
or Epstein's (till after he is dead) and plenty of time to bleach bit hard drives
Title: Re: FBI and swat to Google whistle blower home
Post by: G M on August 16, 2019, 05:08:51 PM
https://pjmedia.com/trending/retaliation-google-whistleblower-claims-fbi-swat-bomb-squad-appeared-at-his-home/

but not to Hillary's
or Epstein's (till after he is dead) and plenty of time to bleach bit hard drives

Of course, the inner party is exempt from such things.
Title: The Goolag is even scummier than I knew
Post by: G M on August 20, 2019, 12:55:47 AM
https://nypost.com/2019/08/17/how-google-has-destroyed-the-lives-of-revenge-porn-victims/
Title: Google swayed 2.6 million 2016 votes with search results bias
Post by: DougMacG on August 21, 2019, 03:36:17 PM
https://aibrt.org/downloads/EPSTEIN_&_ROBERTSON_2017-A_Method_for_Detecting_Bias_in_Search_Rankings-AIBRT_WP-17-02_6-1-17.pdf
--------------------------

This understates the problem and Google searches alone are but a small part of the problem.  Google searches are working in tandem with the rest of the Leftist media and academic complex.
Title: Re: Google swayed 2.6 million 2016 votes with search results bias
Post by: G M on August 22, 2019, 09:00:09 AM
https://aibrt.org/downloads/EPSTEIN_&_ROBERTSON_2017-A_Method_for_Detecting_Bias_in_Search_Rankings-AIBRT_WP-17-02_6-1-17.pdf
--------------------------

This understates the problem and Google searches alone are but a small part of the problem.  Google searches are working in tandem with the rest of the Leftist media and academic complex.

I can say that some things have been deeply memory holed by the Goolag. They don’t even care about plausible deniability now.

Title: Building our own Panopticon
Post by: G M on August 26, 2019, 12:13:15 PM
https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/silicon-valley-copycats-chinas-orwellian-social-credit-scheme/
Title: Goolag, the Orwellian Tech Octopus, Google abuses your privacy
Post by: DougMacG on September 05, 2019, 05:21:18 AM
Google is allegedly using a network of billions of “secret” webpages to funnel personal data on its users to advertisers and “work around” privacy laws.

The claims have been made in evidence submitted to an investigation by the Irish data watchdog, which regulates the activities of the search and advertising giant in Europe. The pages were discovered by Brave, a browser company, which alleges that Google shares large quantities of sensitive data on its users with other companies to target advertising without adequately safeguarding privacy.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/google-uses-secret-profiles-to-get-round-data-protection-law-9j7kfg80t

Surprise, surprise, surprise.

I switched to Brave for browser and duckduckgo for search on my notebook per G M and I avoid F-book  I am still VERY vulnerable to google, email, android, cell use etc.
Title: Re: Goolag, the Orwellian Tech Octopus, Google abuses your privacy
Post by: G M on September 05, 2019, 04:23:51 PM
Don't forget startpage.com Unless I need google maps for investigative purposes, I use startpage 90% of the time.

What level of privacy are you looking for, Doug?


Google is allegedly using a network of billions of “secret” webpages to funnel personal data on its users to advertisers and “work around” privacy laws.

The claims have been made in evidence submitted to an investigation by the Irish data watchdog, which regulates the activities of the search and advertising giant in Europe. The pages were discovered by Brave, a browser company, which alleges that Google shares large quantities of sensitive data on its users with other companies to target advertising without adequately safeguarding privacy.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/google-uses-secret-profiles-to-get-round-data-protection-law-9j7kfg80t

Surprise, surprise, surprise.

I switched to Brave for browser and duckduckgo for search on my notebook per G M and I avoid F-book  I am still VERY vulnerable to google, email, android, cell use etc.
Title: Feds demand Apple and Goolag hand over gun scope app user names
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 06, 2019, 02:07:35 PM


https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2019/09/06/exclusive-feds-demand-apple-and-google-hand-over-names-of-10000-users-of-a-gun-scope-app/#2ae5f2672423
Title: Levin guest on Robert Epstein on Google manipulation
Post by: ccp on September 09, 2019, 05:32:12 PM
of note his study did NOT find the same as being true on Yahoo Bing or other search engines.

He pointed out he has only found this on Google:

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6084521411001/#sp=show-clips

I am not sure what to do about it .  whatever the legislatures do google will find way around and influence them and pay whatever fine they could come up with as though it is a mosquito bite.

It would be nice if we could get funding for Epstein who interestingly voted for Hillary yet when he published his findings that millions of undecided voters were likely influenced to vote for her simply by the algoryhthms Google uses
she true to form attacked him.
Title: FB fact checker challenged
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 10, 2019, 01:31:05 AM

https://bigleaguepolitics.com/exclusive-facebooks-fact-checker-backtracks-following-egregious-errors-regarding-blps-jeffrey-epstein-coverage/
Title: problem with government regulation of internet is this
Post by: ccp on September 10, 2019, 05:10:54 AM
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/09/10/leftist-u-s-donors-using-secretive-arabella-advisors-to-push-government-control-of-the-internet/

groups of clinonites want government to control internet

Watching MSLD last night mention something about the 2016 election was what "woke" regulators to the problem with the internet.

ie specifically they meant Cambridge Analytica , though not mentioned.
  they of course leave out Obama getting FB data earlier then that.
only when it adversely affected them then suddenly there is a problem

and groups like the above one , will work with the liberal FB GOOG AMZN to fix it in a way that hurts only the Republicans and helps the Democrats and will allow the big techies to get off with a mosquito bite.

I know I am cynical .. Can't imagine why.
Title: Breaking with Google
Post by: DougMacG on September 11, 2019, 07:15:40 AM
Previously:  "I am still VERY vulnerable to google, email, android, cell use etc."

G M: What level of privacy are you looking for, Doug?
--------------------------------------
Good question, struggling with that question myself.  I'm not ready to give up a lot of convenience and functionality and Google already has everything they could want on me.

I switched to Brave on my notebook and I like it, thank you!  I am also trying duckduckgo and startpage.com.   

Gmail:  I gave up privacy when I became an early adopter.  I understood they would scan my emails and use it to target advertising. I have to admit I receive amazing functionality, being able to store and search all my past emails, pay nothing directly, have spam removed and never have to go back and delete emails to avoid running out of space, so far.  It serves as my cloud; I can send documents and photos to myself and search and find them later - very valuable in my business.

I set up a Protonmail address but having all contacts send to there is another matter.  It has limits on storage. Is there any point in switching part way over and then having to check both?

Mapquest is owned by Verizon.  Should I switch driving direction to them or someone else to get that off google?  If so, I am still tracked everywhere I go by Google Android GPS...

Looking at alternatives to Android (and iphone) but it seems to be a dead end right now https://itsfoss.com/open-source-alternatives-android/  If not for the egregious violation of privacy, I have to admit I receive amazing functionality at nearly a zero cost for mobile connectivity.  It makes breaking away difficult.  Always open to ideas!  At some point I will break away.
-----------------------------------
Going through gmail spam recently I noticed the google quite effectively blocks all my political solicitations which happen to be conservative who got my contact info through the non-privacy of some past R. party involvement.  Most of those emails are spam but conservative groups have people's info with no way to reach them.  I wonder if Google also blocks moveon.org type groups from contacting liberal users.
Title: Re: Breaking with Google
Post by: G M on September 11, 2019, 07:29:09 PM
Previously:  "I am still VERY vulnerable to google, email, android, cell use etc."

G M: What level of privacy are you looking for, Doug?
--------------------------------------
Good question, struggling with that question myself.  I'm not ready to give up a lot of convenience and functionality and Google already has everything they could want on me.

Never too late to stop the bleeding. The less you use them, the less money and power they have.

I switched to Brave on my notebook and I like it, thank you!  I am also trying duckduckgo and startpage.com.   

Gmail:  I gave up privacy when I became an early adopter.  I understood they would scan my emails and use it to target advertising. I have to admit I receive amazing functionality, being able to store and search all my past emails, pay nothing directly, have spam removed and never have to go back and delete emails to avoid running out of space, so far.  It serves as my cloud; I can send documents and photos to myself and search and find them later - very valuable in my business.

I set up a Protonmail address but having all contacts send to there is another matter.  It has limits on storage. Is there any point in switching part way over and then having to check both?

Like many things, it depends. I use a privacy scale that roughly goes from -1 (Compulsive Social Media addict that posts where they are and what they are doing constantly) 0 (The average American today has pretty much zero privacy in any meaningful way) Level 1 does basic things to make someone spend at least several hundred dollars for a P.I. to find you. Level 2 has it so your vehicles and electronics are in alternate names, making it expensive to find you. Level 3 has you moving and using various legal structures for your residence, vehicles and other connections, making you Very difficult to find. Level 4 is comparable to the US Marshal's WITSEC program. Not legal unless Uncle Sugar does it.

Mapquest is owned by Verizon.  Should I switch driving direction to them or someone else to get that off google?  If so, I am still tracked everywhere I go by Google Android GPS...

Looking at alternatives to Android (and iphone) but it seems to be a dead end right now https://itsfoss.com/open-source-alternatives-android/  If not for the egregious violation of privacy, I have to admit I receive amazing functionality at nearly a zero cost for mobile connectivity.  It makes breaking away difficult.  Always open to ideas!  At some point I will break away.
-----------------------------------
Going through gmail spam recently I noticed the google quite effectively blocks all my political solicitations which happen to be conservative who got my contact info through the non-privacy of some past R. party involvement.  Most of those emails are spam but conservative groups have people's info with no way to reach them.  I wonder if Google also blocks moveon.org type groups from contacting liberal users.
Title: The Goolag, China, and AI
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 12, 2019, 08:02:09 AM
https://www.theepochtimes.com/googles-china-ties-in-ai-research-eyed_3078658.html?utm_source=Epoch+Times+Newsletters&utm_campaign=741576fa06-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_09_11_09_00&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_4fba358ecf-741576fa06-239065853
Title: The Goolag and China
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 14, 2019, 04:44:03 PM
https://sovereignnations.com/2019/08/26/enabling-chinas-mass-surveillance-system/?fbclid=IwAR3Z3htq8rqfO6koNX-r3WSW_amVDC__7Jw0XeWgV-ZlGpQP9OBZX6r0L9E
Title: A map of the growing surveillance state
Post by: G M on September 16, 2019, 01:44:36 PM
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xwewjj/this-interactive-map-tracks-our-growing-surveillance-state?fbclid=IwAR3wpgVhMV6iDxVs6VTTEF7U7E24PiN0-BY6ybAxAh5pzEl1SvdpeHw3FOc
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: ccp on September 19, 2019, 06:58:34 AM
I would not be surprised if Cambridge Analytica topic was brought up
but would be shocked if the issue of FB left wing bias was:


https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/zuckerberg-capitol-hill-internet-regulation-meetings

as the politicians have a gourmet dinner with Zuckerberglur trying to find a way they can come out with some phoney political victory
while the system gets rigged so you know who can benefit .
Title: Tulsi Gabbard goes after Goolag, including for mistreatment of conservatives
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 26, 2019, 06:18:59 PM


https://israelunwired.com/democratic-presidential-candidate-sues-google-for-abolishing-freedom-of-speech/
Title: The Goolag in schools
Post by: G M on September 29, 2019, 11:24:03 PM
http://michellemalkin.com/2019/09/04/stop-mental-health-data-mining-of-our-kids-and-deplatform-google-from-public-schools/
Title: EU vs. FB vs. US First Amendment
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 09, 2019, 10:28:59 AM
https://fortune.com/2019/10/03/facebook-eu-hate-speech-posts/?fbclid=IwAR1fEG08VOcfbSYSA94iIvUt3TWcRCXOJQWV5xDARgWaYGXJojrcM5s5vIc
Title: Steven Crowder
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 11, 2019, 11:39:31 AM
https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/youtube2020electionblacklist-alarming-update-on-election-meddling/
Title: China the techno totalitarian leviatan
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 13, 2019, 07:08:21 PM
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/china-the-techno-totalitarian-leviathan/?fbclid=IwAR2Xuxu4Rqf5k6UmKBYloiwvWxwH9icP3I9usM9lkKoJmv7oLJf6OLaErKk
Title: Re: China the techno totalitarian leviatan
Post by: DougMacG on October 14, 2019, 06:40:49 AM
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/china-the-techno-totalitarian-leviathan/?fbclid=IwAR2Xuxu4Rqf5k6UmKBYloiwvWxwH9icP3I9usM9lkKoJmv7oLJf6OLaErKk

Scary stuff.  I expected the information revolution to open up places like Communist China.  Instead it is empowering the state.  Instead of them becoming more open, we are becoming more thought controlling.

From the article:
"The book to read right now — the book that every American should read, without delay — is We Have Been Harmonised: Life In China’s Surveillance State, by the German journalist Kai Strittmatter. I finished it this morning, and let me tell you, reading it is something close to a red-pill experience. I thought I had a pretty good handle on how extensive China’s surveillance state was. I was wrong. It’s much more extensive than I realized. And what’s more, reading this book made me realize that the dystopian Western future I’ve been thinking about all year — “soft totalitarianism” is the phrase I use — is not speculative science fiction. It already exists in China. We have the technology to institute it here in America. What we lack — for now — is the will. That could easily change. The system is so entrenched in China that I can’t imagine how anybody could resist it. It is not yet in place here. We can’t even begin to act against it happening here until we understand what is possible."
Title: Youtube hiding pro-Israel videos
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 22, 2019, 10:16:50 AM


https://israelunwired.com/pro-israel-youtube-channel-discovers-youtube-has-been-hiding-its-videos/
Title: Sen. Hawley intros bill empowering users to withdraw their data
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 22, 2019, 10:17:43 AM
second post

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/hawley-introduces-bipartisan-bill-empowering-users-to-withdraw-their-data-from-social-media-giants/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=breaking&utm_campaign=newstrack&utm_term=18402014
Title: Apple CEO in bed with China
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 22, 2019, 10:32:07 AM
https://www.theepochtimes.com/apple-ceo-appointed-chair-of-board-at-top-chinese-university-with-close-ties-to-beijing_3123297.html?utm_source=Epoch+Times+Newsletters&utm_campaign=2727543252-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_10_22_09_27&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_4fba358ecf-2727543252-239065853
Title: FB in bed with Huawei and others
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 22, 2019, 05:45:51 PM
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-privacy-congress/facebook-confirms-data-sharing-with-chinese-companies-idUSKCN1J11TY?fbclid=IwAR23_qrcE_wJP9GdsRrr5IbP6EMY45ZSd1skcBVYRdtk72zSbPcijntdtxo
Title: Re: FB in bed with Huawei and others
Post by: G M on October 22, 2019, 05:49:13 PM
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-privacy-congress/facebook-confirms-data-sharing-with-chinese-companies-idUSKCN1J11TY?fbclid=IwAR23_qrcE_wJP9GdsRrr5IbP6EMY45ZSd1skcBVYRdtk72zSbPcijntdtxo

Huawei=Chinese Ministry for State Security

Title: Re: Sen. Hawley intros bill empowering users to withdraw their data
Post by: DougMacG on October 22, 2019, 08:11:27 PM
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/hawley-introduces-bipartisan-bill-empowering-users-to-withdraw-their-data-from-social-media-giants/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=breaking&utm_campaign=newstrack&utm_term=18402014

Excellent move. .
Title: Re: Sen. Hawley intros bill empowering users to withdraw their data
Post by: G M on October 22, 2019, 08:15:50 PM
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/hawley-introduces-bipartisan-bill-empowering-users-to-withdraw-their-data-from-social-media-giants/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=breaking&utm_campaign=newstrack&utm_term=18402014

Excellent move. .

FB currently moving US servers overseas....
Title: New Yorker: The Problem of Political Advertising on Social Media
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 24, 2019, 10:52:42 PM
https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/the-problem-of-political-advertising-on-social-media?source=EDT_NYR_EDIT_NEWSLETTER_0_imagenewsletter_Daily_ZZ&utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_source=nl&utm_brand=tny&utm_mailing=TNY_Daily_102419&utm_medium=email&bxid=5be9d3fa3f92a40469e2d85c&cndid=50142053&esrc=&mbid=&utm_term=TNY_Daily

This caught my attention:

"Embedded in the First Amendment’s protection of political speech is the assumption that deceptions will be exposed and then rejected in the marketplace of ideas. In Zuckerberg’s view, Facebook, though a private company, is the public square where such ideas can be debated. But when political ads with false claims circulate only among the people who will be most receptive to them, there is little chance that the veracity of those ads will be openly debated."
Title: Zuckerberg does not know what the First Amendment is for
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 24, 2019, 10:55:42 PM
second post

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/mark-zuckerberg-doesnt-know-what-the-first-amendment-is-for?source=EDT_NYR_EDIT_NEWSLETTER_0_imagenewsletter_Daily_ZZ&utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_source=nl&utm_brand=tny&utm_mailing=TNY_Daily_092319&utm_medium=email&bxid=5be9d3fa3f92a40469e2d85c&cndid=50142053&esrc=&mbid=&utm_term=TNY_Daily
Title: Goolag says it has achieved Quantum Supremacy
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 25, 2019, 11:20:11 AM
https://www.disrn.com/2019/10/23/google-says-it-has-achieved-quantum-supremacy/
Title: Goolag carries Chinese Communist message about religion
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 28, 2019, 04:47:08 AM
This is scary folks , , ,

https://www.theepochtimes.com/google-carries-chinese-communist-partys-message-about-religion_3129048.html?utm_source=Epoch+Times+Newsletters&utm_campaign=36f3f23532-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_10_27_07_33&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_4fba358ecf-36f3f23532-239065853
Title: Artificial Intelligence and National Security Law
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 30, 2019, 08:07:57 AM
Sent to me by Big Dog

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVQltGtMIho
Title: Bill would require search engines to disclose algorithms
Post by: Crafty_Dog on October 31, 2019, 09:44:40 PM


https://www.wsj.com/articles/legislation-would-require-search-engines-to-disclose-algorithms-11572540266?mod=itp_wsj&mod=&mod=djemITP_h
Title: Re: The Goolag, Google to acquire Fitbit
Post by: DougMacG on November 03, 2019, 10:21:44 AM
The Obama administration in bed with Google Facebook allowed FB to buy Instagram.  What say Trump administration about this?  Do we want one or two companies to own all industry?  Looks to me like a back door deal for government to own and or control  everything since Congress is also considering how to takeover these giants.

Google to acquire Fitbit for $2.1 billion in major health tech deal
https://www.statnews.com/2019/11/01/google-to-acquire-fitbit-for-2-1-billion-in-major-health-tech-deal/
Title: Gaggle
Post by: G M on November 04, 2019, 04:33:21 PM
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/carolinehaskins1/gaggle-school-surveillance-technology-education
Title: The Goolag's tentacles snake into your medical records
Post by: G M on November 04, 2019, 09:12:31 PM
https://thenextweb.com/google/2019/11/04/google-wants-to-create-the-ultimate-medical-record-search-tool-for-doctors/

It's OK, they totally promise to respect your privacy.


(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/62/Cthulhu_and_R%27lyeh.jpg/220px-Cthulhu_and_R%27lyeh.jpg)
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 04, 2019, 09:50:14 PM
 :cry: :cry: :cry:
Title: Literally building the Goolag cities now
Post by: G M on November 06, 2019, 10:34:20 PM
https://massprivatei.blogspot.com/2019/11/sidewalk-labs-smart-cities-will-create.html
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: ccp on November 07, 2019, 04:34:47 AM
Gm,

It is time we set up 24/7 surveillance of Tech  titans and their teams .  Put them in a IT glass cage so to speak and document and sell the data .
We need to watch what they are up to and doing to protect
the rest of us .
Title: Re: Literally building the Goolag cities now
Post by: DougMacG on November 07, 2019, 06:21:47 AM
https://massprivatei.blogspot.com/2019/11/sidewalk-labs-smart-cities-will-create.html

George Orwell thought he was writing a warning, not a how-to guide.
Title: WSJ: Amazon and China: big, long read
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 12, 2019, 10:12:32 AM
Amazon’s Heavy Recruitment of Chinese Sellers Puts Consumers at Risk
The e-commerce platform has included banned, unsafe, mislabeled products. One reason: It wooed China’s manufacturers to sell directly to the U.S.
By Jon Emont
Nov. 11, 2019 11:17 am ET

It looked like Amazon.com Inc.’s yearslong quest to build a shopping business in China was a bust in July when it folded a big part of its local business.

In fact, Amazon’s China business is bigger than ever. That is because it has aggressively recruited Chinese manufacturers and merchants to sell to consumers outside the country. And these sellers, in turn, represent a high proportion of problem listings found on the site, according to a Wall Street Journal investigation.

The Journal earlier this year uncovered 10,870 items for sale between May and August that have been declared unsafe by federal agencies, are deceptively labeled, lacked federally-required warnings, or are banned by federal regulators. Amazon said it investigated the items, and some listings were taken down after the Journal’s reporting.

Of 1,934 sellers whose addresses could be determined, 54% were based in China, according to a Journal analysis of data from research firm Marketplace Pulse.

Amazon’s China recruiting is one reason why its platform increasingly resembles an unruly online flea market. A new product listing is uploaded to Amazon from China every 1/50th of a second, according to slides its officials showed a December conference in the industrial port city of Ningbo.

Chinese factories are squeezing profit margins for middlemen who sell on Amazon’s third-party platform. Some U.S. sellers fear the next step will be to cut them out entirely.

Tony Sagar began noticing the China effect around 2015. His company, Down Under Bedding in Mississauga, Ontario, had sold goose-down duvets on Amazon since 2014—these days, for $699 for a queen-size version. Then Chinese competitors hit, listing goose-down duvets for sometimes a sixth his price. He bought one and had it tested: Inside was inexpensive duck down.




Tony Sagar says about 80% of his revenue comes from online sales. In recent years, Chinese competitors began listing 100% goose-down duvets for about a sixth of what he charged. Mr. Sagar arranged to have a competitor’s duvet tested: Inside were cheap duck feathers. PHOTOS: LIBBY MARCH FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL(3)
The Journal in October bought a duvet from the same Amazon seller claiming “100% Fill With Goose Down” and had it tested. The result matched Mr. Sagar’s: duck feathers.

“They’re claiming they’re selling a $500-$700 duvet based on false specifications, so people say, ‘$120, it’s a good deal!’ ” Mr. Sagar said. “Amazon is making a direct push for these factories in China.”

AMAZON’S UNRULY MARKETPLACE
Amazon Has Ceded Control of Its Site. The Result: Thousands of Banned, Unsafe or Mislabeled Products

In response to this article, an Amazon spokesman said, “Bad actors make up a tiny fraction of activity in our store and, like honest sellers, can come from every corner of the world. Regardless of where they are based, we work hard to stop bad actors before they can impact the shopping or selling experience in our store.”

Amazon said it took enforcement action on the duvet seller and that its products were no longer for sale on the site. The seller’s listings appeared to be gone from Amazon’s U.S. site as of last week.

Mr. Sagar’s discovery came as Amazon was expanding a campaign it started around 2013 urging Chinese businesses to sell directly to consumers abroad. An Amazon sales director, Alicia Liu, at a 2017 conference told Chinese business people she was leading a team in China, drawing on her previous experience cutting out middlemen in Walmart Inc. ’s supply chain.

On the Market
Amazon doesn’t divulge the percentage of its sellers based in China, but an analysis of the most-reviewedseller accounts over time shows China-based merchants gaining on its Western sites.
Percentage of top Amazon sellers in various countries that are from China

Source: Marketplace Pulse

Note: Data is based on an analysis of top 10,000 most-reviewed sellers in a country. Amazon says the U.S. numbers areinflated and the methodology is flawed. It says more than 75% of top 10,000 sellers in the U.S. are based in the country,while almost 70% of top 10,000 sellers in European stores are based in Europe as of 2018.

%
U.K.
Germany
France
Spain
U.S.
2017
’18
’19
0
10
20
30
40
50
60

“We help factories directly open accounts on Amazon and sell to U.S. consumers directly,” a video shows her telling them. “This is our value.”

A wave of Chinese merchants have joined Amazon’s millions of third-party sellers worldwide, who collectively represent more than half of Amazon’s physical gross merchandise sales.  Among the 10,000 most-reviewed accounts on Amazon’s U.S. site whose locations could be determined in October, about 38% were in China, Marketplace Pulse calculates, compared with 25% three years ago.

The Amazon spokesman said 38% “is a significant exaggeration of the real percentage of the top ten thousand’’ and that the methodology is flawed, citing what it said were problems with the way in which the analysis used seller review counts to estimate the percentage. Marketplace Pulse said it stood by its analysis.

Site control

How Amazon exercises control of its site has come under scrutiny from some in Congress, where some lawmakers are calling for more regulation of the company. That is part of a growing backlash in Washington over how tech companies run their platforms.

Amazon’s third-party marketplace, which connects merchants and buyers around the world, is crucial to the company’s growth. At the same time, even though it has become a source of fake or dangerous goods, Amazon has denied it is liable for what’s sold there, saying in court cases that it neither makes nor sells the products in question.

In its annual Securities and Exchange Commission filing this year, Amazon disclosed for the first time that counterfeits and fraudulent products are a risk factor. It said Amazon may be “unable to prevent sellers in our stores or through other stores from selling unlawful, counterfeit, pirated, or stolen goods,” among other issues.

Amazon said it recruits sellers in many countries and that these merchants are central to its goal of offering customers good selection at good prices. Amazon said it requires products to comply with applicable laws and regulations. It said that in 2018 it blocked more than three billion suspect listings for various forms of abuse.

Consumers and businesses with safety and intellectual-property grievances have found it hard to hold Chinese sellers accountable—in part because Amazon doesn’t require its sellers to provide their locations to the public on its U.S. site.

The Journal identified sellers as being in China from their pages on Amazon’s site in Mexico, where regulations require sellers to list their locations on Amazon—a method Marketplace Pulse also uses.

New sellers from China are hurting merchants that have built Amazon businesses offering products they import from Chinese factories, said Amazon seller Bernie Thompson. His Plugable Technologies in Redmond, Wash., lists electronics products made in China. Since about five years ago, Chinese manufacturers selling on Amazon have priced him out of some product categories, he said—some of them his own suppliers and others who game Amazon’s rating system, he said.

“Amazon is trying to disintermediate everyone they can, and get products as directly as possible to consumers,” he said. “In a way, they’re a perfect partner for China Incorporated to engage with to take them around the world.”

The Amazon spokesman said: “Independent retailers in the U.S. are enjoying record sales in our store.” Amazon said more than 75% of the 10,000 top sellers by gross sales in its U.S. store were America-based as of 2018 and that the company spends more recruiting U.S. sellers than sellers from any other location.

Global recruiting

In China over the past six years, Amazon has made its site more accessible to Chinese speakers, created special programs that address Chinese sellers’ logistical needs and sent a stream of employees to recruit suppliers.


Amazon ‘is the most cost-effective way to sell into the United States,’ says businessman Zhao Weiming. A factory in southern China produces his Lagunamoon-branded products. PHOTO: BILLY H.C.KWOK FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
At the 2017 conference, Ms. Liu, who said she had spent over a decade purchasing for Walmart, told Chinese sellers that when she joined the industry in 2004, around 90% of her suppliers were trading companies and that by 2017, around 80% were the factories themselves. Ms. Liu said the same logic applied to Amazon, the video shows.

“Let’s cut out the middleman,” said Geoffrey Stewart, an Amazon employee in Shenzhen, at an April trade event in Hong Kong in a video the Journal viewed. “We think that will enhance margins for our manufacturing partners and it will delight customers.”

Amazon said Ms. Liu’s and Mr. Stewart’s comments didn’t mean Amazon was less committed to helping sellers everywhere. Ms. Liu, who no longer works at Amazon, didn’t respond to LinkedIn messages, and the Journal couldn’t determine where she now works. Amazon said Mr. Stewart wasn’t available for comment. Walmart declined to comment on Ms. Liu’s assertions.

Amazon seller Zhao Weiming said the site “is the most cost-effective way to sell into the United States.” The Guangzhou businessman experimented several years ago listing gadgets on Amazon before settling on cosmetics and essential oils, he said, establishing factories to produce them under the name Lagunamoon. He said his company earns $50 million a year on Amazon.

Listings for some popular Lagunamoon essential oils claimed they were U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved, until the Journal raised the matter with Amazon and Mr. Zhao in early November. An FDA spokesman said essential oils wouldn’t meet the agency’s definition of an approved product, although it was possible some component—a dye, say—might be approved.

Mr. Zhao said FDA requirements are complex and he didn’t want to use tens of thousands of words to explain.




Lagunamoon products, available on Amazon, are manufactured in a southern China factory.
Amazon said it was investigating the case and would take proper action. It said sellers are prohibited from listing products that improperly claim to be FDA cleared or FDA approved, or improperly include the FDA logo. At least one Lagunamoon essential-oil listing that cited FDA approval had that claim removed after inquiries from the Journal.

Concerns at Amazon about Chinese listings arose several years ago in its China team, which noticed that as local sellers flocked to the platform, it saw increasing patterns of fraud, counterfeits and unsafe products, said former Amazon employees in China.

Washington state’s attorney general’s office said Amazon agreed to pay $700,000 as part of a legally binding agreement after an investigation revealed dozens of products marketed toward children had excessive lead and cadmium. The products were made in China, the office said, some sold by China-based third parties. Amazon didn’t admit wrongdoing.

“Customer safety is Amazon’s top priority,” said the Amazon spokesman. “We work closely with our selling partners to verify that the school supplies and children’s jewelry in our store are safe.”

Bogus brushes
Cheap Chinese counterfeits drove Kevin Williams, a Utah seller of water-powered cleaning brushes on Amazon, to lay off six employees this year—most of his U.S. staff, he said. He and his co-founder developed their patented Brush Hero product, made in the U.S. and U.K., in 2015 after finding it difficult to clean their vehicles, selling them on Amazon for $34.99.


Kevin Williams, co-owner of Brush Hero, at his distribution warehouse in Salt Lake City, Utah on November 8, 2019. PHOTO: LINDSAY D'ADDATO FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Poorly made copies began appearing in 2018 on Amazon, eventually listing for as low as $9.99, some claiming to be the Brush Hero brand, he said. Buyers, unaware they were fake, trashed Mr. Williams’s products on his Amazon page, he said. When he complained to Amazon, he said, it told him to order the alleged counterfeits and test them. Amazon removed brushes he proved counterfeit, he said, but it could take weeks for them to arrive for testing, and new counterfeits kept popping up.

He dropped prices to $19.99, which “pulled out the rug from us from a cash-flow perspective” he said. A retailer declined to give him a large contract. “He said, ‘What the heck, your Amazon reviews are terrible,’ ” said Mr. Williams, who calls his company “walking dead.”

Amazon said that it acted on infringement cases where Brush Hero provided adequate information and that it has introduced programs for sellers to fight counterfeits, including one called Project Zero that uses automation to scan Amazon stores and remove suspected counterfeits.

Counterfeits and inauthentic reviews “have all gone through the roof with the rise of Chinese sellers,” said Chris McCabe, an investigator for Amazon until 2012, now a consultant helping Amazon sellers counter illicit competition.




Brush Hero products are manufactured in the United States and sold on Amazon from Salt Lake City, Utah. PHOTOS: LINDSAY D'ADDATO FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL(3)
Inauthentic reviews for listings from China can trick Amazon’s algorithm into boosting products, people outside Amazon familiar with the activities said. A search for “travel pillows” in August presented products with names such as MLVOC offered by sellers whose names matched those of Amazon accounts registered in southern China.

The Journal ordered MLVOC-brand pillows from sellers named Corki and Kingstyle Supplies, and got gift cards offering a free pillow if the buyer emailed an address—the same address for both sellers. A “Gift card team” responded, asking the buyer to give a five-star review for which it promised an Amazon gift card. Of one MLVOC pillow’s roughly 2,000 reviews, about 86% have five stars.

Amazon policy forbids making inducements for positive reviews. Amazon said it investigated and took action, eventually reinstating Kingstyle and Corki. Amazon said in some cases it will reinstate seller accounts after violations if the sellers provide corrective action plans, though the accounts would be blocked after further infractions.

In response to a query sent to the email address given by Corki and Kingstyle, a respondent wrote: “I can’t share the company information.” The sellers didn’t respond to requests for comment sent through Amazon’s platform.

Travel-pillow seller Teri Mittelstadt, co-founder of HiGear Design Inc. in California, said counterfeits and review manipulation from China have hurt sales. Her patented Travelrest pillows, which attach to airline seats to prevent slipping, were among the top-selling travel pillows on Amazon for seven years starting in 2008, she said, but now rank in the 20s or lower.

“The person who gets hurt the most is the consumer who buys the product. They think they are buying a product with all these great reviews,” she said.

Amazon said Travelrest’s sales on Amazon have steadily grown year-to-year since 2015. Ms. Mittelstadt said her sales growth has slowed significantly over the past two years and that this year her sales are down on Amazon’s U.S. site.

Strategy shift

Starting in the mid-2000s, Amazon’s attempt to build an online retail business in China was thwarted by local competitors like Alibaba. Early this decade, it began experimenting with the new strategy, and employees “realized that global selling is much bigger” than selling in China, a former Amazon manager said.

At a Shenzhen trade fair in early 2013, no one had heard of Amazon, said Steven Chen, who says Amazon dispatched him to recruit Chinese sellers. He left Amazon in 2015 and operates an e-commerce consulting business.

Amazon employees distributed Chinese-language tutorials on opening Amazon accounts to prospective new sellers, people familiar with the company’s strategy said. Interns in Beijing phoned vendors on Chinese e-commerce sites to invite them to join Amazon.



Chinese sellers’ products often took weeks to ship across the Pacific and arrive at buyers’ addresses. So Amazon offered a logistics system, “Dragonboat,” which for a fee brought goods made in China and elsewhere to Amazon fulfillment centers in the U.S.

American buyers could receive purchases within 48 hours in Amazon boxes, said a former high-level Amazon China employee and a Chinese seller who used the service.

By 2015, Amazon’s website was functional for sellers in Mandarin. Its team responsible for signing up and assisting Chinese sellers expanded to 120 people in 2016, said the former high-level employee. Other employees built relationships with businesses such as Chinese logistics-services providers and translator services, asking them to encourage clients to establish Amazon accounts.

It is often hard to tell that an Amazon seller is based in China, as is the case with the Amazon page of Lagunamoon, the essential-oil and cosmetics provider. It shows no indication the products are Chinese and gives no store address. Lagunamoon’s Mr. Zhao said that is because the U.S. doesn’t require it.

Amazon seller Molson Hart in Texas is suing 73 sellers, many located in China, in Texas federal court, for trademark infringement on products like his Brain Flakes interlocking plastic disk set. He has been selling the Chinese-made toys on Amazon since 2014, and counterfeits started appearing in 2015, he said.

After he filed suit, he couldn’t hunt down the Chinese companies. “I know who did it,” he said, “but I can’t serve them.”

Amazon said it has worked closely with brands to support criminal referrals against counterfeiters in China and anticipates working with brands to jointly pursue litigation in the U.S. and China.

Amazon buyer Irvin R. Love Jr. of Georgia bought a hoverboard on Amazon in November 2015 that caught fire and burned down his home, according to a suit he filed February 2018 against Amazon, the seller and others, in Georgia federal court. In an amended complaint this year he alleged that Amazon was negligent for not removing the hoverboard from its website before Mr. Love’s purchase. Amazon argued in a legal filing that it doesn’t owe damages because it didn’t design, manufacture or sell the hoverboard.

Mr. Love also sued the seller, Panda Town, which his lawyer, Darren Penn, said appeared to be a Chinese company, based on sales information. Mr. Penn said that he can’t locate the seller and that Amazon declined to provide its location.

Cross-border e-commerce has made it harder to police unsafe products entering the U.S., he said. “When you had the traditional importer and customs and brokers—and all those procedures are followed—you provide a couple of layers of protection that you don’t when you’re talking about an internet market.” The case is in discovery, and Mr. Penn declined to make Mr. Love available for comment.

Amazon said it has provided information about the seller to the plaintiff, consistent with its policy on such matters. Panda Town doesn’t appear to list on Amazon anymore, and the Journal couldn’t locate a company by that name.

‘Not normal’

Product safety on Amazon and other online marketplaces isn’t assured, because Amazon doesn’t require all third-party sellers to test products to prove they are compliant with regulations, said Sebastien Breteau, chief executive of QIMA, an inspection, certification and audit company that is an Amazon vetted service provider.

“It’s not normal that a factory with 200 people manufacturing baby monitors in Dongguan can ship products directly to consumers in Minnesota or in Europe through a marketplace,” he said. “The day the regulator makes them responsible, then we’ll have proper compliance programs.”

Amazon said sellers create their own product listings and are required to comply with all relevant laws and regulations when listing items for sale in Amazon stores.

Mr. Thompson, the electronics seller, said Chinese factories have steadily pushed him out of lower-end goods such as USB cables, pricing at less than he can. The Chinese sellers often boost their product rankings by arranging large purchases of their own products and leaving positive reviews for themselves, he said—a tactic he said he learned about while attending an independent Amazon-seller event featuring a China-based sales consultant in Hong Kong several years ago.

He now counts on selling higher-end products like $199 docking stations for displays and charging electronic devices, he said, but “there really isn’t much upper end left for us.”

Amazon said competition is a part of business and some more-mature product categories can be particularly competitive. The spokesman said its goal is to quickly remove abusive reviews and that over the past month “over 99% of the reviews read by customers were authentic.”

Chinese sellers were seen as too valuable to give up, despite warning signs, a former Seattle-based Amazon employee said. “There were crazy things, hundreds of listings created every hour,” the person said, adding that when U.S. vendors complained, staff told them, “We don’t control third-party selection. It’s not us, it’s an open-end platform.”

Goose-down test

Mr. Sagar, the goose-down-duvet seller, said an employee posing as a customer last year contacted Rosecose, the Chinese seller of the down duvet on Amazon, offering proof its product was deceptively listed. A Rosecose representative apologized and said its suppliers could be to blame, offering to refund the lab-test costs, according to messages the Journal viewed.

The employee last year also sent an email to Amazon with the test results showing the duck down, he said. Rosecose kept listing duvets, Mr. Sagar said.

The Journal bought a duvet on Amazon from Rosecose in October and sent its own test results to Amazon late in the month. Early this month, Rosecose was still selling duvets on Amazon as “100% Fill With Goose Down,” including a king-size option listing for $129.99.




The Rosecose duvet bought by WSJ on Amazon claimed to be 100% goose down but was found by IDFL Laboratory and Institute to contain duck feathers instead. PHOTOS: LINDSAY D’ADDATO FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL(3)
The Wall Street Journal verified Rosecose was based in China by visiting its page on Amazon’s Mexican site, which listed its location. Rosecose didn’t respond to inquiries sent through Amazon and no one picked up calls to a phone number associated with the brand.

Amazon said it took down Rosecose listings Nov. 4. They appeared to be gone from the U.S. site early last week, but some still appeared on Amazon’s Canada site until after the Journal pointed them out to the company.

—Shane Shifflett, Stella Yifan Xie and Lekai Liu contributed to this article.

—Illustration by Jessica Kuronen/WSJ
Title: Stratfor: Saudi spies at Twitter
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 12, 2019, 10:23:28 AM
second post

Lessons Learned From a Saudi Spy Case at Twitter
Scott Stewart
VP of Tactical Analysis, Stratfor

Nov 12, 2019 | 09:00 GMT

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington is pictured in Seattle on Nov. 8, 2019. It might be the digital age, but Riyadh's recruitment of spies at Twitter harkens back to the espionage tactics of yesteryear.

HIGHLIGHTS

New charges against two former Twitter employees whom Saudi Arabia recruited for spying purposes demonstrate the need for companies to keep tight control on which employees are able to access what kind of information and more.
In this specific case, Riyadh was not chasing critical business secrets, but user data for a specific group of Twitter accounts.
The case illustrates that the threat of old-fashioned human intelligence remains potent, as Riyadh wished to recruit insiders, rather than hack Twitter.
In an age in which cybersecurity is top-notch, sometimes all it takes for hostile intelligence to gain a treasure trove of information is some old-fashioned espionage tradecraft — like finding an insider. In a criminal complaint filed Nov. 5 in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, the FBI accused two former Twitter employees and a third man of acting as agents of the Saudi government in the United States without declaring themselves. Two of the men, Ali Alzabarah and Ahmed Almutairi, are Saudi citizens, while the other, Ahmad Abouammo, is a U.S. citizen of Saudi descent. The men are charged with helping the Saudi government identify political dissidents and others on the social media platform who were critical of the government and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

The Big Picture

Social media companies like Twitter will always be a target for state and non-state spies, yet they can take a number of steps to reduce the threat of malefactors.

I've already written on the case for Stratfor's Threat Lens clients, but there are some important lessons in the affair for a wider audience — like rethinking just what kind of information it's important to protect, being circumspect on just which employees are entrusted with critical data and keeping an eye on who might be snooping around a company's workers.

Recruiting Insiders

According to the criminal complaint, Abouammo — who is in U.S. custody alongside Almutairi — was employed at Twitter as a media partnerships manager from November 2013 to May 2015, when he worked with prominent users in the Middle East and North Africa, such as government officials, companies, journalists and celebrities. He became a focal point of the Saudi government in April 2014, when Twitter assigned him to handle Riyadh's inquiries and requests. The complaint notes that in late 2014, Abouammo met with Almutairi, who was running a social media company connected to the Prince Mohammed bin Salman bin Abdulaziz Foundation (MiSK), a charity with ties to "Royal Family Member 1" — who appears to be Mohammed bin Salman, the man who would later become Saudi Arabia's crown prince. 

In December 2014, Abouammo reportedly met with Bader al-Askar, the charity's director, in London and received an expensive watch from him. (The complaint states that Abouammo attempted to sell the watch, which he valued at $35,000, for $25,000 on Craigslist. He reportedly lied about its value in a subsequent FBI interview.) Reading between the lines of the complaint, the meeting in London was clearly the "pitch" stage of the human intelligence recruitment cycle, and Abouammo appears to have taken the bait — hook, line and sinker. After the meeting, Abouammo made several queries in Twitter's database for information on users of interest to Saudi Arabia. Al-Askar then paid him for the information, depositing the money in an account in Beirut that Abouammo's relative there opened on his behalf. Although Abouammo left his job at Twitter in June 2015 to move to Seattle, he continued to contact former colleagues at the company for information he needed to satisfy al-Askar's requests, receiving money for his services. All told, Abouammo received at least $300,000 in cash from al-Askar, plus the watch.

The meeting in London was clearly the "pitch" stage of the human intelligence recruitment cycle, and Abouammo appears to have taken the bait — hook, line and sinker.

In February 2015, Almutairi called Alzabarah, who worked as a site reliability engineer at Twitter from August 2013 to December 2015 after initially coming to the United States on a Saudi government-funded scholarship to attend university in 2005. According to the complaint, a few days after establishing contact with Alzabarah, Almutairi traveled to San Francisco to have dinner with the engineer. Alzabarah, meanwhile, sent Almutairi a copy of his resume the same day they met for dinner.

In May 2015, Alzabarah traveled to Washington, D.C., to meet with al-Askar. By the time of the meeting arranged by Almutairi, al-Askar was a member of the Saudi royal court, serving as the director of the private office of the crown prince. During the visit, it appears that al-Askar pitched and recruited Alzabarah, because within a week after returning from Washington, Alzabarah began conducting bulk searches of the Twitter account information of people of interest to the Saudi government. In total, the complaint alleges that he accessed the account information of over 6,000 users — including 33 accounts about which Saudi law enforcement agencies had demanded information from Twitter as part of "emergency disclosure requests." 

On Dec. 3, Alzabarah left his job at Twitter, abruptly returning to Saudi Arabia with his wife. He reportedly sent his resignation message to the company from the plane after he left the United States. Exactly why Alzabarah left the company is not publicly known, as authorities redacted seven paragraphs from the publicly released letter that might have explained the reasons for his sudden resignation. But given Alzabarah's hasty departure and the number of calls he made to Saudi officials during the process, including the consul general in Los Angeles, it is very likely that Twitter security and, possibly, the FBI questioned him about his activities on Dec. 2, 2015.

Within a month of returning home, Alzabarah began working for al-Askar at MiSK as part of the team working on social media issues. From information recovered from Alzabarah's Apple Notes app, it appears that he was motivated by the offer of a lucrative job inside the kingdom, as well as government help in resolving an unidentified issue for his father, instead of bulk cash like Abouammo. Still, he did contact al-Askar to inquire if his efforts might qualify for some of the $1.9 million in reward money the Saudi government was offering for information that helped prevent terrorist attacks, as some of the Twitter users of interest to Riyadh were terrorism suspects.

Maintaining Vigilance

In writing about countering corporate espionage threats, we often outline how important it is to identify what data is truly important to protect; only grant access to such information to certain people; carefully vet such employees; and then control when, where and how they can access it.

But in terms of determining what data to protect, it is important to recognize that different information will be of value to different spies. In this case, the Saudis were not interested in Twitter's algorithm — the secret sauce that makes the app work — the way a competitor would be. Instead, they were eager to glean information on the identities of a very specific set of Twitter users — to the extent that they were willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to obtain it. This means that when deciding what information to protect, corporations should consider the goals and desires of various espionage actors, and not just what they consider to be valuable to their business internally. 

In addition to user-provided biographical data, Abouammo and Alzabarah succeeded in accessing information about the devices and browsers the targets used to access Twitter, as well as their IP addresses — the type of technical information that would be very useful to anyone wanting to compromise their devices with tailored malware.

The Saudis were not interested in Twitter's algorithm — the secret sauce that makes the app work — the way a competitor would be. Instead, they were eager to glean information on the identities of a very specific set of Twitter users.

In this case, the criminal complaint noted that neither Abouammo nor Alzabarah had a work-related need to access the confidential user information data that they obtained and passed on to the Saudi government. Twitter has reportedly addressed the problem by limiting access to user data, but given that Riyadh and other governmental and nongovernmental actors are clearly interested in this type of information, countries like Saudi Arabia will continue to woo anyone — not just Saudis — who might be able to provide it with offers of large sums of cash. Because of this, profiling and stereotyping can be counterproductive. Furthermore, the fact that anyone might find themselves the target of a human intelligence recruitment pitch highlights the need to train employees on how to spot and respond to human intelligence approaches, not only so they can recognize when someone has targeted them, but also so they can notice when someone may have recruited their co-workers.

This case also illustrates that — current digital age notwithstanding — the low-tech, old-fashioned human intelligence threat remains extremely relevant. I've often argued that in a case where a company has good cybersecurity, it is often easier and cheaper for malefactors to simply recruit an insider than it is to try to hack their way into the information they desire. The Saudi Twitter affair also shows how insiders who have been recruited as corporate spies can serve as "advanced persistent insider threats" by remaining in place for months or even years as they feed information to a hostile intelligence actor.

It is certainly no surprise that the Saudis would attempt to gather this type of information from Twitter given the global reach that social media has achieved. Twitter is also not the only social media company in the crosshairs; it just happens to be the one we have heard about because of this criminal case. Furthermore, the Saudis are not the only threat in this sphere, as a wide array of state and non-state actors have undoubtedly recruited corporate spies in a large number of companies and are in the process of spotting and recruiting others as I write this. Ultimately, it's a threat that pertains not just to Twitter but every company, especially in the current environment in which the corporate espionage threat is more critical than ever. Companies, however, don't have to fatalistically accept this reality. They can — and indeed must — work to identify and thwart the spies in their midst. 
Title: Goolag wants your DNA
Post by: G M on November 12, 2019, 08:37:56 PM
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/don-t-buy-online-dna-ancestry-tests-you-are-the-real-product-1.3713619

You really are the product, and all your blood relatives as well.
Title: FB prohibits mentioning Ciaramella
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 15, 2019, 12:15:02 PM
https://bigleaguepolitics.com/orwellian-facebook-announces-prohibition-of-naming-alleged-anti-trump-whistleblower-eric-ciaramella/

So of course I posted this this morning  :-D
Title: FaceHugger "bug" accesses iPhone cameras
Post by: G M on November 16, 2019, 05:40:49 PM
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/facebook-app-recording-camera-iphone-ios-news-feed-bug-update-fix-workaround-a9200696.html

They are very, very sorry they got caught.
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 16, 2019, 10:30:57 PM
My Ciaramella post on FB promptly got deleted.  Others are reporting the same thing.

Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: G M on November 17, 2019, 12:03:28 AM
My Ciaramella post on FB promptly got deleted.  Others are reporting the same thing.

I believe the term is "memory-holed".


Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: DougMacG on November 17, 2019, 07:14:08 AM
My Ciaramella post on FB promptly got deleted.  Others are reporting the same thing.

I believe the term is "memory-holed".

Now you've got their attention.

'Orwell's famous book wasn't meant to be a how to guide.'

Looking at alternatives to Facebook, the main problem is that they have roughly zero users.  Your friends and family aren't on them.  But if FB, twitter etc shut down down enough info, enough posts, enough users, people will eventually seek alternatives.

https://www.ionos.com/digitalguide/online-marketing/social-media/the-best-facebook-alternatives/
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 17, 2019, 03:52:57 PM
Let's see if they Memory Hole that!
Title: WSJ: Twitter political ad ban
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 18, 2019, 06:02:48 AM
Speech and Sanctimony at Twitter
Banning ‘political’ ads, Dorsey throws himself into a political thicket.
By The Editorial Board
Nov. 17, 2019 6:39 pm ET

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey in 2018. PHOTO: JIM WATSON/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey saw an opportunity last month to please the political left and embarrass a competitor. Now he’s stuck with a jury-rigged ads policy that will damage confidence in his company and do nothing to improve political discourse.

In October Democrats and the press were pummeling Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg for refusing to take down a Donald Trump campaign ad against Joe Biden. If Facebook did not fact-check and censor politicians, they said, democracy would be undermined. So Mr. Dorsey tweeted on Oct. 30 that he would “stop all political advertising” on Twitter. “This isn’t about free expression,” he insisted, but about protecting “democratic infrastructure.”


The press feted Mr. Dorsey as a hero compared to the democracy-destroying Mr. Zuckerberg. But once the anti-Trump high had worn off, progressives started to realize that a Twitter political-ad ban could block their speech too. Some climate activists, for example, use Twitter ads to find an audience.

Now Twitter has backtracked from Mr. Dorsey’s promised blanket ban on political ads. The policy Twitter announced Friday allows some political ads but not others. Ads from candidates, parties and PACs are banned, but individuals, corporations and nonprofits may still pay to promote political messages (though their ability to target ads to users will be restricted).

For those that can advertise, Twitter will impose convoluted political controls. Ads can’t mention politicians, elections or legislation and also “should not have the primary goal of driving political, judicial, legislative, or regulatory outcomes.” Sounds comprehensive, right?

But wait. Twitter says it will allow “cause based” ads that “call for people to take action in connection with civic engagement, economic growth, environmental stewardship, or social equity causes.”

Meanwhile Twitter’s “issue ads” policy covers “abortion, civil rights, climate change, guns, healthcare, immigration, national security, social security, taxes, and trade.” Apparently ads can take a position on such issues so long as Twitter’s ad police judge them as not aimed at driving political “outcomes.” What a mess. It’s no wonder Twitter is already saying it expects to “make mistakes” in enforcement.

If the NRA Foundation runs an ad campaign on the right to bear arms, is that an issue ad or is it advocacy for a “judicial outcome” and thus prohibited? What about a Planned Parenthood ad supporting abortion rights—is that impermissible advocacy for legislation or is it an issue ad about health care or “social equity”?

The main effect of the policy is to give Twitter wide discretion to either approve or ban political content. This opens the door to bias. Even if the company tries to be neutral between right and left—and we’re skeptical, given Mr. Dorsey’s political opportunism in ordering the ad ban—it will be accused of bias when it blocks ads on grounds advertisers can’t understand.

Meanwhile, the company’s outright prohibition on candidate ads is a gift to established politicians or those who make outrageous claims. Mr. Dorsey intoned that political messages shouldn’t be “compromised by money” but ads are most valuable for speech that wouldn’t otherwise find an audience.

Conceived in sanctimony about Mr. Trump, Twitter’s policy could end up benefiting incumbents like him even as it pulls Twitter into a political thicket. Better if social-media companies recognize that, whatever their engineering expertise, it doesn’t extend to designing elaborate systems for controlling political speech.

Title: Re: WSJ: Twitter political ad ban
Post by: DougMacG on November 19, 2019, 06:58:54 AM
Swimming in uncharted waters, these giants are caught between an unmoderated forums running wild and becoming the all knowing arbiters of who can say what, when, where, how.

I wish them all the worst.   )
Title: Alternative?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 19, 2019, 10:30:13 AM


https://bigthink.com/technology-innovation/wt-social?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1
Title: WSJ: Goolag to restrict political ad targeting on its platforms
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 21, 2019, 02:46:12 PM


oogle to Restrict Political Ad Targeting on Its Platforms
Advertisers will no longer be able to target political ads based on users’ interests inferred from browsing or search history

The Google policy changes follow calls for regulation of political advertising online. PHOTO: ALEXANDER POHL/ZUMA PRESS
By Patience Haggin
Updated Nov. 20, 2019 10:42 pm ET
Alphabet Inc.’s Google said Wednesday it plans to stop allowing highly targeted political ads on its platform, further fragmenting the rules being set by Silicon Valley tech giants for guarding against misinformation.

Google will roll out the ban within a week in the U.K., in advance of a Dec. 12 general election. The ban will take effect in the European Union by the end of the year and in the rest of the world on Jan. 6, the company said in a blog post.

Under the new policy, political ads can only be targeted based on users’ age, gender, and location at the postal-code level. Political advertisers will also still be able to display ads based on the content of the page a user is viewing.

Advertisers would no longer be able to target political ads based on users’ interests inferred from browsing or search history.

So-called microtargeting, in which advertisers can limit their messaging to narrow slices of people based on their personal preferences or online behavior, has been criticized as enabling campaigns to single out groups susceptible to misinformation.

Google’s announcement is the latest in a series of new policies from digital-advertising’s giants—with each of the major platforms taking a different approach. Last month Facebook Inc. announced it would no longer fact-check ads from political campaigns. Then Twitter Inc. announced it would no longer accept political ads and would impose targeting restrictions on cause-related advertising.

In its blog post, Google also clarified its policy on politicians making false claims, saying they wouldn’t be allowed on its platforms, consistent with the company’s broader prohibitions against misleading advertising. In doing so, it effectively committed to fact-checking political ads and taking down those that make false claims.

“We expect that the number of political ads on which we take action will be very limited—but we will continue to do so for clear violations,” the company said in the blog post.

Facebook on Wednesday also left the door open to more coming changes.

“For over a year, we’ve provided unprecedented transparency into all U.S. federal and state campaigns—and we prohibit voter suppression in all ads. As we’ve said, we are looking at different ways we might refine our approach to political ads,” a Facebook spokesman said.

The Trump campaign used targeted advertising to great effect in 2016, particularly on Facebook, and candidates from both parties have ramped up spending this year. Digital political ad spending is expected to reach $2.9 billion in 2020, up from $1.4 billion in 2016, according to Borrell Associates Inc., a consulting firm.

Brad Parscale, who is heading President Trump’s reelection effort, criticized Google’s move in a tweet, saying, “Political elites & Big Tech want to rig elections,” noting that it would hurt Mr. Trump as well as leading Democratic candidates.

Watchdogs including lawmakers and advocacy groups have called for greater oversight of political ads following revelations that Russian entities purchased digital ads designed to influence the 2016 vote, many of them spreading misinformation.

Federal Election Commission Chairwoman Ellen Weintraub recently called for a ban on microtargeting.

Google’s new policy will apply to ads on Google Search, Google’s video platform YouTube and third-party sites across the web purchased through Google’s ad-buying software.

Google imposed certain regulations on political advertising for U.S. federal races last year. It will expand those existing regulations to cover U.S. state-level candidates and officeholders, ballot measures and ads that mention federal or state political parties.

YouTube has allowed advertisers to target their ads based on thousands of categories, including a user’s household income, education level, profession, marital or homeownership status or the age of their children. YouTube touted these categories to political ad-buyers in a presentation given within the past year, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. The presentation also suggested political ad buyers take advantage of targeting based on so-called affinity audiences, which it tagged with monikers such as “Avid Investors,” “Country Music Fans,” “Green Living” and “Spanish-Language Music.” It also touted the ability to target users based on their searches, providing an example of targeting users who had searched for information about taxes.

YouTube Grapples With Digital Political Ad Dilemma
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE

UP NEXT


YouTube Grapples With Digital Political Ad Dilemma
YouTube Grapples With Digital Political Ad Dilemma
Google is discussing changes to its current political ad policy just a few weeks after releasing a new tool on YouTube to streamline its ad booking process. WSJ's Emily Glazer breaks down the state of political advertising on Facebook, Twitter and Google.
In the U.S., Google has also previously allowed political ad buyers to target based on public voter records and general political affiliations, including left leaning, right leaning and independent.

Since May 2018, Google has banned political ads from making false statements and provided fact-checking to enforce the policy.

The company required customers purchasing these ads to register and verify their organization.

It also preserved these ads in a publicly available archive along with estimated data on the amount spent on the ads. These policies initially applied only to federal candidates and officeholders within the U.S. but will expand to state-level politics under the new policy.

The new changes are unlikely to hurt Google’s bottom line, or stem the flow of ad dollars to digital platforms as the 2020 elections approach.

“Advertising dollars follow eyeballs. So while campaigns will have to adjust to these new rules, Google’s platforms are still effective for reaching voters online,” said Reid Vineis, vice president of conservative digital ad-buying firm Majority Strategies. “It is unlikely that this change would hurt Google’s political advertising revenue.”

Mr. Vineis also said the level of targeting allowed by Google “will still allow advertisers to generally reach homogeneous voting blocs.” Advertisers often use ZIP Codes as a proxy for demographics such as race, income and education level.

The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this month that Google was considering changing its political ad policy and that employees speculated it could relate to audience targeting.

—Emily Glazer contributed to this article.

Write to Patience Haggin at patience.haggin@wsj.com
Title: China uses AI to flag Uyghurs
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 27, 2019, 10:06:06 AM
https://www.theepochtimes.com/china-uses-ai-to-flag-thousands-of-uyghurs-for-detention-report_3156325.html?utm_source=Epoch+Times+Newsletters&utm_campaign=034e79c287-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_11_27_02_15&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_4fba358ecf-034e79c287-239065853
Title: US tech companies prop up Chinese Goolag
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 27, 2019, 10:10:18 AM
second post

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-tech-companies-prop-up-chinas-vast-surveillance-network-11574786846?mod=djem10point
Title: Re: US tech companies prop up Chinese Goolag
Post by: DougMacG on November 27, 2019, 11:48:37 AM
second post

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-tech-companies-prop-up-chinas-vast-surveillance-network-11574786846?mod=djem10point

   - There used to be a law against that kind of thing, aiding and abetting the enemy.
Title: POTH: Amazon and Balitmore
Post by: Crafty_Dog on November 30, 2019, 10:06:16 AM


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/30/business/amazon-baltimore.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share
Title: Info literacy is the answer, not algorithms.
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 01, 2019, 06:59:06 AM
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2019/07/07/a-reminder-that-fake-news-is-an-information-literacy-problem-not-a-technology-problem/?fbclid=IwAR2M6-f_1FumAQNd13eklN0yEpSdB_hzRU38PTitBHZyPJh6VA-yeVjUqg8#c9d4f1b6a6f2
Title: FTC considers action against FB
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 14, 2019, 07:49:59 AM
y John D. McKinnon and Emily Glazer
Dec. 12, 2019 2:14 pm ET
WASHINGTON—Federal officials are considering seeking a preliminary injunction against Facebook Inc. over antitrust concerns related to how its products interact, according to people familiar with the matter.

If it materializes, the action by the Federal Trade Commission would focus on Facebook’s policies concerning it how it integrates its apps or allows them to work with potential rivals, these people said. Alongside its core social network, Facebook’s key products also include Instagram, Messenger and WhatsApp.

The potential FTC action would likely seek to block Facebook from enforcing those policies on grounds that they are anticompetitive, the people said. An injunction could seek to bar Facebook from further integrating apps that federal regulators might look to unwind as part of a potential future breakup of the company, one of the people said.

A majority of the five-member FTC would be needed to seek an injunction, which the commission would need to file suit in federal court to obtain. The FTC declined to comment.

Facebook declined to comment. The social-media giant has worried for months that the FTC would seek an injunction against what are known as its “interoperability” rules, one of the people familiar with the matter said. Interoperability refers to the manner in which digital platforms interact.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS
Has Facebook created a monopoly for messaging apps? Why or why not? Join the conversation below.

Concern that Facebook’s interoperability policies curb other services’ ability to compete would underlie a potential FTC action, these people said. Facebook has rejected that recurring complaint about its practices.

FACING PRESSURE
The social-media giant has confronted mounting scrutiny from regulators and lawmakers over its business practices and products. Related reading:

She Argued Facebook Is a Monopoly. To Her Surprise, People Listened. (Dec. 12)
Facebook to Antitrust Regulators: Data Is Complicated (Dec. 2)
Tech Giants Ramp Up Lobbying as Antitrust Scrutiny Grows (Oct. 28)
FTC Antitrust Probe of Facebook Scrutinizes Its Acquisitions (Aug. 1)
Officials also worry that some of Facebook’s plans to further integrate its own major products could make it harder to eventually split up the company in an antitrust case, according to one of the people.

It isn’t known whether the FTC will move forward with an antitrust action against Facebook or seek an injunction over its interoperability policies. If the agency takes either step, its action could occur as soon as next month, according to one person familiar with the matter. It is also possible that the FTC could attempt to block certain Facebook interoperability policies that critics say have disadvantaged social-media rivals in the past.

Facebook said in January that it was considering closer interoperability of messaging across its main platforms. But the company has said its recent plans to increase interoperability are aimed at improving users’ experiences, particularly in light of recent controversies over privacy on Facebook, and not to freeze out competitors or fend off regulatory action.

“There are privacy and security advantages to interoperability,” Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote in a Facebook post in March. “With the ability to message across our services…you’d be able to send an encrypted message to someone’s phone number in WhatsApp from Messenger.”

How the Microsoft Antitrust Case Paved the Way for Big Tech
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE

UP NEXT

How the Microsoft Antitrust Case Paved the Way for Big Tech
How the Microsoft Antitrust Case Paved the Way for Big Tech
The Department of Justice is investigating the U.S.'s largest tech firms for allegedly monopolistic behavior. Roughly 20 years ago, a similar case threatened to destabilize Microsoft. WSJ explains.
Messaging networks are gaining in popularity, particularly among younger users, and becoming more important to Facebook’s business. The company hopes to update its platforms to address that trend.

Columbia University law professor Tim Wu, a former senior adviser for the FTC, said seeking a preliminary injunction could hold strategic benefits for the commission.

“The advantages are that it gets things moving, and sort of forces things to a judicial decision very quickly,” Mr. Wu said, “as opposed to having an antitrust investigation going for five years….The burdens of proof can be higher for the government, but if they’ve got a good case it can be advantageous.”

Mr. Wu is among a group of Facebook critics who see the company’s pursuit of closer integration as concealing anticompetitive motives. They have argued to the FTC that it should seek an injunction blocking the company’s plans for further interoperability.

“One anticipated (and possibly intended) effect of the integration is to make divestiture more difficult,” read a slide in a deck reviewed by The Wall Street Journal that Facebook critics presented to antitrust regulators last summer. “A preliminary injunction may be necessary or desirable to prevent this merger and maintain the status quo.” The slide deck’s authors include Mr. Wu and New York University law professor Scott Hemphill.

Moving swiftly toward litigation over interoperability also could allow the FTC to take enforcement action ahead of the Justice Department. The two agencies share federal antitrust-enforcement authority, and occasionally are rivals. Both agencies are known to be looking into possible antitrust issues involving Facebook.

An FTC antitrust lawsuit against Facebook could become federal enforcers’ opening salvo against big tech companies as they look into similar concerns involving Alphabet Inc. ’s Google unit as well as Amazon.com Inc. State attorneys general also are investigating Facebook and Google.

The FTC has been examining Facebook’s acquisitions as a central part of its antitrust inquiry into the company, seeking to determine whether they were part of a campaign to consume potential rivals and head off competitive threats, the Journal reported in August. Facebook has acquired about 90 companies over the last 15 years, according to data compiled by S&P Global, including Instagram and WhatsApp.

In congressional testimony earlier this year, Matt Perault, then director of public policy at Facebook, told a House antitrust subcommittee that the company’s acquisitions have fueled innovation and brought together firms of complementary strengths

Companies purchased by Facebook “have had more opportunity to innovate as part of Facebook than they would have on their own—enhancing users’ experience and resulting in more choice for more people overall, not less,” Mr. Perault said.

—Deepa Seetharaman contributed to this article.
Title: Facebook and encryption
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 18, 2019, 01:32:06 PM


https://www.popsci.com/facebook-messages-privacy-encryption/?utm_source=internal&utm_medium=email
Title: Goolag's "Selfish Ledger" concept
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 21, 2019, 06:59:18 AM
Apparently well at work in China now, even as Goolag refuses to work on contracts for our military , , ,  :x

https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/17/17344250/google-x-selfish-ledger-video-data-privacy
Title: 2006: Lanier on Digital Maoism
Post by: Crafty_Dog on December 21, 2019, 07:11:05 AM

https://www.edge.org/conversation/jaron_lanier-digital-maoism-the-hazards-of-the-new-online-collectivism
Title: Inside the Goolag, Google, the Orwellian Tech Octopus, Do no evil?
Post by: DougMacG on January 04, 2020, 06:44:45 AM
First hand account inside Google - China

https://medium.com/@rossformaine/i-was-googles-head-of-international-relations-here-s-why-i-left-49313d23065

"" complicit in human rights violations"

". I then realized that the company had never intended to incorporate human rights principles into its business and product decisions. Just when Google needed to double down on a commitment to human rights, it decided to instead chase bigger profits and an even higher stock price."

" Some will say that Google was always a bad corporate actor, with less than transparent privacy practices. But there is a significant difference between serving ads based on a Google search and working with the Chinese government on artificial intelligence or hosting the applications of the Saudi government, including Absher, an application that allows men to track and control the movement of their female family members."

" what are the implications for all of us when that once-great American company controls so much data about billions of users across the globe?
Title: Goolag wants to control your money
Post by: G M on January 07, 2020, 07:20:44 AM
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/your-personal-financial-information-will-be-at-risk-if-google-runs-americas-payments-system/

They totally won't abuse this.

Title: FB exec debunks Hillary/Dem claims on 2019 election
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 08, 2020, 07:16:26 AM
Clinton Backer at Facebook Debunks Clinton Claims
Plus, Chelsea shows Hunter that you don’t have to fly to Ukraine to get rich.

By James Freeman
Jan. 7, 2020 5:49 pm ET
SAVE
PRINT
TEXT
232

Hillary Clinton attends a campaign rally in Pittsburgh, Oct. 22, 2016. PHOTO: CARLOS BARRIA/REUTERS
Former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and politicians like Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Calif.) may cling to the discredited belief that Donald Trump and Russia used social media to rig the 2016 election. But liberals in a position to know still aren’t buying it.

The New York Times reports that it has obtained a recent internal memorandum from senior Facebook executive Andrew Bosworth. According to the text of the memo published by the Times, Mr. Bosworth throws cold water on a favorite conspiracy theory of the political left:

So was Facebook responsible for Donald Trump getting elected? I think the answer is yes, but not for the reasons anyone thinks. He didn’t get elected because of Russia or misinformation or Cambridge Analytica. He got elected because he ran the single best digital ad campaign I’ve ever seen from any advertiser. Period.
Cambridge Analytica was a political consulting firm and Trump campaign vendor which was accused of using personal data about Facebook users without their knowledge. The Federal Trade Commission recently settled a case with some of those involved, who agreed to destroy the data they collected and be honest with users in the future about data collection. The memo from Facebook’s Mr. Bosworth continues:

To be clear, I’m no fan of Trump. I donated the max to Hillary. After his election I wrote a post about Trump supporters that I’m told caused colleagues who had supported him to feel unsafe around me (I regret that post and deleted shortly after).
But [Trump campaign digital media chief Brad Parscale ] and Trump just did unbelievable work. They weren’t running misinformation or hoaxes. They weren’t microtargeting or saying different things to different people. They just used the tools we had to show the right creative to each person. The use of custom audiences, video, ecommerce, and fresh creative remains the high water mark of digital ad campaigns in my opinion.
“Creative” is a noun in the marketing world, used to describe the particular advertisements designed to deliver messages. Mr. Bosworth fears that Team Trump is still really good at creating them and therefore he fears that Mr. Trump may win again. “As a committed liberal I find myself desperately wanting to pull any lever at my disposal to avoid the same result. So what stays my hand?,” asks Mr. Bosworth. He writes, “I find myself thinking of the Lord of the Rings at this moment. Specifically when Frodo offers the ring to Galadrial and she imagines using the power righteously, at first, but knows it will eventually corrupt her. As tempting as it is to use the tools available to us to change the outcome, I am confident we must never do that or we will become that which we fear.”

This column is skeptical that Facebook decides the outcomes of U.S. elections, but applauds Mr. Bosworth’s effort to encourage his Silicon Valley colleagues to act with integrity. Also encouraging is that he’s just the latest Valley resident to attempt to provide a reality check to anti-Trump partisans.

Readers may recall Google CEO Sundar Pichai’s December, 2018 visit to the House Judiciary committee. That’s when Chairman Jerry Nadler (D., N.Y.) asked if Google knew “the full extent to which its online platforms were exploited by Russian actors in the election two years ago”.

Mr. Pichai reported that after a thorough investigation his company had discovered “two main ad accounts linked to Russia” which had spent on Google advertising a grand total of... $4,700. This amounted to roughly 1/234,000th of what Mrs. Clinton spent on advertising during the 2016 campaign.

Meanwhile over at Facebook, the number seems to have been larger but still tiny in comparison to overall political advertising. Writes Mr. Bosworth:

$100,000 in ads on Facebook can be a powerful tool but it can’t buy you an American election, especially when the candidates themselves are putting up several orders of magnitude more money on the same platform (not to mention other platforms).
Instead, the Russians worked to exploit existing divisions in the American public for example by hosting Black Lives Matter and Blue Lives Matter protest events in the same city on the same day. The people who shows (sic) up to those events were real even if the event coordinator was not. Likewise the groups of Americans being fed partisan content was real even if those feeding them were not. The organic reach they managed sounds very big in absolute terms and unfortunately humans are bad at contextualizing big numbers. Whatever reach they managed represents an infinitesimal fraction of the overall content people saw in the same period of time and certainly over the course of an election across all media.
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: DougMacG on January 08, 2020, 08:14:45 AM
Good article.  What Google and Facebook do everyday to advance liberalism is more than Russia can do in an election cycle.

Russia was/is more interested in sowing discord than getting one candidate elected.

Most Democrats (msm consumers) believe Russia changed actual votes in 2016 and they didn't.

Funny that Democrats don't suspect Russia of swinging the 2018 election to Democrats.  Vote harvesting was a homegrown operation.
Title: Funny that Democrats don't suspect Russia of swinging the 2018 election to Democ
Post by: ccp on January 08, 2020, 08:44:05 AM
Russians

Republicans

Magas

Nazis

Fascists

Conservatives

White hetero men

= EVIL

Title: From Shark Tank reject to America's scariest surveillance company
Post by: G M on January 15, 2020, 10:15:42 PM
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/zmjp53/how-ring-went-from-shark-tank-reject-to-americas-scariest-surveillance-company
Title: Amazon deletes documentary 2.0 (deletes 1984)
Post by: Crafty_Dog on January 16, 2020, 05:27:07 PM
https://io9.gizmodo.com/amazon-secretly-removes-1984-from-the-kindle-5317703
Title: Re: Amazon deletes documentary 2.0 (deletes 1984)
Post by: G M on January 16, 2020, 08:03:52 PM
https://io9.gizmodo.com/amazon-secretly-removes-1984-from-the-kindle-5317703

https://www.libertariancountry.com/products/1984-make-orwell-fiction-again-t-shirt?variant=29047633117207
Title: Block your face from Google, Facebook
Post by: DougMacG on January 23, 2020, 09:34:20 AM
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/22/how-to-block-facebook-and-google-from-identifying-your-face.html
Title: Re: From Shark Tank reject to America's scariest surveillance company
Post by: G M on January 28, 2020, 07:28:08 PM
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/zmjp53/how-ring-went-from-shark-tank-reject-to-americas-scariest-surveillance-company

https://www.fastcompany.com/90456776/ring-caught-giving-user-data-to-facebook-whether-they-have-an-account-or-not
Title: Almost makes me want an Alexa
Post by: G M on January 30, 2020, 11:28:02 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8d5Wr9au9I

Title: Alexa we need guns
Post by: ccp on January 31, 2020, 04:25:01 AM
That is a riot

No pun intended for what might be coming....... :wink:
Title: Twitter nukes Zerohedge for reporting the Coronavirus may be a bioweapon
Post by: G M on January 31, 2020, 06:22:28 PM
https://www.thepostmillennial.com/breaking-twitter-suspends-independent-news-outlet-zero-hedge/

Title: Youtube deleting Nazi history videos
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 02, 2020, 07:51:26 AM
https://www.technologyreview.com/f/613644/youtube-is-deleting-videos-on-nazi-history-as-part-of-its-hate-speech-crackdown/
Title: Facebook teams with Soros
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 04, 2020, 11:57:53 AM
https://neonnettle.com/news/6183-facebook-teams-with-george-soros-funded-fact-checker-to-filter-news-feed
Title: Amazon Engineer says shut down Ring immediately
Post by: G M on February 04, 2020, 04:45:54 PM
https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-engineer-says-ring-should-be-shut-down-immediately-2020-1
Title: Twitter suspends James O'Keefe
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 05, 2020, 03:32:05 PM
https://disrn.com/news/james-okeefes-twitter-account-suspended-after-he-reports-on-radical-sanders-staffers
Title: WSJ: 9th Circuit rules for Goolag over Prager U.
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 27, 2020, 10:08:40 AM
Tech Platforms Aren’t Bound by First Amendment, Appeals Court Rules
Judges decided against Prager University, which claimed YouTube didn’t have right to flag videos

Google, parent company of YouTube, argued that allowing a conservative nonprofit to pursue a constitutional claim would have ‘disastrous consequences’ for the First Amendment and online discourse.
PHOTO: AMY OSBORNE/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES
By Jacob Gershman
Feb. 26, 2020 3:29 pm ET
SAVE
PRINT
TEXT
320
A federal appeals court in California on Wednesday ruled that privately operated internet platforms are free to censor content they don’t like.

Though not unexpected, the unanimous decision by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco marks the most emphatic rejection of the argument advanced in some conservative circles that YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and other giant tech platforms are bound by the First Amendment.

The case concerned a YouTube channel operated by Prager University, a nonprofit founded by talk-radio host Dennis Prager that produces short explainer videos promoting conservative ideas. In 2017, PragerU sued YouTube and its parent, Alphabet Inc.’s Google, after YouTube flagged dozens of its videos as “inappropriate,” stripping the clips of advertising and making them less accessible to students, library users and children.

PragerU contended there was nothing offensive about the restricted clips—with such titles as “Why Isn’t Communism as Hated as Nazism?,” “Why Did America Fight the Korean War?” and “Are 1 in 5 Women Raped at College?”—and that it was a victim of viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment.

It argued that YouTube has essentially turned itself into the operator of a giant public square, a government-like role it says warrants more legal scrutiny of the platform’s content moderation. PragerU brought a similar lawsuit in California state court.

“Obviously, we are disappointed,” said PragerU attorney Peter Obstler. “We will continue to pursue PragerU’s claims of overt discrimination on YouTube in the state court case under California’s heightened antidiscrimination, free-speech and consumer-contract law.”

Google, echoing the wider tech industry, argued that allowing PragerU to pursue a constitutional claim would have “disastrous consequences” for the First Amendment and online discourse.

The feud is part of a wider debate around speech rights in the digital age, where a few giant tech firms own and police the country’s core mediums of communication.

No court has endorsed PragerU’s legal argument. As a general rule, the First Amendment’s speech protections put constraints on government, not the private sector. Exceptions are rare. In one such case, the Supreme Court in 1946 ruled that a Jehovah’s Witness had the right to hand out pamphlets on a sidewalk that was the property of a shipbuilding firm, in an Alabama suburb.

The Ninth Circuit was emphatic: This case was no exception.

“Despite YouTube’s ubiquity and its role as a public-facing platform, it remains a private forum, not a public forum subject to judicial scrutiny under the First Amendment,” wrote Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown for the three-judge panel, affirming an earlier lower-court ruling.

Circuit Judge McKeown also stated that YouTube’s “braggadocio about its commitment to free speech” doesn’t expose it to a federal false-advertising claim.

“Google’s products are not politically biased,” Farshad Shadloo, a YouTube spokesperson, said in a statement Wednesday. “PragerU’s allegations were meritless, both factually and legally, and the court’s ruling vindicates important legal principles that allow us to provide different choices and settings to users.”

Write to Jacob Gershman at jacob.gershman@wsj.com
Title: Epoch: Anti trust vs. the Goolag
Post by: Crafty_Dog on February 27, 2020, 10:17:46 AM
second

https://www.theepochtimes.com/how-barrage-of-antitrust-probes-could-impact-big-tech-experts_3250498.html?ref=brief_News&utm_source=Epoch+Times+Newsletters&utm_campaign=eed80ec7a3-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_02_26_06_46&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_4fba358ecf-eed80ec7a3-239065853
Title: WSJ: How Google interferes with its search algorithms
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 16, 2020, 08:01:21 PM
https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-google-interferes-with-its-search-algorithms-and-changes-your-results-11573823753?mod=e2fb
Title: FB again protects us from forbidden thoughts
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 18, 2020, 02:17:50 PM


https://nypost.com/2020/04/17/facebook-fact-checkers-foul-again-after-censoring-post-story/
Title: Facebook censors posts promoting social distancing protests
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 20, 2020, 10:06:20 AM
https://www.foxnews.com/media/facebook-wont-allow-promotion-protests-that-defy-governments-guidance-on-social-distancing
Title: Twitter's national security secrets
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 20, 2020, 07:54:39 PM
https://www.theepochtimes.com/judge-dismisses-twitters-bid-to-reveal-us-government-surveillance-requests_3316639.html?ref=brief_BreakingNews&utm_source=Epoch+Times+Newsletters&utm_campaign=26cd88d414-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_04_19_08_30&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_4fba358ecf-26cd88d414-239065853
Title: FB blocked me from posting this
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 22, 2020, 12:29:48 PM
https://massprivatei.blogspot.com/2020/04/documents-reveal-feds-are-excited-to.html
Title: PRC-like speech/thought control
Post by: G M on April 22, 2020, 01:50:36 PM
https://www.thefire.org/survey-77-of-colleges-use-secret-social-media-blacklist-to-censor-the-public-in-violation-of-first-amendment/
Title: Medical hatespeech?
Post by: G M on April 27, 2020, 08:51:44 AM
https://pjmedia.com/trending/youtube-removes-biotech-companys-video-showing-potential-internal-uva-light-treatment-for-coronavirus/
Title: FB admits banning for saying "Proud to be English"
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 28, 2020, 07:14:39 AM
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2020/04/27/facebook-admits-banning-users-for-saying-they-are-proud-to-be-english/
Title: More medical hatespeech
Post by: G M on April 28, 2020, 04:37:01 PM
https://summit.news/2020/04/28/youtube-censors-viral-video-of-doctors-criticizing-stay-at-home-order/

Memory holed, for your protection.
Title: Tucker on FB censorship
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 29, 2020, 04:42:52 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6&v=sPrbGU0Wyh4&feature=emb_logo
Title: fox news political pundits
Post by: ccp on April 29, 2020, 05:21:49 PM
Tucker. -  I look forward to his shows  :-D

remember when Rachel Madcow used to be his sidekick yrs ago?

I avoid Hannity mostly
Laura for me has lost a bit of luster

Levin always earns "great one " moniker.  :-D

Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 29, 2020, 10:50:08 PM
Love Tucker, even when I disagree with him.

Did not know about Rachel.

I think of Hannity as President Trump's press secretary.

Bret Baier Special Report is still very good but the loss of quality reporters such as Katherine Herridge hurts, as does the not-as-stellar-as-they-used-to-be guests on the panel.

Martha M.  does good and fair work.  Love that she regularly has on Gen. Keane.

Laura-- agreed.

Shannon B.:  Easy to overlook because she is so pretty but her self-effacing manner masks some decent lawyerly skills.
Title: Youtube will censor to protect WHO
Post by: Crafty_Dog on April 29, 2020, 10:53:10 PM
https://www.businessinsider.com/youtube-will-ban-anything-against-who-guidance-2020-4
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 05, 2020, 11:00:15 AM
YouTube took down a clip of two California doctors in scrubs with over 5M views.  I gather that someone somewhere posted it outside of the FB/YT Goolag.   Can we find the URL for it?
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 05, 2020, 11:04:51 AM
Is this it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f0VRtY9oTs&feature=youtu.be
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 05, 2020, 11:22:43 AM
This appears to be it but it is on FB:

https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?v=537566680274166&ref=watch_permalink

Is there a less vulnerable URL for this?
Title: Cumo, Schmidt, and the Goolag
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 11, 2020, 01:24:15 PM
https://theintercept.com/2020/05/08/andrew-cuomo-eric-schmidt-coronavirus-tech-shock-doctrine/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=The%20Intercept%20Newsletter
Title: Facebood hires a British liberal to advance its political image
Post by: ccp on May 15, 2020, 07:03:07 AM
(as a bastion of liberal political agenda)

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/05/14/facebook-nick-clegg-profile-122836
Title: Joe Rogan and Spotify
Post by: G M on May 23, 2020, 09:21:40 AM
https://tomluongo.me/2020/05/22/joe-rogan-blew-up-death-star/
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 23, 2020, 09:27:34 AM
What is Spotify?
Title: Google reaches into citizen's personal files to delete Plandemic
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 23, 2020, 10:29:25 AM
https://reclaimthenet.org/google-drive-takes-down-user-file-plandemic/amp/
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: G M on May 23, 2020, 01:32:39 PM
What is Spotify?

https://www.spotify.com/us/premium/
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 23, 2020, 03:25:33 PM
So, its a music thing, like Pandora?
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: G M on May 23, 2020, 05:12:45 PM
So, its a music thing, like Pandora?

Mostly.
Title: WuMaoTube
Post by: G M on May 26, 2020, 04:57:31 PM
https://pjmedia.com/columns/charlie-martin/2020/05/26/youtube-censorship-and-that-which-may-not-be-said-about-chinese-propaganda-n428472
Title: Re: WuMaoTube
Post by: G M on May 26, 2020, 05:29:54 PM
https://pjmedia.com/columns/charlie-martin/2020/05/26/youtube-censorship-and-that-which-may-not-be-said-about-chinese-propaganda-n428472

Can't criticize Chinese TP on Amazon.


https://pjmedia.com/culture/jeff-reynolds/2020/05/26/amazon-wont-allow-a-negative-review-of-toilet-paper-from-china-n428965
Title: Russel Brand on Joe Rogan's move away from Youtube to Spotify
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 27, 2020, 08:01:47 AM


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJbEvTtpOrI
Title: Twitter and the Implications of Section 230
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 28, 2020, 02:02:34 PM
https://www.theepochtimes.com/white-house-trump-campaign-respond-to-twitter-labeling_3366858.html?__sta=vhg.qblkmhbwphzxphzemdsbg%7CJIH&__stm_medium=email&__stm_source=smartech
Title: Re: Twitter and the Implications of Section 230
Post by: G M on May 28, 2020, 02:15:41 PM
https://www.theepochtimes.com/white-house-trump-campaign-respond-to-twitter-labeling_3366858.html?__sta=vhg.qblkmhbwphzxphzemdsbg%7CJIH&__stm_medium=email&__stm_source=smartech

Good. Long overdue.
Title: WSJ misses the monopoly issue
Post by: Crafty_Dog on May 29, 2020, 04:38:49 PM
The Twitter Fairness Doctrine
Trying to enforce online ‘neutrality’ is a fool’s errand. Users can make up their own minds.
By The Editorial Board
May 28, 2020 7:23 pm ET
SAVE
PRINT
TEXT
1,018

President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office before signing an executive order related to regulating social media on May 28, 2020.
PHOTO: POOL/GETTY IMAGES
President Trump, personally piqued by a “fact check” that Twitter added to two of his tweets, now wants to pare back the liability protections that have helped the internet flourish for 24 years. This is a mistake, and it would drag the federal government into regulating online speech, aiming for some nebulous “neutrality.”

Trump Tweets, and Twitter Fact Checks


SUBSCRIBE
The executive order that Mr. Trump signed Thursday is aimed in particular at Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. That 1996 law lets websites moderate posts by users without risking liability for the content. Without this shield, a company like Yelp might be sued by every business that gets a bad review. The Journal might be sued for something in the comments section beneath this article.

Section 230 says internet platforms, acting in good faith, can nix anything they find “obscene,” “harassing,” or “otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.” Mr. Trump’s order calls on regulators to clarify when content moderation might be considered in bad faith, such as if it’s “pretextual,” inconsistent with the terms of service, or performed without giving users “adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard.”

It’s unlikely that Mr. Trump can take a big bite out of Section 230 on his own, but some in Congress also have the appetite. Senator Josh Hawley, Missouri’s populist in a hurry, wants to force big internet sites to get a certificate from the Federal Trade Commission. To keep Section 230 immunity, they’d have to convince some bureaucrats every two years that they don’t moderate posts “in a manner that is biased against a political party, political candidate, or political viewpoint.”

Do Islamism and white separatism count as “political viewpoints,” in which case muting extremists could be counted as “bias”? Could a site be dinged for booting Louis Farrakhan or Alex Jones, the conspiracist who has called the Sandy Hook shooting a hoax? Maybe the courts would be asked to sort it out. The Constitution protects fringe views, but it doesn’t require Twitter or Facebook to disseminate them.

Section 230 was written to empower moderation, to keep the web from becoming a cesspool. Every minute, 500 hours of video are added to YouTube. Every day, Twitter gets something like 500 million tweets and Facebook one billion posts. In the world’s worst game of Whac-A-Mole, their systems clobber untold quantities of jihadist propaganda, “revenge porn,” snuff videos, attempts to “dox” enemies, and so on.

Adjacent to this flagrant conduct is an expansive area covered by “community standards.” A brouhaha last year involved a political commentator on YouTube with four million followers. A gay journalist complained that the pundit was mocking him as a “lispy sprite” and “angry little queer,” sometimes while wearing a shirt depicting a limp-wristed Che Guevara and the slogan “Socialism Is for F*gs.”

YouTube didn’t ax the videos but said it would suspend “monetization,” cutting off the pundit’s ad revenue. The split decision pleased nobody. One side said YouTube was allowing harassment. The other side said it was squashing speech.

At a tech conference, YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki said moderators try to weigh the full context: “Was this video dedicated to harassment, or was it a one-hour political video that had, say, a racial slur in it?” She raised the issue of consistency: “You look at rap songs, you look at late-night talk shows, you look at a lot of humor, you can find a lot of racial slurs that are in there, or sexist comments.” In December YouTube updated its policies to bar “content that maliciously insults someone” based on “race, gender expression, or sexual orientation.”

The government has no place second-guessing such decisions. Speech isn’t always either black or white, to say nothing of red or blue. Each platform makes judgment calls, keeping in mind the expectations of its audience. The knitting website Ravelry banned pro-Trump content, so some of its users left. Instagram prohibits most nudity, which has drawn protest from naturists, who would prefer a policy more “neutral” as to underwear.

***
When it comes to mainstream politics, if conservatives think websites like Twitter and Facebook are hopelessly biased, they’re welcome to delete their accounts. We think Facebook is wiser than Twitter in deciding not to fact-check campaign speech. But as Twitter rolls out more fact checking, people can holler if specious claims by Democrats go oddly untouched, and outcry often works.

Twitter briefly locked Senator Mitch McConnell’s account last year after he posted a video of a protester outside his house saying, “just stab the mother— in the heart.” Days later, it reversed itself. In 2017 the company refused an ad from Tennessee’s now-Senator Marsha Blackburn, who boasted of having “fought Planned Parenthood” and “stopped the sale of baby body parts.” Twitter called the ad “inflammatory” but later backed down.

Facebook, YouTube and Twitter aren’t utilities or soapboxes in the park. They’re businesses that earn piles of money by selling ads against your missives. They’re within their rights to set community standards and spike posts they deem a violation. If this feels suffocating, log off. That includes you, @realDonaldTrump.
Title: FCC commissioner on social media censorhip
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 03, 2020, 06:50:55 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzokmbSXhhg&feature=share
Title: Platform or Publisher
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 04, 2020, 10:30:48 AM
https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-15888.html
Title: Twitter bans analyst who revealed journalists with Antifa connections
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 07, 2020, 10:31:29 AM
https://humanevents.com/2019/05/29/twitter-bans-analyst-who-revealed-journalists-antifa-connections/
Title: Facehugger's Community Standards
Post by: G M on June 11, 2020, 12:30:51 PM
https://summit.news/2020/06/11/facebook-says-page-celebrating-dead-cops-doesnt-violate-its-community-standards/
Title: About your recent smartphone update...
Post by: G M on June 19, 2020, 05:27:59 PM
https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/how-check-if-your-iphone-secretly-coronavirus-tracker

Don't worry, they won't abuse this! Promise!
Title: Re: About your recent smartphone update...
Post by: G M on June 19, 2020, 06:44:31 PM
https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/how-check-if-your-iphone-secretly-coronavirus-tracker

Don't worry, they won't abuse this! Promise!

https://www.pcmag.com/how-to/how-to-make-your-own-faraday-cage
Title: Re: About your recent smartphone update...
Post by: DougMacG on June 20, 2020, 09:23:06 AM
https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/how-check-if-your-iphone-secretly-coronavirus-tracker
Don't worry, they won't abuse this! Promise!
https://www.pcmag.com/how-to/how-to-make-your-own-faraday-cage

I'm a little confused on this, maybe missing something.  It says put phone in airplane mode before shielding it from signals in the Faraday cage or it will burn the battery looking for a cell signal that isn't there.  But if you can't use your phone anyway, can't receive incoming calls or messages and want to save the battery, wouldn't you just turn it off?  If it's off they can't track you and you don't need the protective case?  But you've given up the functionality of phone, smartphone, text, email connectivity, such as an incoming emergency message from a family member in a crisis, in exchange for the privacy during the time the phone is shielded or off or left at home.  That's a very high price to pay.  In a real crisis escape, you need to be checking the route for closures as you travel and you need to be in touch with family members.

With the cash based phone not tied to your name, it is still tied to your home by location tracking.  They know where you live and where you work and who you visit if they want to.  I am owner of public record of the home(s) I go to.  You can't take the tax benefit of homestead without holding title in your name.  They have me coming and going, it seems.

It keeps coming back to losing functionality, efficiency, connectivity and productivity gains of the smart phone to get privacy restored.  I really can't run my business without it.  In earlier apartment rentals, I had to be home to get calls but had to be at the property to do showings. Other occupations had the same challenges.  Now we are WAY more productive.  Most cell phone use is people staying in touch with family members.  Who wants to give that up?
    - signed, frustrated with lost privacy in Leftist Murderapolis


Title: Re: About your recent smartphone update...
Post by: G M on June 20, 2020, 05:14:05 PM
https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/how-check-if-your-iphone-secretly-coronavirus-tracker
Don't worry, they won't abuse this! Promise!
https://www.pcmag.com/how-to/how-to-make-your-own-faraday-cage

I'm a little confused on this, maybe missing something.  It says put phone in airplane mode before shielding it from signals in the Faraday cage or it will burn the battery looking for a cell signal that isn't there.  But if you can't use your phone anyway, can't receive incoming calls or messages and want to save the battery, wouldn't you just turn it off? Your phone can be remotely powered up for surveillance purposes. 

If it's off they can't track you and you don't need the protective case? An iphone is never truly off.

 But you've given up the functionality of phone, smartphone, text, email connectivity, such as an incoming emergency message from a family member in a crisis, in exchange for the privacy during the time the phone is shielded or off or left at home. Privacy is like security, it's never absolute. It exists on a continuum. How much privacy and/or security do you want or need? That's up to you. There is always a trade-off involved. That's a very high price to pay. 

In a real crisis escape, you need to be checking the route for closures as you travel and you need to be in touch with family members.

Understand that in a crisis, the grid (including cell sites) may well be down. Your pre-planning should include that variable.

With the cash based phone not tied to your name, it is still tied to your home by location tracking. That depends on the technology and methodology one can use.

They know where you live and where you work and who you visit if they want to. Who is they? You may not be able to shield things from the USG, but from opportunistic/SWJ attorneys, you can indeed do so.  I am owner of public record of the home(s) I go to.  Why? Each rental should be owned by a stand alone LLC, not you.

You can't take the tax benefit of homestead without holding title in your name.  They have me coming and going, it seems.

I recommend doing a cost/benefit analysis of that tax deduction vs. the legal liabilities you face. You had better plan on some of your renters working to become owners via lawfare. Plan accordingly.


It keeps coming back to losing functionality, efficiency, connectivity and productivity gains of the smart phone to get privacy restored.  I really can't run my business without it.  In earlier apartment rentals, I had to be home to get calls but had to be at the property to do showings. Other occupations had the same challenges.  Now we are WAY more productive.  Most cell phone use is people staying in touch with family members.  Who wants to give that up?
    - signed, frustrated with lost privacy in Leftist Murderapolis

You need to "firewall" your business phones and computers from your personal use technology. Understand that you as a Traditional American are a target and you are behind enemy lines. Learn from history. The American Kristillnact just happened. Guess what comes next...
Title: Re: About your recent smartphone update...
Post by: DougMacG on June 21, 2020, 09:55:39 AM
Thank you for excellent response.  Many great insights there.  It seems to me getting my privacy back is putting proverbial toothpaste back in a tube.  You are right on the money with this process not being perfect and involving tradeoffs. 

My rental properties bought in the last 20 years are all in individual LLC or S-corps making the whole portfolio harder to sue for, but my ownership in those is not shielded from public view.  [My rental properties bought before that are still in my name.]  In writing this, I found a registered agent company in my state to shield that in the future but documents previously filed are already of public record.  https://www.minnesotaregisteredagent.com/llc/

LLC alone isn't perfect protection for me because that firewall still has holes.

A larger loss of property privacy for me comes through city rental licensing law.  As self managed, I am required to disclose contact info and they seem to give that out freely. I will someday hopefully hire a property manager for that, but owner information disclosure is required in our city down to the birth date: http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups/public/@regservices/documents/webcontent/wcms1p-143382.pdf
They need that to file criminal charges against landlords and to track your other properties for targeting.  Yes I should sell all of them, sold two last year, but that is a harder and longer process than one might think.  Selling in the City has become a highly regulated, invasive process as well.  Plus it is my livelihood.  Liquidating in the cash as is, highly discounted market, after decades of my life invested, is a surrender I do not wish for. 

One other point on rental property, some of the wiser prospective tenants verify I am the owner before renting.  There are many scams going on in that area.  My ownership and rental license info is easy to verify.  That is good - and that is bad.   (

On the phone side...  I didn't know that about iphone.  With my android, I can easily open and remove the battery if that is the concern, but again, the trade off is not being reachable.  Having a separate phone or separate number for business - again, tradeoffs.  I have a separate number available through Talkatone, https://www.talkatone.com/.  But the choice to use only that for business involves commitment and discipline.  My (personal) phone number is already out there.  Being easily reachable most of the time is a big deal.  Time is the scarce resource and all these efforts require that.

On the homestead tax issue, I just looked at that for a house I am buying with my daughter.  We could have 'easily' (with time and effort) put this in an LLC.  But the capital gains tax exemption for selling your primary home, up to 250,000 per person per transaction, is not available to her if it is not in her name.  That can be a financial game changer.

"[you] are a target and you are behind enemy lines.]  A couple of years ago I faced the "lawfare" tenant from hell and had the financial scare of my life.  I number of things went right by luck and effort.  I dropped everything else to take care of the property and legal issues quickly, hired what turned out to be a great lawyer for the situation, had a number of factual issues turn in my favor, and had the ownership in a Corp. in the first place.  In the end, I was only out thousands in legal costs and lost rents, didn't lose everything.

Still frustrated but getting better informed about (partial) solutions along the way.

Title: Re: About your recent smartphone update...
Post by: G M on June 21, 2020, 12:22:19 PM
Thank you for excellent response.  Many great insights there.  It seems to me getting my privacy back is putting proverbial toothpaste back in a tube.  You are right on the money with this process not being perfect and involving tradeoffs. 

My rental properties bought in the last 20 years are all in individual LLC or S-corps making the whole portfolio harder to sue for, but my ownership in those is not shielded from public view.  [My rental properties bought before that are still in my name.]  In writing this, I found a registered agent company in my state to shield that in the future but documents previously filed are already of public record.  https://www.minnesotaregisteredagent.com/llc/

You might want to consider a Wyoming LLC. Contact me directly for details.

LLC alone isn't perfect protection for me because that firewall still has holes.

A larger loss of property privacy for me comes through city rental licensing law.  As self managed, I am required to disclose contact info and they seem to give that out freely. I will someday hopefully hire a property manager for that, but owner information disclosure is required in our city down to the birth date: http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups/public/@regservices/documents/webcontent/wcms1p-143382.pdf
They need that to file criminal charges against landlords and to track your other properties for targeting.  Yes I should sell all of them, sold two last year, but that is a harder and longer process than one might think.  Selling in the City has become a highly regulated, invasive process as well.  Plus it is my livelihood.  Liquidating in the cash as is, highly discounted market, after decades of my life invested, is a surrender I do not wish for. 

What is the probability of the Twin Cities bouncing back vs. plunging deeper into Detroitification?

One other point on rental property, some of the wiser prospective tenants verify I am the owner before renting.  There are many scams going on in that area.  My ownership and rental license info is easy to verify.  That is good - and that is bad.   (

On the phone side...  I didn't know that about iphone.  With my android, I can easily open and remove the battery if that is the concern, but again, the trade off is not being reachable.  Having a separate phone or separate number for business - again, tradeoffs.  I have a separate number available through Talkatone, https://www.talkatone.com/.  But the choice to use only that for business involves commitment and discipline.  My (personal) phone number is already out there.  Being easily reachable most of the time is a big deal.  Time is the scarce resource and all these efforts require that.

On the homestead tax issue, I just looked at that for a house I am buying with my daughter.  We could have 'easily' (with time and effort) put this in an LLC.  But the capital gains tax exemption for selling your primary home, up to 250,000 per person per transaction, is not available to her if it is not in her name.  That can be a financial game changer.

Just keep in mind, if I am looking for someone that is a any kind of tax paying citizen, I check assessor's offices as one of my first moves. I once tracked down a global businessman on behalf of a process server firm that couldn't locate him to serve him. He wasn't a US citizen and the only lead was that he was in a certain state. I was able to link this subject to a female who was a US citizen. I was able to locate multiple properties she owned in that state. Using public records, I was able to locate her residence and he was located and served there. Antifa and affiliated groups are teaching OSINT courses (Doxxing, as they call it). Don't think that they won't target your family with "Direct action" if you can't be located yourself. There are 50 different states with 50 different laws, consult with attorneys and accountants in your jurisdiction. I recommend that houses purchased be in a very generic sounding trust. Keep in mind that housing prices are plunging and the model of "Your home is an investment" may be deader than an Auto Zone in Minneapolis.

"[you] are a target and you are behind enemy lines.]  A couple of years ago I faced the "lawfare" tenant from hell and had the financial scare of my life.  I number of things went right by luck and effort.  I dropped everything else to take care of the property and legal issues quickly, hired what turned out to be a great lawyer for the situation, had a number of factual issues turn in my favor, and had the ownership in a Corp. in the first place.  In the end, I was only out thousands in legal costs and lost rents, didn't lose everything.

Still frustrated but getting better informed about (partial) solutions along the way.
Title: Google is evil
Post by: Crafty_Dog on June 23, 2020, 10:26:39 AM
https://patriotpost.us/articles/71598-google-is-evil-2020-06-23?mailing_id=5133&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.5133&utm_campaign=digest&utm_content=body
Title: Apple .1984
Post by: G M on June 23, 2020, 01:55:03 PM
https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/apple-can-now-unlock-your-car-and-listen-you-washing-your-hands
Title: Tik-Tok
Post by: G M on June 26, 2020, 04:58:51 PM
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2020/06/26/warning-apple-suddenly-catches-tiktok-secretly-spying-on-millions-of-iphone-users/

The Chinese Ministry for State Security thanks you for your patronage.
Title: What is your Social Credit score?
Post by: G M on June 27, 2020, 05:13:28 PM
https://news.gab.com/2020/06/26/social-credit-score-is-in-america-visa-blacklisted-my-business-and-my-family-for-building-gab/
Title: Huawei's "Safe Cities"
Post by: G M on June 27, 2020, 08:18:47 PM
https://reclaimthenet.org/ugandas-huaweis-safe-cities-surveillance/

Title: Parler cutting into Twitter?
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 01, 2020, 08:05:17 AM
https://www.breitbart.com/radio/2020/06/29/parler-ceo-john-matze-mass-migration-of-almost-a-million-users-in-weeks-due-to-twitters-censorship/
Title: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: G M on July 02, 2020, 01:52:24 AM
(https://westernrifleshooters.us/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/2ac991ec49fb0395.jpeg)
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 02, 2020, 08:41:19 PM
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/07/02/bokhari-facebook-will-boost-mainstream-news-in-the-algorithm-again/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_campaign=20200702

Title: FB cancels the Boogaloos
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 03, 2020, 03:14:47 PM


https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/v7g7k9/facebook-just-labeled-the-boogaloos-a-dangerous-organization-and-banned-500-groups-and-pages
Title: TikTok-MSS
Post by: G M on July 03, 2020, 11:45:25 PM
https://www.boredpanda.com/tik-tok-reverse-engineered-data-information-collecting/

A Chinese app spying??

NO WAY!
Title: Gaetz vs. Google
Post by: Crafty_Dog on July 31, 2020, 11:21:52 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L3SY9PmAQw
Title: Twitter blocks Trump, helps Ayatollah distribute his terror message
Post by: DougMacG on July 31, 2020, 04:48:06 PM
https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/twitter-iran-leader-tweets-defense

Twitter defends not blocking Iran leader's tweets after blocking Trump's
Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's tweets call for 'elimination' of Israel
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: ccp on July 31, 2020, 05:50:37 PM
"Twitter defends not blocking Iran leader's tweets after blocking Trump's
Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's tweets call for 'elimination' of Israel"

Trump is the Nazi
not Khamenei

according to Democrats
and anyone who votes(ed) for him is racist supremacist

Khamenei is a BFF  of  Brock and Kerry   

Title: google political war on Breitbart
Post by: ccp on August 01, 2020, 08:33:07 AM
https://www.westernjournal.com/google-reportedly-diminished-breitbart-search-results-99-7-daily-caller-gets-savaged/
Title: WSJ on TikTok and MS
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 01, 2020, 09:33:52 AM
The news Friday that Microsoft is in talks to buy the U.S. operations of TikTok, the Chinese-owned video app, may be an example of the market increasing business competition and solving a political problem at the same time.

The political issue is the Trump Administration’s looming decision to ban TikTok from the U.S. or force its Chinese owner, ByteDance, to divest the app that is popular with American children. The grounds would be concern about Communist Party collection of data on U.S. users, and it’s not a crazy worry given China’s averred policy of “civil-military fusion.” The Party can demand and get anything it wants from any company.

A Microsoft purchase would let TikTok operate in the U.S., a market it doesn’t want to lose. ByteDance would presumably get some return on the sale, and President Trump wouldn’t have to take the heat for banning an app that millions of Americans use.

Microsoft would get another social-media business, following its purchase of LinkedIn, to compete with the other tech giants. For some reason, Microsoft was spared the hazing that Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google received this week on Capitol Hill. Yet its market capitalization is $1.55 trillion after Friday’s market close, more than Google’s and Facebook’s and barely behind Amazon’s $1.58 trillion.

Microsoft has the resources to invest in TikTok and offer competition to Facebook, Snap and perhaps Google’s YouTube. One reality missed by the calls for breaking up the tech giants is how much competition they face from one another. This could be another example.
Title: TikTok
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 03, 2020, 09:49:30 AM
By: Geopolitical Futures

TikTok and the tech war. The White House is expected to ban the popular social media platform TikTok in the coming days on grounds that personal data gleaned by the app’s Chinese parent company, a private behemoth called ByteDance, poses a national security risk. Microsoft said its CEO is in talks with the White House and with TikTok itself to scoop up the company’s U.S. operations on the cheap. The U.S. is following the lead of India here, which banned TikTok following the clash between Chinese and Indian troops in disputed parts of the Himalayas. National security concerns about an app known mostly for viral clips of dancing zoomers may seem silly, but the imbroglio around TikTok speaks to the underlying reality of the U.S.-China “tech war”: Given the blurring lines between commercial and military or intelligence technologies, including apps that collect staggering amounts of personal data, it’s not hard to come up with reasons that just about any emerging Chinese technology could threaten U.S. interests. And the broader geopolitical competition will push the U.S. to err on the side of mitigating worst-case scenarios, however real or imagined.

TikTok won’t be the last Chinese-owned app in the crosshairs. Last year, the U.S. also forced the sale of a Chinese-owned dating app called Grindr. And U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Sunday that the Trump administration would soon announce measures targeting a “broad array” of Chinese-owned software. China, meanwhile, is reportedly targeting perhaps the most American of American exports – fast food – by tightening the regulatory screws on Burger King, McDonald’s and KFC, all of which are depending heavily on the Chinese market for growth.
Title: Gaetz vs. Google 2.0
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 03, 2020, 09:53:48 AM
I'm beginning to like Cong. Gaetz more and more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=bX4ymRHZwZY&feature=emb_logo
Title: Your social credit score
Post by: G M on August 03, 2020, 10:33:27 AM
https://www.chron.com/opinion/article/Data-isn-t-just-being-collected-from-your-phone-15451658.php
Title: Zuckerberg, FB, and China
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 04, 2020, 11:18:17 AM
Mark Zuckerberg Continues Facebook’s Turn against China
By JIMMY QUINN
August 3, 2020 4:34 PM
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on Flipboard
Email this article
Print this article


Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg testifies via video conference before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law on “Online Platforms and Market Power” in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 29, 2020. (Graeme Jennings/Pool/Reuters)

Whether out of opportunism or sincere concern for Internet freedom, the social-media magnate has begun to more forcefully condemn the Chinese government.

‘Facebook is a proudly American company,” Mark Zuckerberg said last week, appearing with the chief executives of Amazon, Apple, and Google before the House of Representatives subcommittee tasked with examining competition policy. The CEOs fielded questions from members of Congress on a range of issues beyond antitrust enforcement. When the discussion turned to China, Zuckerberg was alone among his Big Tech colleagues in speaking up against the Chinese Communist Party’s threat to Internet freedom. During his opening remarks, he positioned his company as a staunch defender of American values against an alternative Chinese model that flagrantly disregards free expression. And later, when each of the four executives was asked if the Chinese government steals technology from firms in the United States, only Zuckerberg said that the phenomenon is “well-documented.” The others deflected.

Zuckerberg’s comments were consistent with an apparent change in his thinking over the past year or so, which has seen Facebook’s previous courtship of the CCP end. In a 2019 speech at Georgetown University, he said that while he wanted to connect China with the rest of the world, the CCP’s refusal to play ball had given Facebook “more freedom to speak out and stand up for the values we believe in and fight for free expression around the world.” But it must be noted that Zuckerberg’s shift in stance has mirrored the recent shift in American public opinion, and it is certainly not lost on him that the CCP has of late become the focus of intense bipartisan scorn. In his remarks, he was reprising a politically convenient position that Facebook seems to have adopted as top Democrats have ramped up their criticism of the company’s content-moderation policies and allegedly anti-competitive practices.

What’s more, the history of Facebook’s relationship with China is more complicated than Zuckerberg’s recent messaging would suggest. The social network was not always blocked in China, and it spent much of the past decade attempting to regain the access to the country that it lost in 2009, following a revolt in the far-Western city of Urumqi. The uprising marked a turning point in Beijing’s campaign of human-rights violations in the Xinjiang region. It also led to a country-wide ban on Facebook, Twitter, and Google products. (Today, the only way to access Facebook in China is through use of a VPN.)

In the years after the ban was enacted, Facebook attempted to place itself in the good graces of Chinese officials and win back access to the market. Zuckerberg surely knew that the CCP would demand control over what users posted in exchange for letting Facebook back in. But at the time, Facebook seemed to prioritize its business interests over such concerns. Zuckerberg joined the board of Beijing’s Tsinghua University, delivering a speech there in 2014. Two months later, Lu Wei, the Chinese official tasked with overseeing Internet censorship, visited Facebook headquarters in Silicon Valley. A photo of Zuckerberg from the meeting showed that on his desk he had a copy of The Governance of China, a collection of speeches by CCP general secretary Xi Jinping. “I’ve also bought copies of this book for my colleagues,” he reportedly said. “I want them to understand socialism with Chinese characteristics.”


American attitudes toward China had not yet reached their nadir at that point. While Xi’s grip on the institutions of party and state power in China had grown tighter in the years since his ascension to power in 2013, Beijing was not at the time recognized as a chief U.S. adversary the way it is today. Still, Zuckerberg was clearly attempting to woo top officials from an authoritarian country already seen as responsible for significant human-rights abuses and curtailments of political freedom.

Of course, there’s no reason to believe that Zuckerberg held any particular ideological sympathies with the CCP. As an American executive pursuing one of the largest markets in the world, it seems that he did what he thought he needed to in order to grow his company. At that point, Hong Kong was more or less autonomous, repression in China’s far West did not rise to the level of today’s mass atrocities, and elite consensus in the United States held that China sought regional, rather than global, dominance. But the signs were already there, for those willing to look: By the time Xi visited the United States in September 2015, Chinese authorities were raiding the offices of prominent NGOs, cracking down on dissidents, and targeting religious minorities with new vigor.

NOW WATCH: 'Taiwan Exercise Simulates Defending Against Invasion by China'

Over the next few years, despite these red flags, Zuckerberg undertook a number of other efforts to get Facebook back into China. In 2016, he posted a picture on his Facebook account from Tiananmen Square, and was roundly criticized for neglecting to mention the 1989 massacre of pro-democracy demonstrators there. On the same 2016 trip, he met with the CCP’s top propaganda official, and a year later, he and Apple CEO Tim Cook met Xi during a gathering of tech executives. These efforts did yield some fruit, if only temporarily. There was a brief glimmer of hope for Facebook’s prospects in China in 2018, when it announced plans to establish an “innovation hub” in Hangzhou with the stated goal of assisting Chinese startups, only for the initiative to be quickly scrapped by the Chinese government. But for the most part, Facebook was forced to settle for doing business with Chinese companies outside China, which has been plenty lucrative on its own. To this day, Facebook makes billions of dollars in advertising from such companies, and may possibly be sharing user data with them. In 2018, the New York Times reported that Facebook had a data-sharing partnership with Huawei.

7
In light of this complicated history, it’s fair to wonder how one should interpret Zuckerberg’s remarks to Congress. One school of thought holds that he has come around to the view that the CCP poses a unique threat to political expression and now sees the restrictions demanded by Beijing as an unacceptable price of doing business in China. Another holds that Facebook executives see absolutely no path forward into the Chinese market, and think that the smart move is to play to the concerns of America lawmakers, many of whom are already skeptical of Chinese technology.

Which is closer to the truth? In a certain sense, it doesn’t matter. Whether Zuckerberg is merely trying to ingratiate his company with lawmakers or he’s genuinely alarmed by the Chinese threat to free expression, his turn against the CCP can only be a positive development for the tech industry — provided it’s backed up with concrete action.
Title: Serious Read: Antitrust can't bust a monopoly of ideas
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 05, 2020, 11:01:12 PM


Antitrust Can’t Bust a Monopoly of Ideas
Consumer-protection tools won’t be effective against the larger threat to American democracy.
By Vivek Ramaswamy
Aug. 5, 2020 12:06 pm ET

The House Judiciary Committee’s Antitrust Subcommittee grilled the CEOs of Apple, Alphabet, Facebook and Amazon last week about alleged anticompetitive practices and market abuses. Chairman David Cicilline concluded by declaring that “we need to ensure the antitrust laws first written more than a century ago work in the digital age.” The American public is right to question the growing power of large corporations, but Congress misses the point by viewing this problem solely through the lens of antitrust.

Antitrust law was designed to protect consumers from monopolies and cartels that use market power to limit consumer choice and charge higher prices. It may have once been a relevant tool to fight the crude monopolistic pricing practices of tycoons like John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie. But the most troubling effects of concentrated corporate power are different today.

Companies like Apple, Alphabet, Facebook and Amazon provide consumers with a wider array of goods and services than ever and at remarkably low prices. Facebook’s social networks and Google’s search engines are free to users. Consumers enjoy abundant product offerings on Amazon and musical options on Apple’s iTunes Store.

But there’s a catch: The same companies that have improved consumer access to cheap products are increasingly limiting options in the marketplace of ideas and raising the cost of ideological dissent. This isn’t price fixing; it’s “idea fixing.” And it poses a greater long-term threat to the public than anything dreamed by the robber barons who ran Standard Oil and U.S. Steel.

On the premise of “social responsibility,” Alphabet subsidiary YouTube recently decided to begin removing political videos it deemed untruthful. The site has taken down videos that were critical of Covid-19 lockdown policies in certain states, stifling discourse about the most important scientific and public-policy debate of the year. YouTube’s stated litmus test is the World Health Organization’s assessment of what is and is not truthful. By that standard, YouTube would have removed any video in January claiming the coronavirus could be transmitted person to person, since that ran contrary to WHO’s position at the time.

Facebook’s decision this year to create a corporate politburo of “experts” to determine what types of speech are acceptable on its site is similarly troubling. It’s worth recalling that as recently as March most public-health experts, including the surgeon general and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, were advising against wearing face masks. That previous error is not a persuasive argument against wearing masks now, but it is an argument for epistemic humility going forward. For experts and ordinary folks alike, the past teaches us that many of our current beliefs will be proved false, and that determinations of truth are always conditional and probabilistic. Unfettered dialogue isn’t a liberal-arts luxury; it is a necessity for science and democracy.

This problem extends beyond Big Tech. Take Goldman Sachs, a leading member of the small cartel of underwriters that enjoys “tollbooth” status as a gatekeeper for companies seeking to go public, thanks to securities regulations. In January, CEO David Solomon announced at the World Economic Forum that Goldman will refuse to take any company public that doesn’t have at least one “diverse” board member. Here Goldman is the sole arbiter of who counts as diverse.

Reasonable citizens may disagree about whether to rectify historical wrongs against minorities and women through explicit quotas or some other means. Frederick Douglass opposed quotas in the 19th century, as did many black leaders of the 20th century. Yet Goldman Sachs executives favor them today. America’s traditional mechanism for dealing with those disagreements is through open public debate culminating at the ballot box, not by corporate fiat issued from the mountaintops of Davos.

Liberals should be as worried as conservatives about the power of large companies to set the boundaries of acceptable debate. Progressives criticized the Supreme Court for permitting Hobby Lobby to deny insurance coverage for contraception to its female employees. Hobby Lobby is a family-owned arts-and-crafts store. Google, Facebook and Twitter enjoy a de facto oligopoly over the public debate many Americans witness on the internet, a primary source of political information in the digital age.

While Big Tech and Wall Street are currently pushing fashionable progressive ideas on issues from climate change to policing and diversity, that could easily change in the future. Beijing has successfully pressured American businesses to restrict their employees’ speech about China. The National Basketball Association, Disney, Marriott and more have caved in to that pressure.

It is hardly a stretch to worry that companies like Apple, Google and Twitter, which have already sought to collaborate with the Chinese Communist Party on regulation of “acceptable” ideas within China, could take those standards of “acceptability” in the U.S. to appease their CCP-affiliated stakeholders. Twitter suspended accounts of Chinese activists ahead of the 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. Apple has removed songs from iTunes that refer to Tiananmen Square and has suppressed its Taiwanese flag emoji in Hong Kong and Macau. Will these restraints eventually apply to American users too?

This is the poisoned fruit of “stakeholder capitalism.” If society demands that corporate executives use their platforms to improve society, it entrusts those same executives with deciding what constitutes a better society. Yet in the year of Covid-19 and Black Lives Matter, this new idea—that corporate leaders should use their market power to implement social and political values—has quickly been ordained as the governing philosophy of American corporations.

America has a strong tradition of separating spheres of society to preserve the integrity of each. Separating capitalism from democracy is no less important than separating church from state. By using market power to exercise undue social, cultural and political power, today’s corporate leaders violate this fundamental American principle. It is time to resist this ideological cartel that now represents a more fundamental threat to the American public than any antitrust violation.

Mr. Ramaswamy is founder and CEO of Roivant Sciences.
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: ccp on August 06, 2020, 04:41:31 AM
"This isn’t price fixing; it’s “idea fixing.”

good point
Title: Re: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 06, 2020, 06:49:43 AM
And getting that point properly made seems to me to be the heart of finding the solution.
Title: Location harvesting
Post by: G M on August 08, 2020, 06:34:21 PM
https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/inside-one-big-brothers-location-harvesting-contractors-tracking-hundreds-millions

Got privacy?
Title: Re: TikTok
Post by: G M on August 09, 2020, 05:47:55 PM
https://disrn.com/news/photo-surfaces-showing-tiktok-executives-posing-with-communist-flag/amp

By: Geopolitical Futures

TikTok and the tech war. The White House is expected to ban the popular social media platform TikTok in the coming days on grounds that personal data gleaned by the app’s Chinese parent company, a private behemoth called ByteDance, poses a national security risk. Microsoft said its CEO is in talks with the White House and with TikTok itself to scoop up the company’s U.S. operations on the cheap. The U.S. is following the lead of India here, which banned TikTok following the clash between Chinese and Indian troops in disputed parts of the Himalayas. National security concerns about an app known mostly for viral clips of dancing zoomers may seem silly, but the imbroglio around TikTok speaks to the underlying reality of the U.S.-China “tech war”: Given the blurring lines between commercial and military or intelligence technologies, including apps that collect staggering amounts of personal data, it’s not hard to come up with reasons that just about any emerging Chinese technology could threaten U.S. interests. And the broader geopolitical competition will push the U.S. to err on the side of mitigating worst-case scenarios, however real or imagined.

TikTok won’t be the last Chinese-owned app in the crosshairs. Last year, the U.S. also forced the sale of a Chinese-owned dating app called Grindr. And U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Sunday that the Trump administration would soon announce measures targeting a “broad array” of Chinese-owned software. China, meanwhile, is reportedly targeting perhaps the most American of American exports – fast food – by tightening the regulatory screws on Burger King, McDonald’s and KFC, all of which are depending heavily on the Chinese market for growth.
Title: TikTok
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 10, 2020, 11:34:58 AM
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16330/tiktok-china
Title: MS, China, and TikTok
Post by: Crafty_Dog on August 11, 2020, 11:37:31 AM
https://www.theepochtimes.com/microsofts-extensive-ties-to-beijing-could-muddy-tiktok-discussions-experts-say-2_3452757.html?ref=brief_News&utm_source=morningbriefnoe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb
Title: Goolag wants your children
Post by: G M on August 12, 2020, 11:35:21 AM
https://www.cnet.com/news/two-children-sue-google-for-allegedly-collecting-students-biometric-data/

Title: I have a dream - we can only hope this happens
Post by: ccp on August 12, 2020, 04:26:57 PM
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/facebook-could-face-500-billion-171653204.html
Title: The upside of masks
Post by: G M on August 22, 2020, 01:17:10 PM
https://www.dailydot.com/debug/facial-recognition-face-masks/
Title: The Tech Monsters
Post by: DougMacG on September 04, 2020, 07:17:37 AM
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-tech-monsters
Title: The top down revolution of the Goolag is making its play
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 04, 2020, 08:46:45 PM


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEOtF8ZRkzE

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/09/04/facebook-purges-patriot-prayer-after-member-killed-by-antifa/

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/09/04/twitter-locks-account-of-kyle-rittenhouses-attorney-john-pierce/

Title: WSJ on FB censorship of Kyle Rittenhouse
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 05, 2020, 09:06:58 AM
Will Facebook let users share this editorial? We’ll see. The social-media giant seems to have declared Kyle Rittenhouse’s fatal shooting of two people amid riots in Kenosha, Wis., a mass murder. Mr. Rittenhouse’s lawyer says his client was attacked and acted in self-defense, but Facebook has banned any “praise and support” for him on the site, including links to contribute to his legal representation. Searches for his name on the platform also come up empty.

OPINION: POTOMAC WATCH
Ballots Are On The Way / Unemployment Falls To 8.4%


SUBSCRIBE
This is an alarming resort to censorship on an issue of public concern by a company that has advertised its support for First Amendment values. Even more than most political controls on content, this blackout is troubling because it seems targeted at users’ expectation of freedom of speech and Mr. Rittenhouse’s right to due process.

By taking down links to pay Mr. Rittenhouse’s legal fees, the company is interfering with his ability to raise money for his defense in a way other criminal defendants might. The fact that the platform may only be used to declare Mr. Rittenhouse’s guilt, but not his innocence—though lawyers say the self-defense argument is plausible—could prejudice a jury pool in the high-profile case. One of America’s most powerful companies is effectively giving its official imprimatur to Wisconsin prosecutors’ case against a specific defendant.

Defending Mr. Rittenhouse’s right to a fair hearing, and the public’s right to see information about the shooting, is not a defense of the teen’s actions. The untrained minor exercised terrible judgment in leaving his hometown to act as an amateur police officer amid the looting and arson in Kenosha, and he has been charged with illegal possession of a dangerous weapon.

NEWSLETTER SIGN-UP
Opinion: Morning Editorial Report
All the day's Opinion headlines.

PREVIEW
SUBSCRIBED
Yet Facebook is lumping Mr. Rittenhouse with terrorist extremists like the 2016 Orlando or 2019 El Paso mass shooters. Video evidence shows this was a tangled situation. Mr. Rittenhouse is seen fleeing an angry crowd on foot, and someone fired a gunshot in the air before Mr. Rittenhouse turned and opened fire at his closest pursuer. Later on someone appears to try to hit him with a skateboard while he is on the ground, and another man approaches him carrying a pistol. We are still learning details, but these aren’t the usual circumstances for first-degree murder convictions.

Mr. Rittenhouse’s guilt or innocence will be decided in court, but the case is dividing the public and prompting commentary by both presidential candidates. Facebook’s heavy-handed blackout flies in the face of CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s commitments last year—which we have defended—that the company would protect free expression and not yield to political demands to suppress speech.

Facebook naturally wants to dissociate itself from street violence, but in this case it has made a mistake. It can continue to block incitements to violence, and shut down groups plotting violence, without throwing itself into a murky and politicized criminal case. Prejudging guilt and moving against a person’s legal defense is a bad look for a company that claims to be committed to civil liberties. Voters, and their representatives, will notice.
Title: NSA-mazon
Post by: G M on September 11, 2020, 09:49:00 AM
https://dailycaller.com/2020/09/10/amazon-surveillance-nsa-director-keith-alexander-prism-edward-snowden-leaks/

Amazon: We Totally Don’t Want To Spy On You. Also Amazon: We Just Hired The Architect Of The NSA’s Mass Domestic Surveillance Program
NSA Director Gen. Keith Alexander Speaks At Cybersecurity Summit
Alex Wong/Getty Images





COMMENTS
VARUN HUKERI
REPORTER
September 10, 2020
3:11 PM ET
FONT SIZE:

Amazon revealed in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing Wednesday that former National Security Agency (NSA) director Gen. Keith Alexander had been added to the company’s board of directors.

The investor filing released Wednesday detailed that Alexander was elected a company director and appointed to the board’s audit committee. Alexander is also listed on Amazon’s website as a board member and chief executive of IronNet Cybersecurity, a company he founded in 2014.

Alexander served as NSA director and chief of the agency’s Central Security Service from Aug. 2005 to March 2014. He was also the first commander of the U.S. Cyber Command and served from May 2010 to March 2014.

We’re thrilled to elect a new member to our Board of Directors this month. Welcome, General Keith Alexander! https://t.co/iJDrgUJEjd pic.twitter.com/pZkW2anlJ0

— Amazon News (@amazonnews) September 9, 2020

Amazon told CNBC in a statement that Alexander was selected for his qualifications and public policy experience, adding that his role would not overlap with cloud computing and data projects like Amazon Web Services. He was also awarded 288 shares of Amazon stock which will be acquired in three annual installments beginning Nov. 2021, CNBC reported.

Alexander became the public face of the NSA’s domestic and international surveillance program in 2013 after former CIA sub-contractor and whistleblower Edward Snowden leaked thousands of classified documents revealing the agency’s mass surveillance programs, Business Insider reported.

The Snowden leaks also revealed the connection between U.S. intelligence agencies and major technology companies as the PRISM surveillance program allowed the NSA to collect private electronic data belonging to American and international users, according to The Verge.


Snowden responded to Alexander’s appointment, blaming him for the “unlawful mass surveillance programs” in a tweet Wednesday. “It turns out ‘Hey Alexa’ is short for ‘Hey Keith Alexander’,” Snowden tweeted. (RELATED: Amazon Removes Job Postings Seeking Analysts To ‘Monitor Labor Organizing Threats’)

???????? It turns out “Hey Alexa” is short for “Hey Keith Alexander.” Yes, the Keith Alexander personally responsible for the unlawful mass surveillance programs that caused a global scandal. And Amazon Web Services (AWS) host ~6% of all websites. ????????https://t.co/6hkzsHjxh9

— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) September 9, 2020

Alexander had accused Snowden of being a Russian operative during a March 2014 interview with Australia-based Financial Review. “I think he is now being manipulated by Russian intelligence,” Alexander said. Snowden’s passport was revoked following the leaks, and he consequently sought asylum in Moscow, The Hill reported.

Alexander once suggested that reporters should not be allowed to access or cover the documents Snowden leaked during an Oct. 2013 interview with the Department of Defense. “I think it’s wrong that newspaper reporters have all these documents, the 50,000-whatever they have and are selling them and giving them out as if these — you know it just doesn’t make sense.” he said.

His appointment to Amazon’s board of directors comes at an important time for the tech giant as it remains locked in a legal battle with Microsoft over a $10 billion cloud computing contract with the Pentagon as part of a deal with the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure (JEDI) program, CNBC reported.

Amazon has also come under fire for its data collection practices despite the company stating that it “never participated” in the NSA’s PRISM program, Forbes reported. (RELATED: Ex-NSA Head Keith Alexander Defends Million-Dollar Cyber-Security Consulting)

A report in 2019 revealed that Amazon Echo products were storing data using voice-recognition software, according to The Washington Post.

‘Alexa, are you controlled by Chinese hackers?’

DefCon hackers discover way to hijack Amazon Echo and spy on unsuspecting users: https://t.co/pOLfDDAs7r pic.twitter.com/O8VoRVbLRJ

— Big Think (@bigthink) August 13, 2018

Amazon said the company was not abusing data collection in an April 2019 statement, the Independent reported. “We have strict technical and operational safeguards, and have a zero tolerance policy for the abuse of our system. Employees do not have direct access to information that can identify the person or account as part of this workflow.”

When asked about data collection practices, a company spokesman told the Independent: “We take the security and privacy of our customers’ personal information seriously.”
Title: Goolag geofence warrants
Post by: G M on September 12, 2020, 09:04:58 PM
https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/google-geofence-warrant-keeps-locking-innocent-people-who-were-proximity-crime-scene
Title: Trump bans American business from downloading TikTok
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 18, 2020, 05:55:45 AM
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/trump-administration-to-ban-americans-from-downloading-tiktok-wechat/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=breaking&utm_campaign=newstrack&utm_term=21543553
Title: GPF: TikTok's Time is Up
Post by: Crafty_Dog on September 18, 2020, 11:25:11 AM
September 18, 2020   Open as PDF



    Daily Memo: TikTok's Time Is Up
By: Geopolitical Futures

Clock ticking for TikTok. The Trump administration announced Friday that it will ban U.S. business transactions with China-owned social apps WeChat and TikTok effective on Sunday. This effectively means people who have already downloaded the wildly popular apps will probably still be able to use them indefinitely. But an accompanying ban on hosting or transferring internet traffic for WeChat could render it unusable immediately, and TikTok will face a similar fate by Nov. 12. At a minimum, though, they will disappear from app stores and not be able to be updated in the U.S. – unless, that is, the White House approves either a sale of TikTok’s U.S. operations to a U.S. firm (which Beijing is blocking) or a “partnership” agreement reached last week between Oracle and ByteDance, TikTok's parent firm.

The issue is important for how it touches on numerous aspects of the burgeoning U.S.-China “tech cold war,” including how concerns about the oceans of personal data people willingly hand over to tech firms could generate national security risks more broadly. Such concerns are theoretically valid (though, if so, singling out specific Chinese apps would be insufficient). But determining exactly how much risk the U.S. faces is extraordinarily difficult, as is evaluating the risks of ultimately doing more harm than good with sweeping moves. Regardless, the U.S. is taking a better-safe-than-sorry approach, choosing to strike first and deal with any potential unintended consequences later. And given the blurring lines between commercial and military or intelligence technologies, it’s not hard to come up with reasons that just about any emerging Chinese technology could threaten U.S. interests.