Next Page: 10000
|Cache|| London: Apple CEO Time Cook has said that Apple does not intend to create its own cryptocurrency, saying he is firmly against the idea of companies setting up digital currencies.|
Taking a dig at Facebook's attempt to launch a digital currency called Libra next year, Cook told French financial newspaper Les Echos that money must remain in the hands of states.
"I am not comfortable with the idea that a private group creates a competing currency. A private company does not have to seek to gain power in this way," Cook was quoted as saying.
Facebook that tied up with 27 organisations to start the non-profit Libra Association to launch its cryptocurrency next year appears to have hit a roadblock.
According to a report in The Wall Street Journal, Visa, Mastercard and some other financial partners who signed on to support Libra are reconsidering their involvement in the network.
"The financial partners are reluctant to attract regulatory scrutiny following backlash from governments and banks and have declined Facebook's requests to publicly support the project," the report said on Tuesday.
The US lawmakers recently attacked Facebook, calling it "delusional" and "dangerous", directing the social networking giant to clean up its house first before launching a new business model.
According to Cook, money, like defence, must remain in the hands of states.
"It is at the heart of their mission. We elect our representatives to assume government responsibilities. Companies are not elected, they do not have to go for this," he added.
The Apple CEO Tim who is currently in Europe made an appearance at an event at the non-profit organization Osservatorio Permanente in Italy on Thursday.
During his speech, Cook said that while the Internet has brought many positive developments, "fake news is one of the negatives," as reported by 9to5mac.com#utm_source=googlier.com/page/2019_10_08/11178&utm_campaign=link&utm_term=googlier&utm_content=googlier.com.
"The Internet has brought so many positive things, but the fake news is one of the negatives. All of us lovers of democracy and freedom must think that separating the false from the true is the basis of freedom. Quality journalism is the foundation of every democracy and an open and free press is essential," Cook emphasized.
Gizmodo uncovered new evidence that Facebook is using its platform to suppress stories about CEO Mark Zuckerberg.
The magazine noticed that for some reason, a story about Zuckerberg we posted to its Facebook page was hidden from many readers.
The story was pretty benign and was about Zuckerberg deciding to make audio recordings from staff meetings public after they were leaked and published earlier this week.
The post was fully visible through web browsers in incognito mode, but an unclear percentage of users were told, "Sorry, this content is not available" when they tried to view it while signed in. In short, lots of people could not see the story.
Gizmodo hacks got on the blower and by Friday afternoon, the issue seemed to resolve itself just as mysteriously.
|Cache||R.J. Reinhart at Gallup:|
A recent survey by Gallup and Northeastern University finds a slight majority of Americans opposed to a universal basic income (UBI) program as a way to support workers displaced by AI adoption. Conversely, about three-fourths of residents in the U.K. and Canada favor the idea.
These findings come from a Gallup/Northeastern survey of over 10,000 adults in Canada, the U.K. and the U.S. conducted from April to June 2019. By some estimates, up to 50% of jobs are expected to be automated within the next decade. An OECD study across 21 countries suggests that while only 9% of jobs are currently at high risk of automation, low-skilled workers are most vulnerable to job displacement.
The way that colleges, universities, governments and businesses can respond to this disruption is the topic of a recent report by Gallup and Northeastern University detailing the results of the three-country survey. The probability-based survey was conducted online with 4,394 Americans, 3,049 Canadians and 3,208 U.K. adults.
In the survey, UBI was defined for respondents as a government-instituted program that would provide every adult with a specific amount of money each year. These funds would serve as income support for people who lose their jobs or occupations because of advances in artificial intelligence. UBI programs have been endorsed by U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang, as well as high-profile business leaders such as Richard Branson and Mark Zuckerberg.
There was thunderous applause at Oculus Connect 6 when Mark Zuckerberg took to the stage for his keynote speech and announced the Oculus Link. This exciting update for the Oculus Quest launches in November and is set to be a game-changer for Facebook's portable VR headset as it'll allow Quest owners to play PC VR games on their headset.
I was right there in the audience when this happened and as soon as the doors to the main hall opened, I rushed inside to try the Link out for myself. The Link wasn't the only thing I played however, I also went hands-on with as many upcoming VR games as possible and I've got to say, the future for VR is looking bright!
In this week's Ian's VR Corner, which you can watch below, I chat about my time in San Jose and give you my first impressions of the 6 best Oculus games that I played at the show. Not only that, but I also chat about my impressions of OC6 as a whole, show you some behind the scenes footage of the show floor and let you know exactly what I thought about my hands-on time with the Oculus Link.
|Cache||Submitted on Tue, 2019-10-08 01:59|
จุดด์ เลกัม นักข่าวอเมริกันรายงานเรื่องที่โซเชียลมีเดียเฟสบุ๊คแอบเปลี่ยนแปลงกฎเกี่ยวกับการห้ามเผยแพร่ข้อมูลเท็จ โดยละเว้นเป็นกรณีพิเศษให้สำหรับ "โฆษณาทางการเมือง" ทำให้เกิดข้อวิพากษ์วิจารณ์ในเรื่องที่พวกเขาอนุญาตให้ประธานาธิบดีโดนัลด์ ทรัมป์ เผยแพร่โฆษณาใหม่บนเฟสบุ๊คได้ถึงแม้ว่าจะมีเว็บตรวจสอบข้อเท็จจริงจากภายนอกที่ได้รับการรับรองจากเฟสบุ๊คระบุว่าเป็นข้อมูลเท็จก็ตาม
จากที่ก่อนหน้านี้เฟสบุ๊คเคยมีกฎสั่งห้ามไม่ให้มีโฆษณาที่มีเนื้อหา "หลอกลวง เป็นเท็จ หรือชวนให้ไขว้เขว" ในเฟสบุ๊ค แต่นักข่าวจุดด์ เลกัม นักข่าวอเมริกันผู้เคยทำงานให้สื่อสายก้าวหน้าอย่าง ThinkProgress ก็ระบุว่เฟสบุ๊คแอบเปลี่ยนกฎในเรื่องนี้อย่างเงียบๆ เมื่อสัปดาห์ที่แล้ว ให้ "โฆษณาทางการเมือง" สามารถเผยแพร่ได้ถึงแม้จะมีข้อมูลเท็จ นั่นทำให้ประธานาธิบดีโดนัลด์ ทรัมป์ เผยแพร่วิดีโอโฆษณาโจมตีผู้แทนฝ่ายตรงข้ามคือ โจ ไบเดน ได้โดยไม่ถูกห้าม มีการตั้งข้อสังเกตว่าฝ่ายหาเสียงของประธานาธิบดีทรัมป์เพิ่มเงินซื้อโฆษณาจากเฟสบุ๊คมากกว่า 1.5 ล้านดอลลาร์สหรัฐ เมื่อสัปดาห์ที่แล้ว
โฆษณาใส่ร้ายป้ายสีที่มาจากเพจของโดนัลด์ ทรัมป์ ระบุว่า "โจ ไบเดน สัญญาว่าจะให้เงินแก่ยูเครน 1,000 ล้านดอลลาร์สหรัฐ ถ้าหากพวกเขาไล่อัยการที่สืบสวนเรื่องบริษัทของลูชายเขาออก" ซึ่งเว็บไซต์ตรวจสอบข้อเท็จจริงหลายแห่งระบุว่าไม่เป็นความจริง เช่น factcheck.org#utm_source=googlier.com/page/2019_10_08/29909&utm_campaign=link&utm_term=googlier&utm_content=googlier.com ระบุว่า "ไม่มีหลักฐานใดๆ ที่ระบุว่าฮันเตอร์ ไบเดน (ลูกชายของโจ ไบเดน) ตกอยู่ภายใต้การสืบสวนสอบสวนใดๆ" ส่วน Politifact ระบุว่า "ฮันเตอร์ ไบเดน ทำงานในยูเครนก็จริง แต่พวกเราไม่พบข้อมูลใดๆ ที่ระบุว่ารองประธานาธิบดี โจ ไบเดน ช่วยเหลือเขาเลย"
ก่อนหน้านี้ทางเฟสบุ๊คมีกฎระบุห้ามไม่ให้เนื้อหาเหล่านี้นำเสนอข้อมูลเท็จเช่นเนื้อหาที่ถือเป็น "โฆษณา, เพจหน้าแรก และการทำธุรกิจ" แต่ล่าสุดเฟสบุ๊คได้เพิ่มเติมข้อความในส่วนของนโยบายตรงจุดนี้ว่า เนื้อหาจำพวกที่จะไม่ถูกนำมาพิจารณาด้วยคือเนื้อหาที่ "มีเป้าประสงค์หลักต้องการแสดงความคิดเห็นหรือเป็นวาระจากบุคคลทางการเมือง" นั่นทำให้ไม่ว่าจะมีเรื่องโกหกจากโฆษณาของทรัมป์หรือนักการเมืองคนอื่นๆ มากมายขนาดไหนก็ตามเฟสบุ๊คก็จะอนุญาตให้เผยแพร่ได้
นอกจากโฆษณาทางการเมืองแล้ว นโยบายเพิ่มเติมของเฟสบุ๊คยังอนุญาตให้ข้อความอื่นๆ อย่างบทความแสดงความคิดเห็นและงานเชิงเสียดสี (satire) ไม่เข้าข่ายที่ต้องมีการตรวจสอบข้อเท็จจริง
โฆษกของเฟสบุ๊คแถลงว่า "พวกเราไม่เชื่อว่าการทำตัวเองเป็นกรรมการทางการเมืองจะเป็นบทบาที่เหมาะสมสำหรับพวกเรา แล้วพวกเราก็ไม่เชื่อว่ามันเหมาะสมถ้าหากจะสกัดกั้นคำกล่าวของนักการเมืองไม่ให้เข้าถึงผู้รับชมแล้วปล่อยให้มันเป็นเรื่องของประชาชนจะไปถกเถียงอภิปรายและใคร่ครวญ"
อย่างไรก็ตามมีการตั้งข้อสังเกตว่าในช่วงหลายเดือนที่ผ่านมามีโฆษณาของทรัมป์หลายตัวที่เข้าข่ายเป็นข้อมูลเท็จหรือชวนให้ไขว้เขว แต่ก็จะไม่เป็นปัญหากับกฎใหม่ที่เฟสบุ๊คเพิ่งออก ทั้งนี้สื่อ The Verge ยังเคยนำเสนอข้อมูลที่รั่วไหลจากการประชุมของเฟสบุ๊ค ซึ่งซีอีโอของเฟสบุ๊คกล่าวในที่ประชุมว่ามันจะเป็นเรื่อง "ห่วยแตก" ถ้าหาก อลิซาเบธ วอร์เรน หนึ่งในผู้แทนพรรคเดโมแครตที่มาแรงได้รับเลือกตั้งเป็นประธานาธิบดีและบอกอีกว่าจะ "สู้" กับเธอให้ "แพ้ชนะกันไปข้างหนึ่ง"
ซึ่งอลิซาเบธ วอร์เรน กล่าวโต้ตอบซัคเคอร์เบิร์กในเรื่องนี้ว่า "สิ่งที่จะถือว่า 'ห่วยแตก' จริงๆ คือการที่พวกเราไม่แก้ไขระบบที่ฉ้อฉลปล่อยให้บริษัทยักษ์ใหญ่อย่างเฟสบุ๊คมีพฤติกรรมกีดกันทางการแข่งขันซึ่งถือว่าผิดกฎหมาย มีกระทำการเหยียบย่ำสิทธิความเป็นส่วนตัวของผู้บริโภค และ มีความเงอะงะซ้ำๆ หลายครั้งต่อเรื่องความรับผิดชอบของพวกเขาในการปกป้องประชาธิปไตย"
Facebook says Trump can lie in his Facebook ads, Popular Information, 03-10-2019
Facebook exempts political ads from ban on making false claims, The Guardian, 04-10-2019
READ THE FULL TRANSCRIPT OF MARK ZUCKERBERG’S LEAKED INTERNAL FACEBOOK MEETINGS, The Verge, 01-10-2019
ติดตามประชาไทอัพเดท ได้ที่เฟซบุ๊ก https://fb.me/prachatai#utm_source=googlier.com/page/2019_10_08/29909&utm_campaign=link&utm_term=googlier&utm_content=googlier.com : ทวิตเตอร์ https://twitter.com/prachatai#utm_source=googlier.com/page/2019_10_08/29909&utm_campaign=link&utm_term=googlier&utm_content=googlier.com : LINE ไอดี = @prachatai
|Cache||The Facebook CEO offered a defense of philanthropy, but conceded "no one deserves to have that much money."|
A surprising bug was discovered on the social networking site Facebook which displayed some users with a remembering message on their profile. Facebook’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s profile has been also affected by this bug. The strange Facebook bug, called Bizarre Facebook bug spotted by Business Insider which showed the following message at the top of […]
The post Bizarre Facebook Bug Shows Certain People As Dead Person- Including Mark Zuckerberg appeared first on .
Facebook has updated their “Messenger App,” that lets you to play “Basketball Mini-game” in “Facebook Messenger App.” Just like everyone, Facebook founder – Mark Zuckerberg is so much excited about March Madness. Facebook surprised its users by embedding a secret chess game inside messaging app. So are you wondering how to play basketball in “Facebook […]
The post Facebook Messenger Hidden Basketball Game, How to Play Basketball Mini-game In Messenger? appeared first on .
If someone asks a CEO of big company this question – “How you hire people?” he/she might be telling you about several kinds of qualities like skill, intelligence, ethics value etc. these qualities are very necessary when you want a best person to work. But Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Facebook thinks little a bit […]
The post Mark Zuckerberg: How I Hire Someone For Facebook appeared first on .
However, the payments company says its still supportive of the new digital currencyOctober 7, 2019
PayPal is distancing itself from Facebooks digital currency project, withdrawing from an association of financial services companies appointed to oversee the new currency, called Libra.
PayPal had deep ties to the project since its former president, David Marcus, now heads up Libras operations for Facebook. PalPal said it still thinks Libra is a good idea, but it thinks its best to go in its own direction.
PayPal has made the decision to forgo further participation in the Libra Association at this time and to continue to focus on advancing our existing mission and business priorities as we strive to democratize access to financial services for underserved populations, PayPal said in a statement.
Libra has come under intense regulatory scrutiny from the moment it was announced. In fact, Facebook itself is feeling some heat as some in Washington, in both political parties, have suggested the company should be broken up.
Federal Reserve Board Chairman Jerome Powell has said Facebooks digital currency project raises a number of concerns, including consumer privacy, money laundering, financial stability, and consumer protection.
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif), who is chairwoman of the House Financial Services Committee, is on the record demanding that Facebook freeze its Libra development efforts.
"It appears that these products may lend themselves to an entirely new global financial system that is based out of Switzerland and intends to rival US monetary currency and the dollar, Waters and other committee members wrote in a letter to Facebook in July. This raises serious privacy, trading, national security and monetary policy concerns for not only Facebook's over 2 billion users, but also for investors, consumers and the global economy.
After announcing the launch of Libra in June, Facebook also announced the establishment of the Libra Association, made up of financial services companies, that would share responsibility for developing Libra. Other members include Visa, Mastercard, and American Express.
According to CNBC, members of the House Financial Services Committee want to question Facebooks senior executives in a hearing on the social media giants digital currency plans. The network reports lawmakers specifically want to hear from CEO Mark Zuckerberg and COO Sheryl Sandberg.
|Cache||Even in private, among loyal subjects, the CEO needs to act like he’s speaking to the public.|
|Cache||Die Digitalwährung Libra gibt es noch gar nicht – und doch wird Mark Zuckerbergs jüngstes Projekt schon von Banken und Politikern verteufelt. Hat Libra das Zeug zur Weltwährung? Und was genau erhofft sich Facebook davon? Es war Ende 2017, als sich Mark Zuckerberg und David Marcus, damals Leiter des Facebook Messengers, die Frage stellten, ob […]|
|Cache||Microsoft surprised just about everyone this week by showing off a pair of new mobile devices with two screens apiece. The pocketable Surface Duo and the tablet-like Surface Neo won't actually go on sale for at least one year, but Microsoft trotted the devices out anyway to signal how it's positioning its future in the mobile landscape.|
The company’s hardware chief, Panos Panay, joins us on the show this week to talk about the Duo and Neo, and what they say about productivity in the mobile age. Also, Panay urges us not to call the Android-powered Duo a phone … even though it makes phone calls.
Also, news from Facebook, a new app from Instagram, and some not-self-driving car news from Tesla.
Show Notes: Read Lauren Goode on the dual-screen Surface devices, and everything else new in the Surface lineup. Facebook’s leaked audio is here. Aarian Marshall tells us about Tesla’s Smart Summon. Arielle Pardes tells us about Instagram Threads.
Recommendations: Arielle recommends Stoic Week. Mike recommends the Open Ears Project. Lauren recommends catching up on HBO’s Succession, as well as this Outside podcast episode, titled “Getting Past Our Fear of Great White Sharks”.
Michael Calore is @snackfight. Lauren Goode is @laurengoode. Arielle Pardes can be found at @pardesoteric. Boone Ashworth, who helps produce the show, is @booneashworth. Bling the main hotline at @GadgetLab. Our theme song is by Solar Keys.
We look forward to attending the Digital Summit, which comes to DC each year, to draw inspiration from industry leaders and peers as we approach Q4 and head into a lot of planning for the new year. Speakers this year spanned from top social media execs to Randi Zuckerberg (who loves to remind us that […]
The post Digital Summit DC: Are Your Digital & Social Media Strategies In, or Out? appeared first on Ketchum.
|Cache||Zuckerberg i spółka planowali wprowadzenie na rynek własnego głośnika z asystentem głosowym, podobnego do Amazon Echo czy Google Home. Ale premiera urządzenia została przełożona z powodu obaw o prywatność. Oczywiście Facebook nie przyzna tego oficjalnie, ale, jak podają źródła agencji … Czytaj dalej |
|Cache||Forbes Dergisi, Kylie Jenner'ın servetinin 1 milyar dolar olduğunu ve "dünyanın en genç milyarderi" unvanını aldığını duyurdu. |
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has hit back at calls by the US, UK, and Australian governments to block end-to-end encryption in messaging apps. In doing so, he joins Apple, Google, Microsoft, and others who have previously stood up for strong encryption.
As we learned yesterday, the US attorney general and acting head of Homeland Security have co-signed an open letter with the UK’s secretary of state for the Home Office and Australia’s minister for Home Affairs…
The post Facebook hits back at government letter attacking end-to-end encryption appeared first on 9to5Mac.
US Attorney General and UK/AU officials hit Facebook over encrypted messaging apps, Apple could be targeted tooCache
After Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced this past spring that the company would build end-to-end encryption into all of its products and services, government officials from the US, UK, and Australia are set to share a public letter requesting Facebook halts its plan to include total privacy for its apps. And with Apple’s iMessage already featuring end-to-end-encryption, could it be targeted soon as well?
Facebook - Facebook. Grane su Libra, problemi sui contenuti rimossi, studi sfavorevoli al social (MarquisPhoenix)Cache
|MarquisPhoenix scrive nella categoria Facebook che: FABRIZIO FERRARA - Indubbiamente, essere Mark Zuckerberg avrà i suoi vantaggi, ma anche gli svantaggi non mancano. Libra sta diventando una vera e propria spina nel fianco per Facebook che, saldata qualche multa qui e la, continua a destare perplessità per i contenuti rimossi/da rimuovere, e gli effetti dell'eccessivo uso dei suoi servizi.
Proseguono senza tregua gli attacchi incrociati alla c|
vai agli ultimi aggiornamenti su: facebook
Vai all'articolo completo » .Facebook. Grane su Libra, problemi sui contenuti rimossi, studi sfavorevoli al social.
Instagram - Instagram. In test segreto le Storie di Gruppo e il codice QR per i Nametag (MarquisPhoenix)Cache
|MarquisPhoenix scrive nella categoria Instagram che: FABRIZIO FERRARA - Da quel che ho visto, è quasi certo che la funzione relativa al codice QR verrà introdotta, prima o poi, nell'app Instagram: tuttavia, qualche speranza la nutro anche a proposito delle Storie di gruppo, vista l'intenzione di Zuckerberg di trasformare le sue app in salotti privati, in cui sia preferita la condivisione sicura con le persone scelte, anziché quella pubblica in form|
vai agli ultimi aggiornamenti su: instagran
Vai all'articolo completo » .Instagram. In test segreto le Storie di Gruppo e il codice QR per i Nametag.
Following in the footsteps of former FBI Director James Comey and other top law enforcement officials, Attorney General William Barr is taking a swing at the growing prevalence of encryption across the digital landscape, with a particular renewed focus on the rising number of communications apps that are offering end-to-end encryption. On Thursday, the Justice Department published an open letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg asking the social media giant not to proceed with its end-to-end encryption for its messaging services without providing law enforcement court-authorized access to the content of communications.
The letter, signed by the Attorney General, United Kingdom Home Secretary Priti Patel, Australia’s Minister for Home Affairs Peter Dutton, and Acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan, came on the same day the U.S. and UK governments entered into the world’s first ever CLOUD Act Agreement. The agreement, according to the Justice Department, “will allow American and British law enforcement agencies, with appropriate authorization, to demand electronic data regarding serious crime.”
|Cache||Yes... I saw the tweets by AOC & those about her. The GOP/Trump & RWNJ's in general all plagiarize. I doubt any of them is at all capable of creative or original thought.
Also agree about would do anything! :lol:
They are both fighters those ladies!
Elizabeth Warren posted a tweet thread about FB/Zuckerberg dropping any pretense of being impartial that you may find interesting. I retweeted it:
Löschen oder nicht löschen: Facebook gerät immer wieder in die Kritik, weil es entweder anstößige Beiträge nicht entfernt oder harmlose Beiträge verbannt. Damit sich Zuckerberg und Kollegen darum keine Sorgen mehr machen müssen, gründet das Netzwerk jetzt ein unabhängiges Gremium. Das soll künftig entscheiden, ob Posts gelöscht werden sollen. Wer sitzt in dem Gremium? Und wie soll der Entscheidungsprozess ablaufen?
Liputan6.com#utm_source=googlier.com/page/2019_10_08/100236&utm_campaign=link&utm_term=googlier&utm_content=googlier.com, Jakarta - Tidak ada yang instan di dunia ini. Urusan harta kekayaan, para miliarder pun butuh waktu untuk mendapatkannya berkat keringat sendiri. Tak jarang mereka harus membakar uang demi bertumbuhnya perusahaan. Ada yang rela tak digaji bahkan sampai dipecat dari kantornya sendiri.
Meskipun tidak mengincar uang, tetap saja para miliarder yang mengembangkan bisnis besar berharap bisa makan dan tidur enak sesuai dengan kerja kerasnya. Mengutip laman Forbes, Selasa (8/10/2019), berikut waktu yang dibutuhkan miliarder untuk bisa mencapai kekayaan yang mereka miliki.
1. Eric Lefkofsky, 2,5 tahun
Mungkin bisa dibilang, Eric merupakan miliarder tercepat yang bisa mengumpulkan uang USD 1 juta dalam kurun waktu 2,5 tahun. Eric adalah co-founder situs diskon terbesar dunia, Groupon.
Selain itu, dia juga mendirikan LightBank, perusahaan investasi yang fokus pada teknologi AS. Dia juga memiliki Tempus, perusahaan teknologi yang membantu pengobatan kanker secara personal. Tidak heran, pundi-pundi kekayaannya pun membuat takjub.
2. Jeff Bezos dan Mark Zuckerberg, 4 tahun
Miliarder Amazon ini mengawali usahanya pada tahun 1994. Meski berawal dari garasi rumah, bisnis e-commerce ini tercatat sukses besar, menjadikan Bezos orang terkaya di dunia.
Selain Amazon, Bezos juga mendirikan Blue Origin, perusahaan kedirgantaraan pesain SpaceX milik Elon Musk. Bezos juga membeli perusahaan media The Washington Post. Dalam 4 tahun berkarier, dirinya berhasil meraup USD 1 juta.
Sama halnya dengan Bezos, bos Microsoft Mark Zuckerberg juga berhasil mencapai kekayaan USD 1 juta selama 4 tahun. Bisnisnya, Facebook, berhasil membawa manfaat bagi orang banyak, dan menghasilkannya pundi-pundi dolar tentunya.
Selain Facebook, kini miliarder ini fokus melakukan kegiatan filantropi di Chan Zuckerberg Initiative.
3. Bill Gates, 12 tahun
Miliarder raksasa teknologi, Bill Gates, membangun Microsoft dan merasakan manisnya kesuksesan berkat perusahaan ini dalam waktu 12 tahun. Waktu yang lama, namun hal itu membuatnya menjadi orang terkaya di dunia ke-2 saat ini. S
elain Microsoft, Gates juga sibuk melakukan kegiatan filantropi.
4. Warren Buffet
Buffet harus menunggu hingga 19 tahun untuk meraih USD 1 juta pertamanya. Dirinya senang berinvestasi sejak SMP dengan membeli 3 lembar saham Cities Service dan 16 hektar lahan dengan tabungannya.
Karena cerdik, dia berhasil menjadi pimpinan utama dan pemegang saham terbesar Berkshire Hathaway.
5. Henry Ford, 23 tahun
Lebih ekstrem lagi, miliarder di bidang otomotif ini harus menunggu 23 tahun untuk mendapat USD 1 juta sebagai penghasilan pertama. Tapi, penantian itu tidak sia-sia karena saat ini, Ford menjadi salah satu merk mobil perlente di dunia.
6. Ray Dolby, 40 tahun
Ray Dolby harus lebih sabar hampir 16 kali lipat dari Eric Lefkofsky karena dia harus menunggu 40 tahun untuk mendapat USD 1 juta pertamanya! Ray melakukan riset untuk menyempurnakan teknologi audionya, Dolby Laboratories.
Terbukti, kerja kerasnya tidak sia-sia; Ray Dolby menerima 13 Emmy Awards, 10 Piala Oscar dan memiliki 50 hak paten di AS sepanjang hidupnya.
|Cache||On this week’s The Drill Down podcast, Net Neutrality loses in the nation, but all hope may not be lost, Mark Zuckerberg becomes a bit more transparent than he expected, what Amazon Go means for the world, and new gadgets … Continue reading |
|Cache|| Si elle est elue, la democrate Elizabeth Warren veut demanteler les geants de la tech. De quoi pousser Facebook et son patron dans les bras de Trump ? |
I cavalli di Troia dello 0,01%
DA GESU’, PASSANDO PER T.I.N.A, A GRETA
Segui i soldi e trovi Goldman Sachs
“Noi non dovremmo mai accettare il linguaggio dei nostri nemici” (P.P.Pasolini “Petrolio”)
Gli eterni ritorni di Nietzsche e i corsi e ricorsi di Giambattista Vico pare riguardino essenzialmente chi comanda e spadroneggia. Molto meno chi è sottomesso, subisce e, ogni tanto, si oppone. Ieri eravamo quelli che, per 10 anni, nella seconda metà del secolo scorso abbiamo spiaccicato i dominanti contro il muro. Poi siamo finiti a stare, con Ungaretti, “come d’autunno sugli alberi le foglie”. Oggi ci vedo, e non credo di essere il solo, come pesci rossi nella boccia a girare in tondo, mentre quello che c’è al di là del vetro ci appare deformato e incomprensibile.
Donald Trump is allowed to lie in Facebook ads, but he can't curse.
In the three days after Trump's impeachment inquiry was announced on Sep. 24, the Trump campaign spent $1 million on Facebook ads, many of which included false or misleading claims.
One of these Trump ads even referred to Joe Biden as a 'b--ch' — which violated Facebook's ad policies against profanity and was taken down upon review, a source familiar with the matter told Business Insider.
The Trump campaign then revised the ad, updating it to include a debunked claim about Biden. It was accepted because Facebook does not submit ads from politicians for third-party fact checking.
The ad, which ran on Facebook in a few different variations, claimed that "Joe Biden promised Ukraine $1 billion dollars if they fired the prosecutor investigating his son's company," according to Facebook's ads library.
Two of Facebook's fact-checking partners — PolitiFact and Factcheck.org#utm_source=googlier.com/page/2019_10_08/128503&utm_campaign=link&utm_term=googlier&utm_content=googlier.com — had previously debunked this claim.
In its misinformation policy for ads, Facebook says that it "prohibits ads that include claims debunked by third-party fact checkers or, in certain circumstances, claims debunked by organizations with particular expertise."
However, a Facebook spokesperson told Business Insider that ads from politicians are not eligible for third-party fact-checking review. Nick Clegg, Facebook's VP of Global Affairs and Communications, publicly announced these policies in a Facebook blog post on Sep. 24.
In total, the Trump campaign spent over $1.6 million on Facebook ads from Sep. 25 to Oct. 1, according to Facebook's ads library (comparatively, Elizabeth Warren spent $285,000 and Biden spent $122,000 in the same period).
On Monday night, Warren challenged Facebook on the suspicious timing of its misinformation policies, calling into question a private meeting between Trump and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Sep. 19.
Warren cited Judd Legum's reporting on Popular Information, which asserts that Facebook had recently changed its advertising policies on misinformation, thereby allowing Trump to lie in ads.
But according to Facebook, its policies have not changed, and political figures have been exempt from the fact-checking process for more than a year now, depicted in its eligibility guidelines. Clegg's speech summarized as much:
"We don't believe that it's an appropriate role for us to referee political debates and prevent a politician's speech from reaching its audience and being subject to public debate and scrutiny. That's why Facebook exempts politicians from our third-party fact-checking program. We have had this policy on the books for over a year now, posted publicly on our site under our eligibility guidelines. This means that we will not send organic content or ads from politicians to our third-party fact-checking partners for review."
However, it is true that Facebook recently changed the wording of its misinformation policy — instead of "Misinformation," section 13 was previously titled "Misleading or False Content" and largely governed deceptive claims and business practices.
Facebook has moved this down to section 31 and 32 of its policies, which are now titled "Misleading Claims" and "Unacceptable Business Practices." It appears that Facebook is trying to delineate more specifically between misinformation in a public interest capacity, and misleading content in a business capacity.
A Facebook spokesperson told Business Insider that these recent announcements and policy tweaks are meant to provide transparency ahead of US and global elections.
With Trump ratcheting up his Facebook ad spending and deceitful rhetoric, the platform's policy decisions will continue to be scrutinized. And while Facebook believes it is staying impartial by doing little to regulate political speech, it may actually be helping Trump in doing so.
Facebook does not have an envious position. Its policies are complex and difficult to understand, with countless rules and separate exceptions for advertising, original content, fact-checking, and more.
When Facebook doesn't regulate political speech, it disregards truth and responsibility. But if Facebook did regulate political speech, it would have to devise even more complex policies, and there would be widespread complaints of bias — something it clearly does not want to deal with.
For now, Facebook is sticking to the former. This choice has resulted in a stunning truth: the Trump campaign is paying Facebook millions of dollars to promote its lies, and this doesn't violate any of Facebook's rules.
Right now, Chinese users of WeChat, an app that includes text, video, and picture messaging plus a Facebook-style news feed (among many other features), can't message each other a meme of Winnie the Pooh. Why not? Because, being short and rotund, he supposedly evokes an unflattering comparison to President Xi Jinping. So, at the behest of the Chinese government, WeChat censors pictures of a beloved children's character in order to crack down on government criticism. Here in the U.S., if the Attorney General gets his way, Facebook and other U.S. services will be able to do the same to your private chats.
Late last week, Attorney General William Barr and the acting secretary of Homeland Security joined British and Australian officials in a letter to Facebook head Mark Zuckerberg that asked Facebook not to go forward with its plan to implement end-to-end encryption across its messaging services. The October 4 letter coincided with an event held by the Department of Justice (DOJ) that day, which featured Barr, the letter’s British and Australian co-authors, and FBI Director Christopher Wray, among others. Both the letter and the event focused on the use of online communications platforms for the transmission of child sexual abuse material (CSAM), warning that the roll-out of end-to-end encryption for messaging would risk stymying law enforcement efforts to detect, investigate, and prosecute that activity. The letter and event came hot on the heels of a New York Times article about the problem of CSAM on online platforms like Facebook. Barr’s demand may be the precursor to rumored anti-encryption legislation that might come out of the Senate Judiciary Committee soon, more than three years after the embarrassing debacle over a bill proposed by Senators Richard Burr and Dianne Feinstein (who is on that committee).
This is a significant escalation in the current Crypto Wars. The U.S. government has not gone so directly head-to-head over encryption with a specific company since its showdown with Apple in early 2016, when the government blinked first. (Well, it hasn’t done so in public, anyway.) The suddenness of this new push is alarming. Also noteworthy is that suddenly the main reason to demonize encryption is CSAM, with terrorism and other ills playing second fiddle. Even as recently as late July 2019, when Barr revived his predecessors’ habit of castigating encrypted service providers, it was drug cartels he invoked. But CSAM is the dominant focus now, suddenly and thoroughly.
It is beyond question that CSAM is a real and serious problem for Facebook (and every tech company that has ever given users the ability to upload, store, send, share, post, or otherwise communicate files). It is radioactive, it is illegal everywhere, and no legitimate company wants it on their servers. Nevertheless, this new single-minded focus on CSAM in the revived anti-encryption push feels like an exceedingly cynical move on the part of the U.S. government. Out of the Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse (terrorism, drug trafficking, CSAM, and organized crime), terrorism didn’t work to turn public opinion against encryption, so the government has switched horse(men) midstream.
It also feels like cynical exploitation of the “techlash,” as I’ve observed (a year ago, and a year before that). The techlash has made it more politically palatable to pick on tech companies -- particularly Facebook. Never mind that people distrust Facebook because of its privacy screw-ups, and so they should be glad that Facebook is adding end-to-end encryption to more of its services, because that will make Facebook less able to invade users’ privacy. It’s not important, for Barr’s purposes, that average people (or congressmembers) actually understand what Facebook’s end-to-end encryption plan will do; only that they create a mental link between encryption and crime, and another link between the problem of criminal activity on Facebook’s platform with the problem of Facebook’s own repeated privacy misdeeds, such that the privacy-related distrust commutes into distrust of the end-to-end encryption plan.
Who is the antagonist to be bested in this fight against Facebook’s effort to enhance the security and privacy of over a billion people? Not pedophiles -- or at least, not just pedophiles. The “problem” that Barr, Wray, and their counterparts are trying to solve is that of people being able to talk to each other privately without government ability to snoop on them. This was made plain in the October 4 letter. It stated, “Companies should not deliberately design their systems to preclude any form of access to content, even for preventing or investigating the most serious crimes.” All well and good so long as there’s the focus on crimes, right? But later, the letter called on Facebook “and other companies” to “[e]nable law enforcement to obtain lawful access to content in a readable and usable format.” All content should be accessible by law enforcement. To get at evidence of crime, law enforcement must be able to get access to everything. Every text, every private message, every call. Every communication you make with another person through an electronic medium like Facebook.
Of course, as is the norm in government exhortations to the tech industry, the letter doesn’t say how Facebook should go about doing that. Governments have been wary of making concrete suggestions ever since the failure of the Clipper Chip in the ‘90s. But in recent times, when they do, there’s been some change. As I wrote in a whitepaper last year, Wray and former Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein both advocated around late 2017 and early 2018 for some kind of key escrow scheme. More recently, in November of last year, GCHQ (the UK’s NSA) made what’s called the “ghost proposal” for silently adding the government as a party to encrypted conversations. This reflects an evolution: by and large, government officials now understand that if they are going to make some sort of actual suggestion (rather than stating their goal of access to plaintext and leaving it to the tech companies to figure out how to get there, as the Oct. 4 letter does), rule #1 is now “don’t touch the crypto.” If you can say “this proposal isn’t a ‘backdoor,’ it doesn’t require breaking the encryption,” then that changes the proposal’s security impact -- and most law enforcement officials presumably do sincerely want to minimize adverse impact on user security. (Most of them.) So it changes the response by information security professionals. It also changes the optics of the proposal in terms of public relations, since the public learned from the Apple vs. FBI showdown that “breaking encryption” and “backdoors” are bad news.
Enter “content moderation.” One proposal for enabling law enforcement access is to build a system where the provider (Facebook) would check content, such as a photo attached to a message, before it’s encrypted and transmitted to another user -- i.e. while the content is on the sender’s device, not traveling through the provider’s server -- to try to figure out whether that content is or might be abusive content such as CSAM. Jonathan Mayer has just published a very good short first-draft discussion paper about what content moderation for end-to-end encrypted messaging might look like. This is a technical paper. It is not a policy paper. Mayer expressly says that he is not claiming that the concepts he describes “adequately address information security risks or public policy values, such as free speech, international human rights, or economic competitiveness.”
So, allow me to state the obvious: There is no way in hell that Facebook or anyone else could introduce content moderation for end-to-end encrypted messaging without it inevitably sliding into abuse. It would start with CSAM, but it would not stop there. The predictable result is surveillance and censorship, a chill on privacy and free speech. No, client-side pre-encryption content moderation “doesn’t touch the encryption,” in keeping with snooping governments’ new rule #1 for proposals to “solve” the encryption “problem.” But that doesn’t put it in the clear (and, again, Mayer is emphatically not suggesting it does). As Jon Callas of the ACLU said in response to the GCHQ ghost proposal: this “proposal would not ‘break’ encryption, but it would nonetheless have the same effect by creating a situation in which people are no longer confident they are securely talking to their partners.”
A variant of this content moderation is already done in various contexts. Facebook already scans for attempts to upload and share CSAM on the parts of its service that are not (yet) end-to-end encrypted -- that’s the visibility that government officials are worried would go away if Facebook proceeds with its plan. Email service providers scan your email attachments against a hash database of known CSAM, as the Times article describes. Upload filters are also already in use for other purposes besides interdicting CSAM: for example, upload filters that are intended to prevent copyright-infringing material from being posted to YouTube. Upload filters have also been proposed for preventing the posting and sharing of “violent extremist” content such as the Christchurch shooting video. Indeed, as my colleague Daphne Keller explains, it appears that filtering requirements of some sort will now be the law of the land in the European Union thanks to a defamation case, though nobody knows what that filter is supposed to look like, exactly. So already, we are seeing CSAM, plus defamation, copyright infringement, and violent extremism (all concepts that are much harder to accurately spot on sight than child sex abuse), as the driving forces behind existing and government-demanded filters on people’s ability to engage in “one-to-many” speech online, through such mediums as YouTube or Facebook.
And already, “upload filters are inherently inconsistent with fundamental freedoms.” It’s a problem as-is from a fundamental-rights standpoint when filters are applied to interdict attempts to share content broadly to many people, through a channel that is not end-to-end encrypted. But it is even more troubling when the same idea is applied to flag blacklisted content (be it words or images) in a one-on-one or small-group conversation -- something we reasonably consider private. Particularly where the interlocutors are using end-to-end encryption to try to assure that their conversation is private (rather than broadcast it to the world à la YouTube). And it is especially troubling if the provider designs its messaging service so that this scanning for blacklisted content happens automatically, for every single user’s conversations, not just those users who are reasonably suspected of crime and for whom a wiretap order has been issued for their electronic communications.
I understand that the approaches Mayer describes include technical measures intended to respect the privacy of conversations as much as possible and winnow down the amount of unencrypted content that is ever actually reviewed by a human (though the potential false positive rates are very troubling given the criminal consequences). Designing privacy-enhancing technologies to deal with the trash fire that is the Internet is certainly an interesting, if depressing, research area. And I understand that ostensibly we are talking about systems that are only for CSAM, at present. But when you’re checking content against a blacklist (or fuzzily trying to predict whether content your system hasn’t seen before should be blacklisted), ultimately you are talking about a system that keeps a list of things that must not be said or shared, and that monitors and reports people if they do so.
Interdicting and reporting unencrypted content pre-transmission surely sounds like a good idea when applied to CSAM (content the recipient is unlikely to report as abusive, if the content is being sent from one pedophile to another). Or malicious attachments that could do harm if you opened them — content you the recipient might think you wanted to look at and wouldn’t report as abusive because you didn’t realize it to be abusive (until it was too late).
But we do not live in a world where that system always stays tightly confined to CSAM, or malware scanning, and doesn’t end up enabling censorship of individuals’ private personal conversations with other people over content that is not illegal or harmful. That already happens in China (which is increasingly an object of envy by U.S. law enforcement). China uses its online censorship capabilities to keep its citizens from using WeChat to talk about Winnie the Pooh or “Tiananmen Square”. An end-to-end encrypted messaging system that would do client-side scanning of content against a blacklist before it’s encrypted and report the positive hits? China would rush to fund that work, and likely already has.
The affinity for censorship is not limited to China. Here in the U.S., Hollywood, whose copyright supramaximalist views have long found favor in Congress, would be all too glad to have your private conversations filtered. Other Western democracies such as the European Union countries and New Zealand would want your end-to-end encrypted messages to be pre-scanned for “violent extremist content” and defamation. Never mind how hard it is to define “violent extremist content,” much less accurately identify it without false positives, and the fact that as a concept it covers speech that is not illegal in many countries. And the censorship demands won’t be just for images, but also for text. The recent EU court decision that Daphne discusses imposes a requirement to filter for defamatory textual phrases.
And from CSAM, copyright claims, “violent extremist content,” and defamation, the blacklist will keep expanding. Tired of getting unwanted dick pics? Fine, the nudity filters Facebook would be called upon to implement in its end-to-end encrypted messaging apps might help you in some circumstances. But don’t be surprised when they deploy their Nipple Detection Systems, which have long come under fire for censoring Facebook and Instagram posts, to intervene to keep you from sending a nude to your romantic partner over Messenger or WhatsApp.
And on and on. “Hate speech” is impossible to define, but that won’t stop the calls to censor it, so that even willing recipients can’t get it, in addition to the people who would otherwise be abused by receiving such speech. There will be demands to stop and report any user who tries to send a picture of a swastika, followed by demands to do similar for the Confederate flag. Again, China is instructive: in the latest version of iOS, the soft keyboard no longer includes the Taiwan flag for users in Hong Kong and Macau. That’s a more extreme version of not allowing the user to transmit a message containing the flag—which seems so reasonable by comparison, doesn’t it?
When a government prevents you from speaking certain things or depicting certain pictures, it’s called prior restraint and, with narrow exceptions, it is almost invariably unconstitutional. When a platform does it at the behest of government, as Facebook might do if Barr had his way, we call it “content moderation.” That anodyne phrase obscures the evil at work here: of government ordering a private third party to censor speech that is, or under any human rights-respecting regime should be, legal. Yes, CSAM is and should be illegal everywhere. No one disputes that. But it is staggeringly naive to believe that, even in the United States of America, client-side pre-encryption “content moderation” would stop at CSAM.
And lest we forget, those measures won’t catch all content they’re intended to interdict. As Mayer notes, users could still encrypt their content separately and then send it. That means pedophiles can encrypt CSAM before transmitting it — just as they can now on services that are not end-to-end encrypted. So, getting Facebook to implement client-side pre-encryption content moderation would catch the pedophiles who are bad at opsec, but as Mayer notes, the rest would adjust, evolve their techniques for evasion, and teach those strategies to each other (which, again, they do already).
Meanwhile, Hollywood would make damn sure you can’t just send someone a meme over WhatsApp unless you go to the extra effort of separately encrypting it first. Everyone’s perfectly legal speech would be burdened and chilled — because who wants to spend time separately encrypting everything? It’s easier just to not say the thing you wanted to say, to not send the picture that would be worth 1000 words, to express yourself in some other way. Some way that won’t trip up the censorship filter. Sure, you’ll find new ways, as the Chinese did by coming up with Winnie the Pooh as a stand-in for Xi. And then, as with Pooh, the filter will be updated, and you can’t say that either. So you stop saying the forbidden words or sharing the forbidden images. And then, eventually, you stop thinking them too.
If you are willing to accept Facebook (or Google, or Apple, or any other encrypted messaging service provider Bill Barr bullies into compliance) censoring all your private text conversations — and everyone else’s — because it might make it a little easier for the government to catch the most inept pedophiles, then I’m not sure I’ve got a lot else to say to you. But if this idea bothers you — if you don’t like the thought that before very long from now, you won’t be able to say what you please in private discussions over text, while pedophiles learn how to continue operating without detection — then I hope you’ll see Barr’s demand to Facebook for the grave danger it is. If so, let Facebook know. More importantly, let your congressional representatives know.
Now, this post isn’t a careful position paper like Jonathan Mayer wrote. All of the above is what is known as a “slippery slope” argument, and it’s easy to dismiss as hysterical. “Of course we would never do Y just because we are doing X,” platforms and the government would assure you. Then, once mission creep inevitably happens — which it always, always does — the official line would switch to: “Of course we would never do Z just because we are doing Y.” Slippery slope arguments might sound hysterical at the top of the slope; from the bottom, they sound premonitory.
Let’s look to China again. The highly intrusive surveillance of Uighurs in China used to be “just” for Uighurs in Xinjiang at first. Then it was “just” for them and people who visited Xinjiang, regardless of the visitors’ own religion or ethnicity. Then it was “just” for them and, oh, also Tibetans too, a totally different ethnic and religious group that China is fond of persecuting.
The ratchet of surveillance has a pronounced tendency to only go one way. End-to-end encryption is one of the best measures we have for pushing it back and maintaining our security and privacy. But while end-to-end encryption may be necessary to protect those rights, it is not sufficient, as proposals for measures like client-side pre-encryption moderation of private conversations demonstrate.
The rationale may change — national security and terrorism one day, and if that doesn’t work, child abuse the next — but the goal is the same: for governments to have the ability to eavesdrop on your every conversation, the legal power to require that all your conversations be recorded, and the authority to make private-sector providers do their bidding in the process. To have total control. And, if they really succeed, they will reach the ultimate goal: to not even need to exert that control to restrict what you say and do and hear and think — because you’ll do that yourself. You will save them, and Facebook, a lot of time.
It starts with something nobody could possibly oppose: reducing the scourge of child sex abuse. It will not end there. That is the slippery slope.
I don’t pretend to have the answer for how to fight CSAM without simultaneously opening the door to mass surveillance and censorship. I’m not sure there is one, but I appreciate the efforts of the technologists who are trying to find one, or at least to elucidate different technical approaches to different aspects of the encryption debate (such as Jonathan Mayer, who is hardly pro-surveillance). And I know that as long as I don’t have affirmative proposals of my own, just objections to others’, it makes me easy to dismiss as just another hysterical absolutist zealot. That is unfortunate, because, as some of my academic colleagues have privately observed, there is far more nuance to information security experts’ and civil libertarians’ positions in the debate than it might often appear from the outside, or than Bill Barr wants you to think there is.
That said, this is not the most nuanced of blog posts. I find everything I’ve said above to be painfully obvious. And yet I feel it will still keep needing to be said as long as the Attorney General keeps pretending this debate is only about universally-reviled conduct such as terrorism and child sex abuse. After all, he is also the same Attorney General who was chosen to be, basically, the capo to a mob boss, one who wants Barr to investigate his political opponents. The sitting Attorney General of the United States is the last person we should trust with the ability to read everyone’s messages. We cannot afford the polite fiction that the nation’s law enforcement officials, even those at the very top, are all “the good guys.”
Those who work for providers, in academia, or in civil society may be tempted to start down the slippery slope we can all see ahead of us, partially out of the commendable desire to help children, partially to show the U.S. government how “reasonable” and “adult” and “mature” we are when it comes to the encryption debate. Let me be clear: It is not reasonable for any government to demand that platforms build the ability to surveil and censor everyone’s private communications. You do not have to help brainstorm, design, build, rationalize, or excuse a system for pervasive surveillance and censorship. Technologists must design and build systems that acknowledge the uncomfortable truth: that China is much closer than we think.
|Cache||Attorney General William Barr will ask Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to hold off on his plans to encrypt the company's three messaging services until officials can determine it will not reduce public safety, BuzzFeed News reported Thursday.|
What Happens When Top Rival American Politicians Compete to Jail Each Other?
It's been more than two years since the Belmont Club article predicting a political showdown after the election of Donald Trump was written. Since then, its scenario of top rival American politicians trying to jail each other has become an actual possibility. "Will impeaching Trump lead to indictments of Obama and Biden over Ukraine?" says an article in the Spectator. Rudy Giuliani asks: 'Shouldn't Biden be investigated over Ukraine if Trump can be impeached over it?' Hillary's in the mix too:
As President Donald Trump's presidency is threatened by an impeachment inquiry, the Republican chairmen of two Senate committees, Ron Johnson and Chuck Grassley, are asking Attorney General William Barr to investigate any ties between Ukraine and Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign.
To use a World War II analogy there are torpedoes in the water going in opposite directions at each fleet's battlewagons. If all strike home, a lot of damage will ensue as the different parts of the bureaucracy act against rival leaders. Not surprisingly, the term "civil war" actually began trending on Twitter. CBS News reported: "'Civil War 2' trends on Twitter after Trump quotes speculation that impeachment would spark 'civil war.'"
The very mention of the term is itself an impeachable offense according to Harvard Law professor John Coates. "This tweet is itself an independent basis for impeachment - a sitting president threatening civil war if Congress exercises its constitutionally authorized power." The fact that it was Pastor Robert Jeffress who said the offending words on a TV program -- Trump was merely quoting him -- is of no moment. The impeachment devil who no one professed to believe in has appeared at Nancy Pelosi's prayers.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said Saturday that she is heartbroken and prayerful as House Democrats move forward with their impeachment inquiry and that President Donald Trump's actions left her no other choice.
There is frank hostility. "Joe Biden's campaign wrote to executives at ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and Fox News to 'demand' that Rudy Giuliani not be invited on the air to discuss Ukraine and President Trump because of what they called his misleading comments about the Biden family," according to the New York Times. Giuliani responded indignantly: "Think of the Biden arrogance and entitlement to protection. They believe they own the media and they are demanding that they silence me. They know I have incriminating facts, not hearsay, because they know what they did in selling Joe’s office to a Ukrainian crook."
Politicians could be psyching themselves into the very thing they purport to abhor. If they sincerely want to step back from the brink now's the time. Otherwise, their actions may at some point unleash a runaway train. As a Harvard symposium noted, World War I started by miscalculation.
Dems Target Mike Pompeo
With the whistleblower's complaint coming up short, Dems aim for "corrupt" officials.
In an effort to prop up their “whistleblower’s” false allegations, House Democrats have lashed out at Secretary of State Mike Pompeo over his refusal to submit to their subpoena demands. Following Pompeo’s statement that he would not let State Department staff be bullied by Democrats into testifying, three Democrat committee chairmen led by Rep. Adam “B Movie” Schiff cried foul, disingenuously claiming that this was evidence that Pompeo was the one who was “intimidat[ing] witnesses.” They warned, “Any effort to intimidate witnesses or prevent them from talking with Congress — including State Department employees — is illegal and will constitute evidence of obstruction of the impeachment inquiry.”
Naturally, the mainstream media is taking cues from Democrats and is now framing the normal job-related actions of high-ranking White House officials like Pompeo and Attorney General William Barr as somehow being evidence of corruption. For example, Pompeo is alleged to have engaged in misconduct for simply listening to President Donald Trump’s infamous July 25th phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Why would this be wrong? As The Wall Street Journal notes, “Shouldn’t a Secretary of State be on a call to the new President of an important country? U.S. foreign policy is the secretary’s job.”
Why are Democrats playing this vilification game? Because their “smoking gun” whistleblower complaint failed to expose any impeachable offense. In all likelihood the Democrats knew that going in, but with a friendly press they calculated that it would serve to provide just enough of a cover story to justify acting on their long-running impeachment obsession. However, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and company know they don’t have any actual evidence of a crime, so they’re vilifying anyone near Trump to create the air of corruption around any action. Even innocuous job-related activities can be said to have been done with corrupt motivations to cover up Trump’s crimes. This is an effort to keep the narrative alive through the election.
Trump sees this, which is why he’s calling it what it is: “a coup.” On Tuesday, he asserted, “As I learn more and more each day, I am coming to the conclusion that what is taking place is not an impeachment, it is a COUP, intended to take away the Power of the People, their Vote, their Freedoms, their Second Amendment, Religion, Military, Border Wall, and their God-given rights as a Citizen of The United States of America!” He’s right.
There may be another motive for the Democrats’ vilification of Pompeo and Barr — they don’t want them investigating the origins of the 2016 Russia-collusion hoax. In fact, The Washington Post suggests as much in an article titled, “Democrats’ worst fears about William Barr are proving correct.”
Trump Reshaping Ninth Circuit Will Be Felt for Decades
In May 2016, Donald Trump was close to securing the Republican presidential nomination but needed to shore up his support among skeptical conservatives to have even a remote chance of defeating Hillary Clinton in the general election. In an unexpected but brilliant move, candidate Trump released a list of judges that he promised to choose from in selecting a replacement for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, beloved by conservatives.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had infuriated Democrats by refusing to hold hearings on Barack Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, so the next president would fill that vacancy. Trump’s list had been compiled with heavy input from the conservative Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society. Proving him right, conservatives rallied to Trump’s banner (even if cautiously), based on this promise.
The result has been far better that conservatives could have imagined. As president, Donald Trump has nominated two solid conservatives (an originalist/textualist in Neil Gorsuch, and a conservative institutionalist in Brett Kavanaugh) to the Supreme Court, and recently passed an impressive milestone — more than 150 nominees confirmed to the federal bench. The positive repercussions of this will be felt for decades to come.
Arguably, even more impactful than Trump’s Supreme Court appointments (replacing originalist Scalia with originalist Gorsuch, and moderate Kennedy with conservative Kavanaugh) has been his reshaping of the notorious Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, nicknamed the “Ninth Circus” because of its penchant for ultra-leftist rulings.
A week and a half ago, President Trump nominated Patrick Bumatay and Lawrence VanDyke to fill vacancies on the Ninth Circuit. This was the second time Bumatay has been nominated to that court. Trump nominated Bumatay — a Filipino-American federal prosecutor from San Diego and former counselor to the U.S. attorney general — in October 2018, but after strenuous objections by California Senators Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris, the nomination lapsed without action.
VanDyke is an attorney with the Justice Department’s Environmental and Natural Resources Division, having served previously as the solicitor general of both Nevada and Montana, where he incurred the wrath of Democrats and radical environmentalists for litigating against Obama’s abusive land- and water-use policies.
If these nominees are confirmed, it will make the ninth and tenth Trump-nominated judges confirmed to the Ninth Circuit, meaning Trump will have appointed more than a third (10 of 29) of the judges on that bench.
The long-term benefits are enormous.
First, the Ninth Circuit is the nation’s largest circuit court, with a jurisdiction covering nine states and two island territories (40% of U.S. land mass). Its rulings impact more than 60 million Americans (roughly 20% of the U.S. population).
The importance of placing Trump’s nominees on the Ninth Circuit — judges who understand their proper role is to interpret the law as written, not twist it into what they want it to be — cannot be overstated.
Of the 7,000-8,000 cases appealed to the Supreme Court each year, only about 80 receive plenary review and are heard by the nation’s highest court.
By contrast, the Ninth Circuit last year received nearly 11,000 filings and “terminated” (rendered final judgments on) nearly 12,000 cases. Meaning, no matter how obviously unfair, ludicrous, or unconstitutional a ruling of the Ninth Circuit may be, the ruling stands and applies to 20% of the American population unless it is one of the precious few taken up by the Supreme Court.
Of its cases reviewed by the Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit is reversed a staggering 82% of the time. Yet only a tiny fraction of those cases will ever be reviewed by the Supreme Court, so the lunatic rulings stand in the vast majority of cases.
And the Ninth Circuit judges are well aware of that, and take advantage of it.
Stephen Reinhardt, appointed by President Jimmy Carter to the Ninth Circuit in 1979, served until his death in 2018. Known as one of the most leftist judges in the nation, Reinhardt once said of his high reversal rate at the Supreme Court that he would keep issuing leftist rulings because the Supreme Court “can’t catch ‘em all.” It was Reinhardt’s Ninth Circuit Court that ruled in 2002 that the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional because of the words “under God,” a ridiculous ruling unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court.
There have been calls over the years to split the Ninth Circuit into two courts, a position supported by most of the members of the Supreme Court. Aside from its far-left rulings, the Ninth is simply too big and unmanageable.
Until then though, it is undeniable that President Trump’s efforts are significantly impacting the structure and leanings of the Ninth Circuit. With a third of its judges now Trump appointees, it greatly improves the odds that a panel of Ninth Circuit judges will include those with a more conservative, originalist philosophy.
Just this year, in what would have previously been unfathomable, the Ninth Circuit handed Trump major victories in a border-wall battle with environmentalists and in upholding his “remain in Mexico” policy of dealing with asylum seekers.
Decades from now we may very well look back and see that Trump’s influence on reshaping the federal judiciary, especially the Ninth Circuit, did more than anything else to save the Constitution and uphold the Rule of Law.
ANTI-NRA U-TURN: "Remember last month when San Francisco's Board of Supervisors passed a resolution declaring the National Rifle Association a domestic terrorist organization and ordered city employees to 'take every reasonable step to limit' business interactions with the NRA and its supporters?" asks Jim Geraghty of National Review. "... The NRA sued, and lo and behold, San Francisco is backing down, before the suit even went to court." The mayor in a new memo states, "No [municipal] department will take steps to restrict any contractor from doing business with the NRA or to restrict City contracting opportunities for any business that has any relationship with the NRA." Meanwhile, says Geraghty, "The NRA is challenging a similar law passed by the Los Angeles city council that requiring city contractors to disclose any ties they have to the gun-rights group."
DEATH AND TAXES: "Americans on average spent more on taxes in 2018 than they did on the basic necessities of food, clothing and health care combined, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey. ... The $14,758.11 that the average American consumer unit paid for food, clothing and health care was $3,859.82 less than the $18,617.93 it paid in federal, state and local income taxes, property taxes, Social Security taxes and 'other taxes.'" (Terence Jeffrey)
NET-NEUTRALITY REPEAL UPHELD: "The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled Tuesday that the Federal Communications Commission was mostly lawful in its rollback of Obama-era 'net neutrality' guidelines, while offering a glimmer of hope to proponents of the guidelines. In a 2–1 ruling, the court said the FCC had acted lawfully in its decision to stop regulating broadband like a utility or a 'common carrier' such as a phone service. But it said the FCC had exceeded its authority in attempting to block states from passing their own rules in contradiction of the net-neutrality repeal, as California did in 2018." (National Review)
TANTAMOUNT TO A WARREN ENDORSEMENT: "Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in July that an Elizabeth Warren presidency would pose an 'existential' threat to the company, according to over two hours of leaked audio published by The Verge." (National Review)
PRO-LIFE SETBACK: "A federal judge handed an early win to abortion rights activists Tuesday by blocking Georgia's restrictive law from going into effect — but it is only the first step as a lawsuit makes its way through the court system. District Judge Steve C. Jones' ruling stops House Bill 481 from taking effect Jan. 1 while the case plays out. Anti-abortion activists are hoping the case winds up in the U.S. Supreme Court." (Atlanta Journal-Constitution)
MURDERS DECLINE: "Murder is on the decline in America, according to a new FBI report. The nation's top federal law enforcement agency found that homicides fell by 6 percent in 2018. The decline in homicides is part of a 3 percent drop in the violent crime rate, according to the Uniform Crime Report, the FBI's annual tally of crimes reported to local police departments. The 2018 decline follows several years of slight increases in homicide and violent crime, driven largely by spikes in major cities such as Chicago and Washington, D.C." (The Washington Free Beacon)
FAIRFAX FOLLY: The Daily Caller reports: "A county police department in Virginia announced Tuesday that one of their officers was suspended for turning an illegal alien over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) after determining the individual had dodged a deportation hearing. Fairfax County Police Chief Edwin C. Roessler Jr. said the officer in question had a 'lapse in judgment' when he called ICE about the illegal alien. ... Fairfax County has a policy that limits the police department's cooperation with ICE." The "lapse in judgment" here is being directed at the wrong person.
For more blog postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, and Paralipomena (Occasionally updated), A Coral reef compendium and an IQ compendium. (Both updated as news items come in). GUN WATCH is now mainly put together by Dean Weingarten. I also put up occasional updates on my Personal blog and each day I gather together my most substantial current writings on THE PSYCHOLOGIST.
Email me here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here (Academic) or here (Personal). My annual picture page is here
|Cache||Never to be outbeat, Zuckerberg's been wise enough to keep a finger on the pulse of consumer preferences in tandem with a keen eye on advertising opportunities. In so doing, one year ago, he shelled out an astronomical $19 billion to acquire the mobile messaging app WhatsApp.
To put this in perspective, this one purchase was 19-times what he
spent on Instagram in 2012 - and another example of Zuckerberg’s now
standard modus operandi: If you can’t build, buy it!|
Los usuarios de PS4 ya no podrán utilizar Facebook en la consola para añadir amigos o compartir capturasCache
Si ayer os contábamos que la actualización 7.0.0 de PS4 añadía soporte para el juego remoto en Android, hoy hemos sabido de otra función que, por el contrario, desaparece del sistema.
Desde ayer 7 de octubre, Facebook ya no está integrado en la consola de Sony, como la propia compañía explica en su página web oficial. Esto quiere decir que si teníamos una cuenta de la red social vinculada a PSN, dejará de estarlo.
Se pierden, por supuesto, todas las funcionalidades que permitía el uso de Facebook en PS4. La consola ya no nos mostrará los amigos que tenemos en la red social de Mark Zuckerberg como sugerencias para agregarlos a PSN.
Tampoco será posible compartir capturas de pantalla o vídeos, así como los trofeos que vamos consiguiendo. No obstante, Sony aclara en su comunicado que el botón Share seguirá funcionando en otras redes sociales, como Twitter por ejemplo.
Finalmente, la otra característica que dejará de existir es la posibilidad de usar nuestra imagen de perfil de Facebook también en PS4. Si eras de los que preferían usar su propia foto, ahora tendrás que escoger uno de los avatares predeterminados desde los ajustes de tu cuenta.
La compañía no ha indicado el por qué de esta ruptura después de tantos años. Quizás en un futuro volvamos a verla, pero de momento, toca decirle adiós.
También te recomendamos
Regulators say Facebook has "repeatedly violated" campaign finance law.
by Eli Sanders
Election regulators in Washington state filed administrative charges against Facebook on Friday, saying the tech giant has "repeatedly violated" a Washington state campaign finance law that requires transparency in local election ads.
Investigators with the state's Public Disclosure Commission brought the charges, accusing Facebook of "failing to maintain documents and books of account" that, under long-standing Washington law, must be "open for public inspection" and must provide clarity on the financing and reach of all ads that Facebook sells to influence local elections in this state.
The new regulatory move against the social media behemoth arises from a situation that appears to be unique nationally.
More than three years after Russians purchased thousands of Facebook ads as part of a plot to interfere in the 2016 US presidential election, political ads on digital platforms remain largely unregulated at the federal level. A few recent efforts have been made to regulate online political ads at the state level, but Washington state is alone in having a strong law, on the books for decades, that requires Facebook and other commercial advertisers to disclose detailed information about the money behind every local political ad they sell, as well as the manner in which those ads are targeted.
Local television stations, radio stations, and newspapers have long complied with this law's requirements, but Facebook has been defying Washington state's transparency regulations for years and has even challenged this state's right to police its own elections in this realm.
Result of Stranger Complaint
Friday's charges stem from a complaint The Stranger filed with the PDC in February, after Facebook failed to respond to a request for information on 25 local political ads the company had sold since January 1, 2019.
Facebook has since sold hundreds more ads, targeting local elections all over Washington state. To date, in 2019 alone, tens of thousands of dollars have reportedly been spent on these Facebook ads by more than two dozen local campaigns and political action committees.
The group of 25 Facebook ads cited in The Stranger's February complaint, as well as the hundreds of Facebook ads sold since, were distributed by the company despite a ban on Washington election ads announced by Facebook last year in the wake of a lawsuit brought by Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson, who said the company's ongoing political ad disclosure failures were "not legal" and had to stop.
("If they don’t [stop], they’re going to hear from us again," Ferguson said in December 2018, after his lawsuit was settled with a $238,500 payment from Facebook.)
After The Stranger demonstrated early this year that Facebook was still failing to disclose legally required data on its local political ads, and that Facebook's troubled online archive isn't meeting state transparency requirements, the PDC began looking into the issue. The agency opened a formal investigation into the matter in May.
Facebook has not yet responded to a request for comment on the PDC's decision to file charges. (See update below for a statement Facebook sent several hours after this story was posted.)
In July, election regulators in Seattle and the state capital of Olympia described Facebook's continued sales of local political ads—despite its supposed ban on such ads—as a "huge problem" that is creating "a lot of confusion."
"What is going on at Facebook headquarters?” asked Wayne Barnett, executive director of the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission. "I mean, they’ve enunciated this as a policy, but it doesn’t appear that there are any resources being devoted to enforcing the policy."
Local campaigns and even a former Seattle mayor have also expressed dismay at a situation that allows some politicians access to Facebook advertising while Facebook claims to ban such ads and refuses to disclose required information about such ads when they're nevertheless sold.
“Any time you have a competitive process where some parties are essentially punished for following what they believe to be the rules, and others who are not following the rules who are benefitting, that’s a huge problem," Barnett said in July. “To me, it just shows the unworkability of Facebook’s policy. I don’t know what Facebook is doing."
In late July, after Facebook allegedly failed to provide Tallman Trask, a local digital communications strategist, with information about political ads targeting Seattle's city council elections, he filed his own complaint with the PDC. That complaint is in the "assessment of facts" stage, according to the agency.
Next Step: A Public Hearing or Another Settlement
Kim Bradford, spokesperson for the PDC, said the charges against Facebook can lead down one of two paths. Either the company now works out what would effectively be a settlement with state regulators, or it proceeds to a contested hearing before the PDC's commissioners.
Such a hearing, Bradford said, "can look much like a trial, with each side presenting evidence and questioning witnesses."
Under state rules, the PDC can fine those found to have violated campaign finance laws a maximum of $10,000 per violation—"unless parties stipulate otherwise" through an agreed settlement, Bradford said.
In this particular case, it's not clear how many distinct violations may be at issue.
The 25 Facebook ads cited in The Stranger's February complaint were sold to four different Seattle City Council campaigns and backers of one local ballot measure.
Each of the ads was displayed numerous times, and although Facebook is required to disclose information about such ads to "any person" who asks, and must do so "within twenty-four hours" of each ad's initial distribution, it has now been nearly eight months since The Stranger asked for "all the information that Facebook is legally required to disclose" about those 25 ads.
Five months after The Stranger's request, Facebook did provide some legally required information about the 25 ads to the PDC's investigators, the recently filed charging document notes. But that information was incomplete, investigators said.
For example, while Facebook revealed each ad's cost it "did not include who made the payment, when it was paid, and what method of payment was used," according to the charging document. It also failed to provide required information on the audiences targeted by each political ad.
In addition, Facebook to this day has not provided any information directly to The Stranger, even though state law says such information must be provided to those who ask, "without reference to, or permission from, the PDC."
Exactly how many individual violations of state law are contained within this nearly eight-month history of The Stranger requesting, but not being directly provided, legally required information on these 25 Facebook ads?
Bradford said that will be determined by the PDC's commissioners.
How do you get to Sesame Street? Dr. Priscilla Chan and Mark Zuckerberg may hold the key. The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative’s Primary School is working alongside the Sesame Workshop to offer a new education curriculum.
The Primary School and Sesame Workshop have been working together on this new curriculum over the last two years. They have|
Next Page: 10000
© Googlier LLC, 2019