Author Topic: The Goolag, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter et al: the Orwellian Tech Octopus  (Read 41998 times)

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17819
    • View Profile
FaceHugger Book goes for direct brain interface
« Reply #250 on: January 01, 2019, 02:22:17 PM »




ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10548
    • View Profile
They will control all intellectual property

people will be amazed to see their ideas miraculously already being done
by others

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 50977
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17819
    • View Profile
FaceHugger's 10 year challenge
« Reply #256 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.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17819
    • View Profile
Surveillance capitalism
« Reply #257 on: January 23, 2019, 01:16:31 PM »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17819
    • View Profile
The internet of things is not your friend
« Reply #258 on: February 07, 2019, 12:35:42 PM »
https://boingboing.net/2019/01/29/fiat-lux.html

Anyone think this is a good idea?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 50977
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 50977
    • View Profile
Google and Facebook worsen media bias
« Reply #260 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.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10548
    • View Profile
From PJ media listed quotes good food for thought
« Reply #262 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
« Last Edit: February 17, 2019, 02:00:49 PM by Crafty_Dog »



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10548
    • View Profile
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.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17819
    • View Profile
AI and the end of high trust society
« Reply #266 on: February 25, 2019, 12:19:07 PM »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17819
    • View Profile


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17819
    • View Profile
Silicon Valley Sharia
« Reply #269 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?



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 50977
    • View Profile



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12476
    • View Profile
"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.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17819
    • View Profile
"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.



G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17819
    • View Profile
"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



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12476
    • View Profile
Re: Squaw Forked Tongue gets a big one right
« Reply #280 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.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17819
    • View Profile
YouTube Changes Search Algorithm to Suppress Criticism Of Brie Larson
« Reply #281 on: March 11, 2019, 01:55:01 PM »
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=59905

Control speech, control thought.




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 50977
    • View Profile


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10548
    • View Profile
Josh Hawley ready to take on big orwellian tech
« Reply #285 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.”


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 50977
    • View Profile
EU Media Literacy
« Reply #286 on: March 15, 2019, 07:51:09 AM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 50977
    • View Profile
Deep implications here
« Reply #287 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

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17819
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10548
    • View Profile
"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!

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17819
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17819
    • View Profile
The twitter division of Minitrue
« Reply #291 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.



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 50977
    • View Profile
WSJ: EU fines Goolag bigly on anti-trust grounds
« Reply #293 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
« Last Edit: March 20, 2019, 12:15:06 PM by Crafty_Dog »



G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17819
    • View Profile
Re: General Dunford vs. Goolag
« Reply #296 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.



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 50977
    • View Profile
WSJ: Zuckerberg for Regulation
« Reply #299 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.