Mark Zuckerberg bleats his best defense

Mark Zuckerberg has his ‘come to press’ moment just in time to ring in the new year. Out with the bad FB. But actually, he is fighting for his job as the top fascist of Facebook.

No need for my lengthy critique. Just read his words and they are enough to curdle the milk you drank yesterday morning.

I’ve learned a lot from focusing on these issues and we still have a lot of work ahead. I’m proud of the progress we’ve made in 2018 and grateful to everyone who has helped us get here — the teams inside Facebook, our partners and the independent researchers and everyone who has given us so much feedback. I’m committed to continuing to make progress on these important issues as we enter the new year.

So all the chants and demands from civil rights organizations for a new CEO are falling on his deaf ears. He’s chaining himself to the door. I can’t stand the self-congratulatory ‘tude.

Facebook Faceplant Hearing

Notable points from Facebook, Zuckerberg hearings.

House notes on Energy and Commerce hearing
2012 Election

“In 2012, the Obama for America presidential election campaign worked with the company to allow users to sign into the campaign’s website via Facebook. According to accounts at the time, the Facebook application gave the campaign access to both those that signed into the campaign, as well as the “Friends” of such persons — “the more than 1 million Obama backers who signed up for the app gave the campaign permission to look at their Facebook friend lists.” This gave the Obama for America campaign access to “hidden voters” for which they otherwise lacked contact information.

Carol Davidsen, Director of Integration of Media Analytics for Obama for America, via Twitter, stated that “Facebook was surprised we were able to suck out the whole social graph, but they didn’t stop us once they realized that was what we were doing.” This in turn allegedly allowed one political party to download and retain individual user data which was not provided to other political organizations. “

It worked well for Obama. The problem comes when someone else from the conservative side finds a way to use Facebook. Zuckerberg was also asked but completely ignorant about details of past privacy lawsuits. This proved he was just an empty suit. 

Sham, most Republicans were simply not up on the technology or prepared. Pandering was on full display. Zuckerberg also could not address the data collection of non-FB users.

Overall, he kept returning to his canard that Facebook does not sell data. I think that line might haunt them. But marketing people’s personal data to companies at a profit may as well be. Their commodity is your personal information. If I market cars in a lot I can say I am technically not selling them, but I am getting paid for doing it.

Congressmen and Senators were more interested in looking to get broadband access for their districts and constituents, which Zucky was happy to say he would work toward.

On the censoring part, Zuckerberg had no answers. He claimed they would have over 20 thousand content screeners (FB conflates with security) by the year’s end. And he said they were working on creating more AI (artificial intelligence) tools to do censoring.

So the censoring will go on, and will be automated. He also referred to users flagging or reporting offensive content. So is it a mob sourced censorship platform too? To posture, pander, promote FB should not have been the objective for Congress.

Then, Mr. Zuckerberg, are you willing to help us with making the regulations etc.? Oh, he would be more than happy to have his team assist. Sure, sounds like a plan. 🙂

PS: Georgia Republican Rep Buddy Carter said he doesn’t want to legislate morality. Great. But Zuckerberg and his Facebook fascists do — and are hard at work trying.

Right Ring | Bullright

Privacy and use of info data

I’ve got a new thought. It might still have some wrinkles but I’ll throw it out there. All the attention focused on privacy and social media, I share your concerns. Then come all the news of Facebook selling your data info, without your permission or knowledge.

Surely they aren’t alone either. Obama pilfered data just fine. They cheered.

That said, who likes having their data used and sold off as a commodity? Then they promise you security. No, how about the owner of the info gets paid for their own information? What’s wrong with that? I like the idea that they pay me. Clicks and everything else is a cash cow for merchants of info. It is now a business model.

So how about they pay you for your data they want? We have a commodity they want, we create it. Why should we get cut out of the market? A middle man sells it off and you don’t know how it is used nor by whom. If it really is a market that is. That’s me. Glitches?

Right Ring | Bullright

All in a Facebook day’s work

What is the rub on or about Facebook? First of all, I think a lot of people are looking at Facebook’s relationship with its users in the wrong way.

The problem is the business model is not what many people assume it is. The users, those people who put all their personal information on there, are actually the “product” – not the client or consumer. That’s not just me, even CNN’s business pundits have said it.

The client of Facebook is the advertisers or those who use that bulk information, which Facebook sells too. See, it is just that people have misunderstood the real business model.

And when it comes down to protecting the users? Well, that was never the real priority or objective of the business model. Protecting their clients, the advertisers or paying consumers, is a necessary part of the model. They are the consumers.

 

See also: https://www.infowars.com/revealed-leftist-bias-of-internet-social-media-giants/

Right Ring | Bullright

Hillary takes another bite of her rotten apple

Hillary is the gift that keeps on giving. She offers another excuse — NO IT WAS NOT AN APOLOGY — for her latest deplorable statements.

After even Democrats objected to what she said, she dug in with an explanation for what she said. How could anyone call that an apology?

(What she originally said) –“[Democrats] do not do well with white men, and we don’t do well with married, white women,” she said. “And part of that is an identification with the Republican Party, and a sort of ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son, whoever, believes you should,”

Actually, even Dick Durbin was asked about her statement, saying it was “not helpful.” Then he quibbled with the amount of people. So it was the number he disputed?

Now she does a face-plant on Facebook:

“I understand how some of what I said upset people and can be misinterpreted. I meant no disrespect to any individual or group. And I want to look to the future as much as anybody.”

You understand why you offended so many people! Yet you persist in saying it. Misinterpreted? Meant no disrespect? It was all about disrespecting people who did not vote for you. In her cremation of facts on Facebook, she said:

“My first instinct was to defend Americans and explain how Donald Trump could have been elected. I said that places doing better economically typically lean Democratic, and places where there is less optimism about the future lean Republican.”

No, your instinct was not to defend Americans but your failed bid for president. The only way to do that is to slander the people who voted against you, including women.

“THAT doesn’t mean the coasts versus the heartland, it doesn’t even mean entire states. In fact, it more often captures the divisions between more dynamic urban areas and less prosperous small towns within states.”

Yes, you did mean the coastal regions versus the heartland. Forward looking places like California — who are in the midst of seceding from the union you ran to be president of!

“As I said throughout the campaign, Trump’s message was dark and backwards looking. I don’t need to list the reasons, but the foundation of his message, “Make America Great AGAIN” suggests that to be great we have to go back to something we are no longer. I never accepted that and never will.”

Darkness is creating jobs, bringing back the economy to forgotten people who aren’t in your leftist silo? Leveling the field of trade, reducing deficits is backward?

She closes with another face plant, like the one she narrowly avoided on the steps.

“So to those upset or offended by what I said last week, I hope this explanation helps to explain the point I was trying to make. And I hope now that we can get back to the real business before us: Protecting our democracy and building a future we can all share.”

Your point was as clear as the deplorable comment was. It does help, only to solidify your disdain for voters. You weren’t about “protecting democracy” but rigging it! A future that the rest of us cannot possibly share in, unless they are an elitist like you.

But one can never believe anything she says anyway.

Read my earlier (mind reading) translation of what she meant here.

Right Ring | Bullright

Russia’s infowars by media and Left

CNN has put on its thinking cap again, or not, in reporting this about Russia’s agenda.

(CNN)A former National Security Council employee who served in the White House under President Barack Obama has issued a harsh rebuke of Russia President Vladimir Putin, saying his actions during the 2016 election amount to “21st-century information warfare.”

Responding to reports that 126 million Americans saw Russian-linked Facebook content during and after the 2016 presidential campaign, Samantha Vinograd told CNN anchor Chris Cuomo on “New Day” Tuesday that “Putin is engaging in digital psyops, or psychological operations.”

She continued, “He’s using misinformation to try to sow divisions in the United States. His view is, the more divided we are here at home, the weaker we’re going to be.”

Information warfare, really, from the folks who weaponized everything against the people, including information. And they did it with the help of the media. Remember those polls, reports, dirty dossier and accepting results? The more divided the weaker? Digest that.

From the mouths of babs. (Obama babs) Lets review this because some media are super-thick. If the objective was sowing division in the US, then clear the deck media has done a bang up job. It doesn’t need Russia’s interference for that — thank you very much.

It’s a laugh to hear them worried and warning about division. From people who boycotted Trump’s inauguration and emotionally crumbled when Hillary lost. And they haven’t accepted it any better since. But listen to them talk about Putin sowing division in the US, using an Obamafile to do it. It’s laughable. Then media carries their narrative as if they are a credible authority. Talk about psy-ops, that is rich.

I’d also like to remind them that the electorate decides elections, not Facebook ads.

But then who needs Facebook when we have a candidate and DNC to create a dirty dossier, with Russian sources, and then inject it into the bloodstream of media and government?

Beck sides with Facebook on bias

Beck Attacks Conservatives For Being Mean To Facebook, Says “No Evidence Of Wrongdoing” By Social Media Titan

Pat Dollard May 19, 2016

Overzealous? This is the guy who was basically damning people to hell if they didn’t vote for Ted Cruz. Beck is kissing ass to get some of that fine Facebook money for future ventures, and to hook up with Mark Zuckerberg and enjoy the access to his rich and powerful connections that comes with it. Yes, Beck is selling out conservative values for cash. Which tells you everything you need to know about his sincerity as a conservative. And the god he really gets on his knees for: money.

Excerpted from The Hill: Radio host Glenn Beck is criticizing some of the other conservatives who joined him at a meeting with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg over allegations of political bias at the social media giant.

Beck accused other conservatives in the room of being overzealous in their efforts to get the company to respond to their concerns. …/

Read more at http://www.patdollard.com/beck-attacks-conservatives-for-being-mean-to-facebook-says-no-evidence-of-wrongdoing-by-social-media-titan/

So Beck and his incredible shrinking relevance is sucking up to Facebook. Who’da thunk it? Well, that puts to rest any remaining question about his lack of principles, or his sanity.

Facebook’s thumbnail taxes down under

Facebook pays tiny tax bill

Nick Sas – The West Australian on May 12, 2016 | Yahoo

Facebook Australia has restructured its local business in the face of the Federal Government’s multinational tax crackdown, as the US giant revealed it paid just $814,000 in tax last year.

The West Australian has obtained the 2015 financial figures of the Australian arm of the social media company, revealing gross revenue of $33.5 million, up from $26.4 million in 2014 — a 26 per cent jump.

More: https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/31580302/facebook-pays-tiny-tax-bill/

Face of Islam

Alton Nolen in Oklahoma is the latest face of Islam, for now but only until another comes out to take his place in a similar spurt of evil anti-humanity. It made the three bullets of a gun priceless.

What do we know? Well, he had a Facebook where he laid out his profession of evil. It makes me wonder: if Hitler was alive today, what might we see on his Facebook or Twitter feed? Among the graphic artwork he displayed were his rants laced with the religious jargon of a terrorist.

Compare it to his past that is reported like a mosaic, in and out of prison, attack on a cop prior to this. Then we have the gem of a rant on the social ills of AmeriKa. Ain’t it just like an ex-con?

So let me grapple with that dynamic. He lectures America (US) on the finer ethics of society, according to him anyway. The guy has a record half a mile long and he’s a self-anointed doctor diagnosing society? It sounds eerily similar to someone else who lives on Pennsylvania Ave. I guess this is another one of Obama’s kids. Runs in the family.

He apparently never got the memo from our dubious pretender that he was not Islamic, and what he was doing was not Islamic. So maybe there is some twisted point in what Obama says, maybe these people are not Islamic enough?

RightRing | Bullright

Tech Bubble: live or memorex

SHADES OF ’99: New Data Show The Tech Boom Is Looking More And More Like A Bubble

Jim Edwards | Business Insider
Jan. 20, 2014

With 2013 behind us, we’ve got another year of data on investment in the tech sector.

It’s very healthy indeed — perhaps too healthy.

Wikimedia Commons

We noted recently that tech investment appears to be approaching a peak, possibly a bubble. Now, with the new data in, the debate is not whether the tech sector has hit a peak. It has hit a peak. Some financial metrics in the tech sector — deal volume in particular — have actually exceeded those seen in 1999 and 2000, as we show below.

Rather, the debate now is whether this peak is part of a long, ongoing boom fueled by game-changing companies with real revenues and real customers — Facebook and Twitter being the most obvious — or whether the rollercoaster has reached the top of its track and is headed for a gut-wrenching fall.

Here’s the evidence.
The Nasdaq has hit 4,000 again. Last time it did that, it was 1999.

On it’s own, it’s just a coincidence. But remember that these stocks are responding to an environment in which interest rates are at zero. Stocks are the sensible alternative when there is no money to be earned via interest on savings. The moment the Fed raises rates, investors will be able to get a risk-free return greater than zero from cash savings … and a bunch of money will exit stocks. Falling stock prices will have a domino effect across the tech sector, as newly poor investors think twice about backing venture funds and new startups.

More: Businessinsider.com/tech-bubble-new-evidence-2014

Related: http://www.businessinsider.com/evidence-that-tech-sector-is-in-a-bubble-2013-11