Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Cambridge Analytica shenanigans pays off for Facebook.

William,

It sure did.

It's a perfect smokescreen for what Facebook has really done to influence the elections. And not just in the US.

The Cambridge Analytica outrage is small potatoes that's surfing on Trump hatred. It's not as grievous as the way elitists (including Maddow) jacked up some bozo Russian meme makers, who they said swung the election for Trump by posting a small number of memes on Facebook. But it's still the same animal. While the press prompts people to look at Cambridge Analytica as it feigns outrage, Facebook does much, much worse behalf of the elitists, especially those on the left.

I'm glad to see Maddow on her "muh Russians" gig, though. She's working hard to help reelect President Trump.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 358
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Classic Objectivism absolutely opposes anti-trust. What wasn't addressed back then was State charted, created, sponsored corporations. There are 50 States. Where is there the room for public corporati

You may each refer to case number 2018-03. The clerk at the Compliment Clinic will take your statements and collect fees:    

Heh. That's a "TANTRUM"? And that's a "real" interviewer with "difficult" questions? Mr. Shapiro, I've selectively misinterpreted some fragments of your past statements to mean what I want t

Posted Images

Notice how the spin is that the Trump allowed the meddling in the last Presidential election? Fox had a new video of Joe Biden talking about Russian and other meddling in the last Presidential election. He said something like this didn't happen on the Obama / Biden watch. But Joe? It did. You were IN POWER in 2016 and Trump didn't get sworn in until January 2017 if I have my calendar dates right. So Jobama allowed the meddling and they should be held accountable.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 6/27/2019 at 11:33 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

VIDEO - THE TRUTH ABOUT SMART CITIES

Polly ties the modern Smart City concept to a similar villa project during the French Revolution and she even talks about the lady from Google that James O'Keefe busted above in this thread.

If you know nothing about Smart Cities, this video will educate you in no time flat and in an interesting manner to boot. Seriously.

For those who noted the references to Masdar City ...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

I haven't put anything here in the Fake Social Media thread for a while, but the clash between the tech giants and the government has been heating up. The tech giants did the unthinkable. Not only did the Federal Government open antitrust investigations against them, the AGs of 48 States did so, also. That means the tech giants unified the Democrats and Republicans.

Also, there has been a controversy about whether a social media platform is a platform or a publisher. When there is liability for something published, the companies claim they are platforms and should fall under the Safe Harbor Law. When they want to censor someone, they claim they are publishers and have a right to do so.

But they have been very careful to not keep to the publisher part in official documents since that could open them up to a hell of a lot of lawsuits, class action and otherwise. But Facebook just screwed up bigtime.

Facebook Admits It’s a Publisher in Court Filings

Let's see how that plays out, but it doesn't look good for Facebook at first blush.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Here is a particularly obnoxious example of fake social media:

Senior Twitter Executive Exposed As British Psy-Ops Soldier

Quote

Middle East Eye are reporting a striking story that, if true, should be circulated widely as possible. It sheds a whole new light on just how deeply interwoven the Social Media monoliths and the Deep State truly are:

The senior Twitter executive with editorial responsibility for the Middle East is also a part-time officer in the British Army’s psychological warfare unit, Middle East Eye has established.

Apparently, Gordon McMillan – twitter’s head of editorial for Europe, Middle East and Africa – not only works for the British government, but is a reservist in the 77th Brigade.

Spooks and social engineers everywhere. All promoting the establishment ruling class, sometimes openly, but mostly covertly. Social media is a perfect environment and breeding ground for them.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Intriguing video that explains how robots/AI at Youtube automate de-listing and de-indexing and de-monetization. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if there was any reality to this tin-foil hat hysteria, they have the right to take care of their brand, Korben said it best ...

  • KorbenDallas
   On 9/6/2018 at 1:38 AM,  Michael Stuart Kelly said: 

But the fact that he thinks social media censorship is OK in America

KorbenDallas said: 

It's not censorship by the government, that would be violating free speech.  It's a company taking care of their brand!  You can kick someone out of your store if they are disrupting things, KICK ALEX OUT

 
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

... they have the right to take care of their brand...

Jon,

As a publisher or as a platform?

As a publisher, I agree. As a platform, they have some sweetheart government protections (crony deals) and lots of government funding. Not to mention massive employee swaps with the Obama administration. So what the hell kind of private company is that? Just because something is legal, that doesn't make it rights-based. Slavery was legal in the US for a long time. Private companies should be private in deed, not just in legal registration, to claim Randian-like rights basis.

But even so, legally, as a platform, they can't censor folks for political speech. (Like a telephone company cannot censor speech for using telephones.) As a publisher, if they were a publisher, they can.

When they want their own freedom and lack of liability for content, they claim they are a platform. When they want to censor political speech, they claim they have the same rights as a publisher without really saying it.

So why don't they embrace being a publisher?

A shit-ton of lawsuits for libel, that's why.

(btw - I didn't see the video William posted except for the opening strawman it set up. After that, I didn't think it was worth watching. I don't mean that in a snobbish manner. It's just why watch a half-hour of debunking a strawman? It looks creative, though.)

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, then you have to watch more of the video, Michael.

See, the people bitching and complaining in Billy’s video can simply express themselves somewhere else. Isn’t that the response from their side of the political divide when people they don’t  happen to identify with are being silenced by the social media giants?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Emphasis added.

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
7 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Intriguing video that explains how robots/AI at Youtube automate de-listing and de-indexing and de-monetization. 

[...] I didn't see the video William posted except for the opening strawman it set up. After that, I didn't think it was worth watching. I don't mean that in a snobbish manner. It's just why watch a half-hour of debunking a strawman?

What was the opening strawman, as you perceived it after watching an introductory minute or two?  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, william.scherk said:

What was the opening strawman, as you perceived it after watching an introductory minute or two?  

William,

It was actually less than a minute. Here are a couple of screenshots.

image.png

I took that to mean these guys think YouTube is demonetizing gays as a target group. Suddenly YouTube became homophobic (inadvertently, of course).

If that's not the message, then the opening of this video sucks--a total communication fail. And that portends that I will spend at least a half hour (probably more) just to figure out what these guys mean. If it is the message, I'm not interested. That's a friggin' strawman.

The space in my brain for looking at class victimization stories is full right now.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

William,

It was actually less than a minute. Here are a couple of screenshots.

image.png

I took that to mean these guys think YouTube is demonetizing gays as a target group. Suddenly YouTube became homophobic (inadvertently, of course).

If that's not the message, then the opening of this video sucks--a total communication fail. And that portends that I will spend at least a half hour (probably more) just to figure out what these guys mean. If it is the message, I'm not interested. That's a friggin' strawman.

The space in my brain for looking at class victimization stories is full right now.

Michael

It is indeed a straw man. It's Narrative™. Spin.

J

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...

For those who uncritically support the Internet and computer tech giants (including those who produce fake social media), here is one of the hidden costs.

Apple, Google, Tesla, Microsoft and Dell are accused of exploiting child labor in the Democratic Republic of Congo by African families whose kids have been 'maimed or killed' mining cobalt to be used in lithium batteries

That's a high price to be able to meddle in elections and promote authoritarian political agendas.

Fortunately for the tech giants, they don't have to pay this cost to offer us their services and products. 

Poor kids do--ones in corrupt countries around the world, especially in Africa.

That is, unless these situations and entities get investigated and brought to court.

Compared to what else some of the ruling class elitists do with poor kids, the kids in this article got off lucky. Even the ones killed. Their deaths could have been a lot more degrading and painful had the interest in them by these elitists been more than slave-labor profits. 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Finally some sanity might be coming to Twitter.

Republican mega-donor, Paul Singer, who used to be an anti-Trumper, but has since joined the Trump train, just bought a huge chunk of Twitter and his first mission is to get rid of Jack Dorsey.

 

Here's an article:

Billionaire Republican buys major Twitter stake, may oust CEO amid GOP concerns of bias, reports say

I like this news, that is, unless Singer turns out to be a vampire.

:)

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

The antitrust stuff against tech giants is coming whether anyone likes it or not.

But what were they thinking? It wasn't enough to shut down conservative voices, they are shutting down medical experts in the middle of a national emergency for disagreeing with the fake news media "controlled narrative."

Michael

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

All these noisome folks are putting everything into the pot while holding a busted hand.

--Brant

and I don't just mean tech giants and MSN and the Deep State, I mean the entire left

Link to post
Share on other sites

Classic Objectivism absolutely opposes anti-trust. What wasn't addressed back then was State charted, created, sponsored corporations. There are 50 States. Where is there the room for public corporations in the ideologic rubric of libertarianism/Objectivism or in Randianism, if you will? Basically corporations are facets of economic fascism written large by today's social media.

Hit them with anti-trust as a necessary stopgap.

--Brant

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

What wasn't addressed back then was State charted, created, sponsored corporations.

Good, new angle of reasoned attack. The Wesley Mouche's aren't all at the federal level.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Wadda ting , Meyer, wadda ting"

Google TM, is quite da ting, and seemingly from day zero.

I remember AltaVista the beta version as one of the first search engines and then somehow bam Google all revved up and never looking back, good to go from jump. Does it just seem that way ? or feels like that anyway?

It's like they flipped a switch one day and the world went gaga for Google. Is there good , true story about their investments and capital outlays that allows for the computing/server capacity they had on what feels like the day they flipped the switch?or am I just paranoid and conspiracy laden?

If Google is to Coca-Cola, blank is to Pepsi ?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now