Erratic behavior, bad hair cut, lots of money
Naw, it can't be happening...
On Monday, some Facebook employees, sheltering at home amid the persistent coronavirus lockdown, staged a virtual "walkout" to protest the internet giant's refusal to block President Trump's incendiary posts about the protests over the police killing of George Floyd. One software engineer, Timothy Aveni, publicly resigned. …
"Two Russian state institutions with close ties to Vladimir Putin funded substantial stakes in Twitter and Facebook through an investor who later acquired an interest in a Jared Kushner venture, leaked documents reveal."
"The investments were made through a Russian technology magnate, Yuri Milner, who also holds a stake in a company co-owned by Kushner, Donald Trump’s son-in-law and senior White House adviser."
It's no different than One America Network / Sputnik
"Trump’s New Favorite Channel Employs Kremlin-Paid Journalist....If the stories broadcast by the Trump-endorsed One America News Network sometimes look like outtakes from a Kremlin trolling operation, there may be a reason. One of the on-air reporters at the 24-hour network is a Russian national on the payroll of the Kremlin’s official propaganda outlet, Sputnik."
Or Michael Flynn / Barr. Barr trying to kill the prosecution, but some of Flynns discussions with the Russians while Obama was president have been released.
Flynn: "Listen, uh a couple of things. Number one, what I would ask you guys to do — and make sure you, make sure that you convey this, okay? — do not, do not uh, allow this administration to box us in, right now, okay? Make it reciprocal. Don't go any further than you have to. Because I don't want us to get into something that has to escalate, on a, you know, on a tit-for-tat. You follow me, Ambassador?"
Kislyak:""Your proposal that we need to act with cold heads, uh, is exactly what is uh, invested in the decision," Kislyak tells Flynn, who replies, "Good.""
Wow, and that's just the portion the Republicans released! No wonder he lied about the meetings to Pence.
@AC, lots of stuff - little interest - mentions Kremlin a lot
.......so there's an election on you see, at least 50% of the UKUSA intelligence agencies and their minions in the press are going for one guy, by mentioning the kremlin a lot etc, ......why can't you tell us what he's actually been doing wrong, as he's a multidimensional idiot, with manifest problems.....when you look at the full picture, the wide view - you can see that the former prez, and his team including Rice, Bidden etc did a lot of unconventional things, on that last 01/07/2017 meeting. The media subsequently mentioned the kremlin a lot, but a report found that that was misleading.....The federal bureau of cursory investigation, even managed to get intel suggesting that (and this is ACTUAL kremlin meddling) suggesting that kremlin was aware of ex-MI6 Chris Steele's research and were tainting his report, as it was being written. This wasn't apparently carried forward to , oh, the FISA courts etc.
Why did FBI's top lawyer resign, was he paid by the kremlin too?......at least try & do your sleazy reputation management for 'unmask' Bidden with some accurate talking points...
have a nice day
Yeh, I'm pointing out all the links to Russia with these individuals.
You add "innuendo claims" and then pretend the real stuff is similar innuendo to your added items, but your boss just tried to invite Russia to the G7, so its not like there's any shortage of real linkage to the Putin here. Do you want more?
There *is* an election going on.
Manasfort really did put a Russian puppet into Ukraine who tried to undermine NATO.
Barr did really just release Manasfort from prison years early on Covid scare.
Ukraine did cancel the investigation into Manasfort Russian money because Trump withheld their missiles if they didn't.
Trump did try to do it again the next year. His famous quid-pro-quo that got him impeached. With Guilianis * many trips.
Barr really did cancel the prosecution of the Russian troll farm that used Facebook:
* This is a misspelling, but when I click on word suggestion in Firefox "Guilianis" suggests 'Anilingus'. odd no?
You do realise that (a) that conversation quoted does not contain the discussion that was claimed, and (b) that discussion as quoted here is not, and was not, in any way inappropriate.
Flynn: Play it cool. Kislyak: OK
That is a nothing burger
IIRC the journalist wrote an article for RT, which hardly makes him a plant.
Your TDS is front and center
Do not get Facebook, its appeal, how much money it brings in or its size. I especially don't get why there is so much advertising on it when the adverts are intrusive and just plain irrelevant (unless its something I just bought)...
Not trolling, there's something I just don't get...
I don't use it. I remember going on it and Friends Reunited. Saw a few old school "people" and realised they were the same cocks now as they were in school. Realised people just make up bullshit about their lives so have avoided it since.
I still don't get it because people love to boost about their lives on it and their past friends get jealous, not realising most of the shit on Facebook is bollocks. Why do strangers feel the need to share their kids with the world, I don't get it.
However, I do see and understand why others use it. A ex manager at work only ever used it to see her relatives in Australia, an old woman I used to work with who isn't into IT uses it to keep in touch with people and chat to them and then you have my sister and brother-in-law. I pointed my sister and brother-in-law in the direction of Facebook a few years back, for their small building work business. I suggested its so much easier than me, attempting, poorly, to manage their own domain that they couldn't work out how to upload images to. The local barbers uses Facebook to get his opening and special closes times out there because he's got no time to deal with a proper domain.
So although I hate Facebook, I can see why some people insist on using it.
What I can't understand is people moaning about its privacy issues when they are getting to use it for free. If you don't like it's privacy issues, stop using it, its not a human right to use it. I'm sure most of those moaning would refuse to pay a subscription fee for it with no adverts.
I'm confused AC.
You don't use Facebook, but the ads are irrelevant.
How do you know if you don't use it?
One appeal for advertisers is the adverts can be VERY well targeted.
They say you can target on race, but you can have a damm good shot.
Target a predominantly black neighbourhood, people into gangster rap, and under 30. Your unlikely get a sweet old white granny*
When I used to run a charity, we had a Facebook business account and I worked out I could target an individual by advertising to just 2 people, just by applying a few filters.
*who may of well.been a member of the Nazi party in her youth.
> Three leaders of those groups... Color of Change... Leadership Conference... NAACP Legal Defense Fund, criticized Zuckerberg's response in a joint statement.
I bet all three organisations still have Facebook pages though and so do their listed representatives.
The first step is closing all your accounts. There is no way to fix Facebook because Zuck is a morally bankrupt turd and he is the dictator-in-chief of his disgusting little fiefdom.
... Facebook has this thing called groups. Pretty much everyone I know on Facebook is someone I know personally. We are friends in the traditional sense.
We all belong to groups of common interest, mostly closed groups where no trolls exist. These are excellent places for discussion and there is rarely if ever trolling (self moderated).
I follow a number of intellectual journals and a few news organisations and they are uprated on my feeds.
Facebook is pretty useful for me, because I have residences in 3 countries and spend a lot of time somewhere else relative to a large number of my friends.
In this debate, Facebook is the least of our worries. Twatter on the other hand, well there are issues.
Finally, Alphabet is evil and burying shit so it can't be found on Youtube and Google because it doesn't fit their political narrative is evil
Y'know, in a country whose origins are based on a revolution, I find it gigantically ironic that peaceful protesters (I exclude all the bad actors) risk possible investigation by various law enforcement authorities for peacefully exercising their democratic right to protest and dissent. It is heartening that some police are joining their protests but will this be enough?
Just a thought.
Oh, right, it's (presidential) election year in the US. How could I have forgotten?
It's a sad day for Facebook when Twitter holds the moral highground over them.
FB can't have it both ways though, in some countries (E.g. Myanmar) they hold such an influence over internet access and news reporting that they are perceived almost to be "the internet" (largely due to free access to FB from mobile providers with no data charges) yet refuse to employ sufficient people to adequately monitor that content. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_genocide#Facebook's_role_in_the_genocide See also episode 5.23 of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver
I genuinely can't think of one single good thing about FB, from their advertising and slurping practices to their refusal to censor obvious hate speak or false content. If anyone is still counting, Trump has made close to 18000 false or misleading statements and has been barely censored by Twitter and not at all by FB. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/president-trump-has-made-more-than-18000-false-or-misleading-claims-fact-checker/vi-BB12AnFG
"close to 18000 false or misleading statements"
Have you actually read them all? Last time I looked there were countless references to, for example "Russia hoax" as an untruth.
Reality check. It was a hoax. Have they been removed?
The list of dubious entries is endless. When hyperbole, litotes, precision and other well understood colloquial and meaningful turns of phrase are suddenly "false", then the language becomes useless.
It is getting worse.
Nouns are becoming unusable, because "labelling"
Adjectives and adverbs are now by definition either discrimination or racist
... and the list goes on
""close to 18000 false or misleading statements"
Have you actually read them all? Last time I looked there were countless references to, for example "Russia hoax" as an untruth."
Of course not, that's why I linked to a third party article backing up my statement, something that you seem to have overlooked.
Of course you will denounce my reference as some sort of deep-state conspiracy or call me a butthurt libtard or some other variation thereof for pointing out that you are talking shite.
Why anyone think that Twitter, Facebook or any otter such company taking sides in politics is a And blocking someone you dislike is a good thing?
Yes, today they block someone you dislike and you feel good. How would you feel if tomorrow they block a politician you like.
You think it won’t happen? You are wrong - once started this process won’t stop.
Prime example of the problem. Trump sees himself being fact-checked when he says something demonstrably false as a personal attack on him, when in fact he is being called on spreading misinformation.
I DO NOT want politicians blocked just because I don't like them, but I DO want obvious hate speech blocked and I DO want people held to account when they spread misinformation. Of course though anyone who is fact checked will then turn partisan and accuse social media of stifling their voice.
Balanced commentary that points out, as you have done, that the problem of "choosing the bad guy" has the obvious issue of deciding who IS the bad guy, are always downvoted? Similarly, any comment that doesn't bash Mr. Trump (never mind praise him God forbid), is similarly downvoted.
It's almost as if El Reg is populated by loony left anti-free speech activists who hate Mr. Trump and cannot conceive that they are proposing censorship rather than open debate.
"despite complaining bitterly about the failure to hold the president to account for his words on the Facebook platform, very few Facebook employees have quit"
With 40,000,000 USAians out of work, would YOU quit a paying job at short notice? The only people quitting jobs are those who already have another job lined up, can afford to retire or are at the top the tree and have skills which are in demand so can move easily to a new job. People are going back to work now, but many, many businesses will either not re-open or will be cutting back, including staffing levels. The US has shitty employment rights even under good employment conditions. With so many out of work I can see wage levels dropping as employers see the huge pool of applicants they now have available to pick from.
I didn't even know POTUS had a FB account! @cnn, @msnbc and co. are constantly ragging on about POTUS' Twitter feed.
"When the looting starts, the shooting starts" might have history, but it's long past the point where its use should carry any connotation other than "when thugs start looting, there'll be shooting". IIRC the other Tweet turned out to be true.
The Twatterverse is full of accounts threatening to kill or disembowel everyone they hate. Those posts are never censored, yet appear on often on the @realDonaldTrump threads. Hypocisy is alive and well at Twitter where they lean very far left and only censor & de-platform conservative personalities. Twitter is almost as bad as some of the Reddit groups in many ways.
I am all for removing the protections afforded to FarceBook & Twatter in Sect. 230 except for the porno bits where it is essential the we block and censor even the most trivially lewd content.
> So how does that stack up?
It doesn't. But this is the standard MAGA Trumpkin playbook: always play the victim role.
When Trump calls in the National Guard to dominate the battlespace of Lafayette Park in Washington DC, he does so because he's been - along with many other white Republicans born in privilege - oppressed and persecuted all his life.
"You complain about it be a lefty organization and how the poor oppressed conservative are repressed"
It is objectively true that conservatives have been de-platformed on Twatter repeatedly - there is a long list. There may be some Democrats that have been de-platformed, but I cannot recall a single one.
"none of the President's posts has been removed, despite constant violations of their policies"
Personally, I subscribe to @realDonaldTrrump and rarely read past DJT's message. The rest is just noise and I think a lot is auto-generated.
I haven't seen anything that I personally find objectionable from @realDonaldTrrump, but maybe that's because I can actually read (unlike you - see above).
But it doesn't matter how I personally view any particular tweet, 230 lets Twatter censor whatever they want. My own "objectionable filter" was where Twitter was 4-5 years ago before Twitter got weaponised, so basically I block clowns and let most shit slide.
Vast swathes of Twatter content are immeasurably worse than anything POTUS has ever posted - go read a few prominent individuals to see the level of personal hatred and direct threats that happen on an hourly basis in their threads - Right, Left and Centre. The terms of service are vague and malleable, and they are exercise capriciously.
Hypocrisy is a thing, and in being weaponised, Twatter has fallen victim to it.
Facebook, Twitter, Google and such are all the same:
They don't care
They make so much money they are untouchable.
Once content is there it is actually impossible to remove it from the Internet
Sanctions, courts etc cannot hit them with a big enough fine to have a financial impact
These issues are never going to have a big enough financial impact.
They don't care
People continue to use the platforms
Many of those people also don't care and are part of the problem
And just to make sure, they still don't care.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020