Next Page: 10000

          

La Computación en la Nube y Big Data

 Cache   

La Computación en la Nube y Big Data

Corrales Compagnucci, M., Oct 2019, El Derecho de las TIC en Iberoamérica. Bauzá, M. (ed.). Montevideo, Uruguay: La Ley Uruguay, p. 797-818 22 p.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingBook chapterResearchpeer-review

La Computación en la Nube y Big Data han sido identificados como una “mina de oro.” Los datos se procesan masivamente en las infraestructuras que se encuentran en la Nube y éstos se convierten en información cuando se presentan en un contexto útil y significativo. Según el historiador de la información, James Gleick “la información es lo que hace que nuestro mundo funcione. Es la sangre y el combustible, el principio vital. Penetra en la ciencia de arriba abajo, transformando cada rama del conocimiento.” Vale decir, el conocimiento, y la transferencia de ese conocimiento es, por excelencia, la clave esencial de la evolución humana.

Sin embargo, al utilizar servicios de Computación en la Nube, se genera la duda de dónde irán a parar nuestros datos, y quién, y de qué manera utilizará esa información. El reciente escándalo de Facebook y Cambridge Analytica han ayudado a exacerbar esta inquietud entre los usuarios de Internet. Para paliar tal incertidumbre y crear una mayor seguridad jurídica, necesitamos un nuevo modelo. Un modelo que vaya más allá de las simples mejoras de los términos y condiciones de las licencias de uso propuestas por muchos de los senadores de los Estados Unidos en la audiencia con Mark Zuckerberg.

Por ello, este Capítulo presenta un nuevo modelo contractual que se enfoca en la arquitectura del software y basado en las teorías clásicas del Derecho y Economía. La interpretación teórica de los derechos de propiedad de datos es que muchas veces son vistos como externalidades negativas, y por lo tanto, necesitan ser negociados y aclarados, manteniendo los costos de transacción al mínimo. La tesis de este trabajo gira en torno a los servicios de los llamados “intermediarios de la innovación” o brokers, quienes utilizando este nuevo modelo, y el software como una herramienta técnico-legal, podrán acercar a las partes y así reducir la brecha de información asimétrica de una manera mucho más eficiente. De esta forma, los brokers podrían liberar a los usuarios de la tediosa tarea de seleccionar al proveedor correcto de la Nube y ayudarlos a negociar los términos contractuales de manera más efectiva y exitosa en igualdad de condiciones.

En síntesis, este nuevo modelo contractual genera automáticamente una nueva plantilla en formato XML, que ha sido incorporada a un software. Este conjunto de herramientas trata específicamente el tema de la propiedad de los datos y se podría implementar como un complemento de otras ofertas de SLA. De este modo, se podría transformar el problema de la propiedad de los datos en beneficios externos, lo cual se puede lograr permitiendo que los usuarios elijan diferentes opciones y seleccionen proveedores de la Nube según sus propios criterios.
Original languageSpanish
Title of host publicationEl Derecho de las TIC en Iberoamérica
EditorsMarcelo Bauzá
Number of pages22
Place of PublicationMontevideo, Uruguay
PublisherLa Ley Uruguay
Publication dateOct 2019
Pages797-818
Chapter27
ISBN (Print)978-9974-900-17-2
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2019

          

Brookhaven and Verne W. Critz Students Participate in "Hour of Code"

 Cache   
Students in Verne W. Critz and Brookhaven Elementary Schools celebrated Computer Science Week by participating in an "Hour of Code" in their computer classes this past month. The "Hour of Code" is a global movement that reaches out to millions of students across 180+ countries. The program features a one-hour introduction to computer science, designed to explain code and show that anybody can learn the basics. Code.org provides teacher training and student lessons in one hour tutorials in over 40 languages enabling anyone from ages 4 to 104 to learn code. The course features video lectures by Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg as well as familiar characters from popular games such as Angry Birds. Using a blended learning model children learn basic computer programming. Students practice skills related to logic and problem solving through computer based learning and puzzles as well as "unplugged" activities. The "Hour of Code" gave our students an opportunity to create games, apps and programs while providing foundational skills in computer science and technology.
          

Verne W. Critz is Learning Computer Science!

 Cache   
We are celebrating Computer Science Week here at Verne W. Critz by participating in the Hour of Code during the week of December 7-11, 2015. The Hour of Code is a one-hour introduction to computer science, designed to explain code and show that anybody can learn the basics. Code.org has provided student lessons and teacher training so every student will have the opportunity to learn computer science. In fact, anyone, anywhere, can learn the Hour of code from ages 4 to 104. The Hour of Code is a global movement reaching tens of millions of students in 180+ countries. The one-hour tutorials are available in over 40 languages. Computer Science is fun, collaborative, and creative! It's designed to inspire students to continue learning how technology improves real world relationships, connections, and life. Students learn: * basic computer programming * logic, problem solving, and creativity The course features puzzles, video lectures by Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, as well as familiar characters from popular games such as Angry Birds. Using a blended learning model, your children are learning with a mix of online, self-guided activities and "unplugged" activities that use no computer at all. Software is everywhere. It's shaping almost every aspect of how we live our lives. But very few kids are learning how to actually create games, apps and programs. Computer science is a foundation for every student. That's why we are introducing our students to these critical 21st century skills. "The 'Hour of Code(tm)' is a nationwide initiative by Computer Science Education Week [csedweek.org] and Code.org [code.org] to introduce millions of students to one hour of computer science and computer programming."
          

La Eurocámara deberá rendir cuentas por el uso inadecuado de datos personales durante la última campaña electoral europea

 Cache   

La Eurocámara deberá rendir cuentas por el uso inadecuado de datos personales durante la última campaña electoral europea

Wired dedicaba el pasado mes de agosto un artículo a contar la historia de NationBuilder, "una startup poco conocida que se ha convertido en el arma secreta de la política global [...] proporcionando software de campaña a políticos de todas las tendencias", desde la verde estadounidense Jill Stein al activista derechista inglés Tommy Robinson, pasando por líderes en el poder como Boris Johnson y Emmanuel Macron.

Ahora, NationBuilder está en el centro de una investigación que implica a organismos europeos y que, aunque a menor nivel, recuerda demasiado al pasado escándalo de Cambridge Analytica.

La Eurocámara pasa en un año de exigir cuentas a rendirlas

Hace un año, el Parlamento Europeo exigió a Mark Zuckerberg que rindiera cuentas ante la Eurocámara (no quedando muy satisfecho con el resultado) a causa del escándalo de Cambridge Analytica, desatado tras hacerse público que la compañía británica de comunicación electoral y minería de datos había extraído de Facebook los datos personales de millones de usuarios.

El legislativo europeo terminaría incluso instando a Facebook a someterse a una auditoría para asegurar la protección de los datos de sus usuarios. Y poco después, llegaría a adoptar nuevas normas destinadas a sancionar a los grupos políticos europeos que hicieran mal uso de los datos personales durante las entonces inminentes Elecciones Europeas de 2019.

Irónicamente, ahora tendrá que ser el Parlamento quien rinda cuentas ante el SEPD (Supervisor Europeo de Protección de Datos), tras saberse que NationBuilder había procesado datos privados de 329.000 personas cuando trabajaba para el legislativo comunitario durante las últimas elecciones europeas.

El Parlamento firmó un contrato de 135.000 euros con NationBuilder, para iniciar un "proyecto piloto" con el objetivo de que esta compañía le ayudase a diseñar una campaña informativa que incitara a los votantes del continente a movilizarse para votar.

Utilizaron para ello el sitio web thistimeimvoting.eu, que permitió recopilar los datos de usuarios interesados en el proceso electoral. Datos (nombres, direcciones de correo electrónico, idiomas preferidos y lugar de residencia) que terminaron siendo alojados y analizados en los servidores estadounidenses de NationBuilder.

Según los representantes de la institución, durante este proyecto, se habría hecho uso únicamente de los "servicios básicos" de la plataforma estadounidense (como gestor de contenidos y envíos de e-mail) y que en ningún momento hicieron uso de funcionalidades que recurrieran a cruzar o compartir datos con terceros.

Según ha aclarado Wojciech Wiewiórowski, adjunto del Supervisor Europeo, las indagaciones sobre este asunto comenzaron en febrero de 2019, y destaca que en el marco de esta investigación, aún en curso, "existe un buen nivel de cooperación" con el Parlamento Europeo. "El Parlamento de la UE continuará cooperando con el SEPD para aclarar cualquier tema pendiente", aclaran desde el servicio de prensa de la Eurocámara.

Vía | Netzpolitik

También te recomendamos

British Airways recibe una multa récord por el RGPD de 204 millones a causa de una brecha de seguridad

Gobierno y Protección de Datos se alían para eliminar prioritariamente contenido sexual o violento humillante

Multa de 250.000 euros a LaLiga por cómo comunicó que utilizarían nuestros micrófonos para detectar emisiones sin licencia

-
La noticia La Eurocámara deberá rendir cuentas por el uso inadecuado de datos personales durante la última campaña electoral europea fue publicada originalmente en Genbeta por Marcos Merino .


          

Saturday Stories: Sacha Baron Cohen, Hiding Judaism, And Tianna Bartoletta

 Cache   
Matt Wilstein, in The Daily Beast, on comedian Sascha Baron Cohen's must see/read (really, watch it, the video's in the link) award acceptance speech where he explains why he thinks Facebook is the greatest propaganda machine in history (and he isn't complementing them).

From the Forward Staff, in The Forward, with 27 Jews very briefly sharing their fears of being Jewish - fears I can honestly say I have at times felt myself. It's a short read. And it's heartbreaking to me.

Tianna Bee, on her own blog, on Mary Cain, Nike, abuse, abusers, and elite sport. Do read this. It's great.

By Agência Brasil Fotografias - Provas de Atletismo nas Olimpíadas Rio 2016, CC BY 2.0, Link
          

Digitalisierung | Die größte Propaganda-Maschine der Geschichte

 Cache   
„Borat“-Darsteller Sacha Baron Cohen kritisiert in einer Rede Tech-Firmen wie Facebook, YouTube, Google oder Twitter scharf. Hier können Sie sie im Wortlaut lesen
Die größte Propaganda-Maschine der Geschichte

Der britische Schauspieler und Komiker Sacha Baron Cohen hat in einer Rede Facebook und andere soziale Medienplattformen scharf kritisiert, die Verbreitung von Hassreden und Falschinformationen zu unterstützen. Seine Dankesrede für die Verleihung des International Leadership Awards der amerikanischen Anti-Defamation League (ADL), war bemerkenswert ernsthaft. Der unter anderem als „Borat“-Darsteller bekannte Komiker hielt erstmals eine Rede als er selbst und nicht als eine der satirischen Figuren, in deren Rolle er schlüpft.

Baron Cohen bezeichnete die Tech-Unternehmen als „größte Propaganda-Maschine der Geschichte“. Insbesondere kritisierte er Facebook und folgerte: Da politische Werbung nicht auf ihren Wahrheitsgehalt überprüft werde, hätte das Unternehmen auch Hitler erlaubt, die Plattform für Propaganda zu nutzen.

Die Rede nach seinem Skript im Wortlaut (hier im englischen Original):

Zunächst möchte ich der ADL für ihre Anerkennung und für ihren Einsatz im Kampf gegen Rassismus, Hass und Fanatismus danken. Und wenn ich „Rassismus, Hass und Fanatismus“ sage, meine ich nicht die Namen von Trump-Berater Stephen Millers Labradoodles.

Mancher von Ihnen wird jetzt denken: Was zum Teufel macht ein Komiker als Redner auf einer solchen Konferenz!? Und ein Komiker bin ich. Den Großteil der vergangenen zwanzig Jahre habe ich damit verbracht, verschiedene Rollen zu verkörpern. Heute ist das erste Mal in meinem Leben, dass ich als der am wenigsten beliebte meiner vielen Charaktere auf der Bühne eine Rede halte – als Sacha Baron Cohen. Und ich muss zugeben, es macht mir Angst.

Auch ist mir klar, dass mein Hiersein aus einem anderen Grund unerwartet sein könnte. Gelegentlich halten Kritiker mir vor, meine Art der Comedy berge das Risiko, alte Stereotype zu verstärken.

Aber die Wahrheit ist, dass mein Leben lang mein Anliegen war, Fanatismus und Intoleranz zu bekämpfen. Als Teenager in Großbritannien demonstrierte ich gegen die faschistische National Front und für die Abschaffung der Apartheid in Südafrika. Als Student bereiste ich Amerika und schrieb meine Abschlussarbeit über die Bürgerrechtsbewegung, wobei ich in den Archiven der Anti-Defamation League recherchierte. Und als Komiker setzte ich meine verschiedenen Rollen ein, um die Menschen dazu zu bringen, ihre Deckung aufzugeben und zu zeigen, was sie wirklich denken und ihre eigenen Vorurteile zu erkennen.

Nicht alles, was ich gemacht habe, diente einem höheren Zweck

Dabei möchte ich nicht so tun, als hätte alles, was ich gemacht habe, einem höheren Zweck gedient. Ja, ein Teil meiner Comedy – ok, wahrscheinlich die Hälfte meiner Comedy – hatte etwas Jugendliches und die andere Hälfte war komplett infantil. Ich gebe zu, dass ich nichts besonders Erleuchtendes an mir hatte, als ich – als Borat aus Kasachstan, dem allerersten Fake-News-Journalisten – komplett nackt durch eine Versammlung von Hypothekenmakler rannte.

Aber als es „Borat“ gelang, eine gesamte Bar im amerikanischen Bundesstaat Arizona dazu zu bringen, ‚Werft den Juden in den Brunnen’ zu singen, demonstrierte das die Gleichgültigkeit gegenüber Antisemitismus. Und als ich – als Bruno, der homosexuelle Mode-Reporter aus Österreich – während eines Cage Fight-Kampfes in Arkansas einen Mann küsste und damit fast einen gewaltsamen Aufruhr anzettelte, zeigte das das Gewaltpotential der Homophobie. Ein anderes Mal war ich als ultra-politisch-korrekter Stadtentwickler verkleidet und schlug vor, in einer ländlichen Gemeinde eine Moschee zu bauen. Als ein Einwohner daraufhin stolz zugab: „Ich bin rassistisch – gegen Muslime“ – sagte das viel über die Akzeptanz von Islamfeindlichkeit.

Daher freue ich mich sehr über die Gelegenheit, heute hier zu sein. Auf der ganzen Welt sprechen derzeit Demagogen unsere schlimmsten Instinkte an. Verschwörungstheorien, die früher ein Randphänomen waren, sind im Mainstream angekommen. Es ist, als gehe das Zeitalter der Vernunft – die Ära von beweisbarer Argumentation – zu Ende. Wissen wird abgewertet und wissenschaftlicher Konsens abgelehnt. Demokratie, die auf gemeinsamen Wahrheiten beruht, ist auf dem Rückzug. Dagegen sind autokratische Regierungssysteme, die auf geteilten Lügen basieren, auf dem Vormarsch. Hassverbrechen nehmen ebenso zu wie mörderische Angriffe auf religiöse und ethnische Minderheiten.

Was haben all diese gefährlichen Trends gemeinsam? Ich bin nur ein Komiker und Schauspieler, kein Wissenschaftler. Aber eins scheint mir ziemlich offensichtlich. All dieser Hass und die Gewalt werden durch ein paar wenige Internet-Unternehmen ermöglicht, die zusammen die größte Propaganda-Maschine in der Geschichte darstellen.

Die größte Propaganda-Maschine in der Geschichte

Machen Sie sich das klar. Facebook, YouTube und Google, Twitter und andere erreichen Milliarden von Menschen. Die Algorithmen, von denen diese Plattformen abhängen, unterstützen bewusst Inhalte, die die Nutzer bei der Stange halten – Geschichten, die unsere niederen Instinkte ansprechen, die Wut oder Angst auslösen. Aus diesem Grund empfahl YouTube Videos des Verschwörungstheoretikers Alex Johnson milliardenfach weiter. Fake News stechen echte Nachrichten aus: Studien zeigen, dass sich Lügen schneller verbreiten als die Wahrheit. Dabei überrascht es nicht, dass die größte Propaganda-Maschine in der Geschichte die älteste Verschwörungstheorie in der Geschichte verbreitet – die Lüge, Juden seien irgendwie gefährlich. Wie es eine Schlagzeile formulierte: „Malen Sie sich aus, wozu Goebbels Facebook benutzt hätte“.

Im Internet kann alles gleich legitim erscheinen. Breitbart wirkt nicht anders als die BBC. Die fiktiven Protokolle der Elders of Zion sehen genauso gültig aus wie ein ADL-Bericht. Und das Gegeifer eines Verrückten wirkt genauso glaubhaft wie die Erkenntnisse eines Nobelpreisgewinners. Insgesamt scheint es, als sei der Konsens über die notwendigen Grundlagen für Demokratie verlorengegangen.

In der Rolle des Möchte-Gern-Gangsters Ali G fragte ich einmal den Astronauten Buzz Aldrin: „Wie war’s denn auf der Sonne herumzuspazieren“? Der Witz funktionierte, weil das Publikum das Wissen um die Fakten teilte. Für jemanden, der die Mondlandung für Fake hält, ist der Witz nicht lustig.

Als Borat die Menschen in der Bar in Arizona dazu brachte, zuzustimmen, dass „Juden das Geld aller Menschen kontrollieren und nie zurückgeben“, funktionierte der Witz nur, weil das Publikum weiß, dass die Beschreibung von Juden als geizig eine Verschwörungstheorie ist, die aufs Mittelalter zurückgeht.

Aber wenn sich dank der sozialen Medien Verschwörungstheorien etablieren, erleichtert das nicht nur Hassgruppen, Anhänger zu rekrutieren. Es hilft auch, ausländischen Geheimdiensten, unsere Wahlen zu manipulieren und einem Land wie Myanmar Genozid an der ethnischen Gruppe der Rohingya zu verüben.

Aus einer Verschwörungstheorie kann Gewalt entstehen

„Es ist schockierend einfach, Verschwörungsdenke in Gewalt umzumünzen“

Foto: Marty Melville/AFP via Getty Images

Dabei ist es schockierend einfach, Verschwörungsdenke in Gewalt umzumünzen. Bei der Vorbereitung meiner jüngsten Show von „Who is Amerika?“ kam mir als Interviewpartner ein gebildeter, normaler Mann unter, der seinen guten Job nicht verloren hatte. Dennoch verbreitete er über die sozialen Medien viele der Verschwörungstheorien, die Präsident Donald Trump mehr als 1.700 Mal über Twitter an seine 67 Millionen Follower geschickt hat. Einmal hatte der US-Präsident sogar getwittert, er überlege die Antifa – Anti-Faschisten, die gegen die Rechtsextremen demonstrieren – als Terrororganisation einzustufen.

Als israelischer Anti-Terror-Experte Colonel Erran Morad getarnt, erzählte ich meinem Interviewpartner, dass die Antifa vorhabe, bei einer Demonstration für Frauenrechte in San Francisco Hormone in die Windeln von Babys einzuschmuggeln, um sie „transgender“ zu machen. Und er hat es geglaubt.

Ich wies ihn an, an drei in Wahrheit unbescholtenen Leuten auf der Demonstration kleine Sprengkörper unterzujubeln. Ich erklärte ihm, wenn er einen Knopf drücke, würde er eine Explosion auslösen, die sie alle tötet. Es war natürlich kein echter Sprengstoff, aber er ging davon aus. Mein Ziel war herauszufinden, ob er es wirklich tun würde.

Die Antwort ist: Ja. Er drückte den Knopf und dachte, er hätte wirklich drei Menschen getötet. Voltaire hatte Recht, als er sagte: „Wer dich veranlassen kann, Absurditäten zu glauben, kann dich auch dazu bringen, Gräueltaten zu verüben.“ Und die sozialen Medien erlauben es Autoritären, Absurditäten an Milliarden Menschen weiterzuleiten.

Zur Verteidigung der Tech-Unternehmen sei gesagt, dass sie durchaus Maßnahmen ergriffen, um Hass und Verschwörung auf ihren Plattformen einzudämmen, aber die Schritte waren zumeist nur oberflächlich.

Die Demokratie steht auf dem Spiel

Ich ergreife heute hier das Wort, weil ich glaube, dass unsere pluralistischen Demokratien vor einem Abgrund stehen und dass die nächsten zwölf Monate und die Rolle der sozialen Medien entscheidend sein könnten. Die Briten gehen zur Wahlurne, während im Internet Verschwörungstheoretiker die verabscheuungswürdige Theorie verbreiten, dass weiße Christen gezielt durch muslimische Immigranten ersetzt werden. Unterdessen wählen die US-Amerikaner nächstes Jahr einen neuen Präsidenten, während Trolle und Bots die widerliche Lüge von einer „hispanischen Invasion“ am Leben erhalten. Und nach der jahrelangen Verbreitung von YouTube-Videos, die den Klimawandel eine Lüge nennen, sind die USA dabei, sich in einem Jahr offiziell aus dem Pariser Klimaabkommen zurückzuziehen.

Das Internet als Kanal für Fanatismus und niederträchtige Verschwörungstheorien, die Demokratie und unseren Planeten bedroht, ist wohl kaum, was die Erfinder des Internets im Sinn hatten.

Es ist an der Zeit, die sozialen Medien und die Art und Weise, wie sie Hass, Komplotte und Lügen verbreiten, zu überdenken. Aber erst vergangenen Monat warnte Facebook-Chef Mark Zuckerberg wenig überraschend in einer Rede davor, Gesetzen und Regulierungen für Tech-Unternehmen einzuführen. Einige seiner Argumente sind einfach absurd. Lassen Sie mich sie Punkt für Punkt durchgehen.

Zunächst versuchte Zuckerberg, das Ganze als ein Problem darzustellen, das „die Redefreiheit betrifft“. Das ist lächerlich. Es geht nicht darum, irgendjemandes Redefreiheit einzuschränken. Hier geht es darum, Leuten – darunter einigen der verwerflichsten Zeitgenossen weltweit – die größte Plattform in der Geschichte zu geben, über die sie ein Drittel des Planeten erreichen. Meinungsfreiheit ist nicht gleich dem Recht auf Reichweite. Leider wird es immer Rassisten, Frauenhasser, Antisemiten und Missbrauch an Kindern geben. Aber ich denke, wir können uns alle darauf einigen, dass wir Fanatikern und Pädophilen keine unbeschränkte Plattform geben sollten, um ihre Ansichten zu verbreiten und ihre Opfer ins Visier zu nehmen.

Zweitens behauptete Zuckerberg, dass neue Beschränkungen für das, was auf den sozialen Medien veröffentlicht werden darf, „die freie Meinungsäußerung einschränken“. Das ist völliger Unsinn. Der erste Zusatzartikel der Verfassung der USA schreibt vor, dass „der Kongress kein Gesetz beschließen darf“, das die Redefreiheit beschneidet. Allerdings gilt das nicht für private Unternehmen wie Facebook. Wir fordern von diesen Unternehmen ja nicht, die Grenzen der Redefreiheit in der ganzen Gesellschaft zu bestimmen. Wir wollen nur, dass sie dafür verantwortlich sind, was auf ihren Plattformen veröffentlicht wird.

Angenommen, ein Neonazi betritt im Stechschritt ein Restaurant, bedroht andere Gäste und verkündet, Juden töten zu wollen. Würden wir dann von dem Restaurantbesitzer erwarten, dass er ihm ein elegantes Acht-Gänge-Menü serviert? Natürlich nicht! Der Restaurantchef hat das gesetzliche Recht und die moralische Verpflichtung, den Nazi rauszuschmeißen. Dasselbe gilt für diese Internetfirmen.

Das ist ideologischer Imperalismus

„Zuckerberg redet Unsinn“

Foto: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images

Punkt drei: Zuckerberg schien, die Regulierung von Tech-Unternehmen mit dem Vorgehen „der repressivsten Gesellschaften“ gleichsetzen zu wollen. Und das von einem der sechs Menschen, die entscheiden, welche Informationen so viele Menschen auf der Welt zu sehen bekommen. Neben Facebook-Chef Zuckerberg sind das Google-CEO Sundar Pichai, Alphabet Larry Page und Sergey Brin beim Google-Mutterkonzern sowie Brins frühere Schwägerin Susan Wojcicki bei YouTube und Twitter-Erfinder Jack Dorsey.

Die Silicon Six sind ausschließlich Milliardäre und alle sind US-Amerikaner oder Amerikanerinnen. Es ist ihnen wichtiger, ihre Aktienpreise in die Höhe zu treiben als die Demokratie zu schützen. Das ist ideologischer Imperalismus – sechs nicht gewählte Individuen in Silicon Valley drücken dem Rest der Welt ihre Vision auf, ohne einer Regierung rechenschaftspflichtig zu sein. Es ist, als stünden sie über dem Gesetz, als lebten wir im Römischen Reich und Mark Zuckerberg wäre Cäsar. Das würde zumindest seinen Haarschnitt erklären.

Da kommt mir eine Idee: Statt die Silicon Six über das Schicksal der Welt entscheiden zu lassen, wie wäre es, wenn die vom Volk gewählten politischen Vertreter aller Demokratien auf der Erde zumindest ein bisschen was zu sagen hätten?

Punkt vier: Zuckerberg sprach davon, eine „Vielfalt der Ansichten“ zu begrüßen, und im vergangenen Jahr hat er uns dafür ein Beispiel gegeben. Er sagte, er fände Beiträge, die den Holocaust leugnen, „zutiefst anstößig“, meine aber nicht, dass Facebook sie aus dem Netz nehmen sollte. Seine Begründung: „Ich glaube, dass es Dinge gibt, die die verschiedene Menschen falsch verstehen“. Auch heute sind noch Holocaust-Leugner auf Facebook. Unterdessen leitet einen Google durch einen einfachen Klick auf die widerwärtigsten Holocaust-Verleugnungsseiten. Unfassbarer Weise sagte mir einer der Google-Chefs einmal, diese Webauftritte zeigten nur „beide Seiten“ des Themas. Das ist doch Wahnsinn.

Um den verstorbenen amerikanischen Journalisten Edward R Murrow zu zitieren: „Nicht bei jedem Thema gibt es zwei gleichwertige und logische Seiten der Argumentation“. Es liegen Millionen Beweisstücke für den Holocaust vor – er ist eine historische Tatsache. Ihn zu verleugnen, ist keine zufällige Meinung. Wer den Holocaust verleugnet, zielt darauf hin, einen neuen zu ermutigen.

Wie soll man wissen, dass eine Lüge eine Lüge ist?

Und dennoch sagt Zuckerberg, dass „die Menschen entscheiden sollten, was glaubhaft ist, nicht Tech-Unternehmen.“ Aber wir leben in einer Zeit, in der zwei Drittel der Millennials angeben, dass sie noch nie von Ausschwitz gehört haben. Wie sollen sie wissen, was „glaubhaft“ ist? Wie sollen sie wissen, dass die Lüge eine Lüge ist?

Es gibt so etwas wie eine objektive Wahrheit. Fakten existieren. Und wenn diese Internet-Firmen wirklich etwas verändern wollen, dann sollten sie genügend Mitarbeiter anstellen, die die Inhalte tatsächlich überprüfen, eng mit Gruppen wie der ADL zusammenarbeiten, auf Fakten bestehen sowie Lügen und Verschwörungsthesen von der Plattform entfernen.

Punkt fünf: Zuckerberg wies auf die Schwierigkeiten hin, die die Sperrung von Content mit sich bringt. „Wo zieht man die Grenze?“, fragte er. Ja, diese Grenze zu ziehen, kann schwer sein. Aber eigentlich sagt er: ,Mehr dieser Lügen und Verschwörungen aus dem Netz zu verbannen, ist einfach zu teuer‘.

Dabei sprechen wir von den reichsten Unternehmen der Welt, mit den besten Ingenieuren der Welt. Sie könnten diese Probleme lösen, wenn sie wollten. Twitter könnte einen Algorithmus anwenden, der mehr „White Supremacy“-Hassreden entfernt. Aber laut Berichten hat das Unternehmen davon Abstand genommen, weil es dadurch einige sehr prominente Politiker von seiner Plattform verbannen müsste. Vielleicht wäre das gar keine so schlechte Sache! Die Wahrheit ist, dass die Tech-Unternehmen sich nicht grundsätzlich ändern werden, weil ihr gesamtes Geschäftsmodell darauf aufbaut, Nutzer zu engagen. Und nichts generiert eben mehr Engagement als Lügen, Angst und Empörung.

Es ist Zeit für Standards

Es ist an der Zeit, diese Unternehmen endlich als das zu bezeichnen, was sie wirklich sind – die größten Verbreiter von Inhalten aller Zeiten. Daher mein Vorschlag an Facebook und Co: Wenden Sie die gleichen grundlegenden Standards und Praktiken an, an die sich Zeitungen, Zeitschriften und TV-Nachrichtensendungen jeden Tag halten. Auch bei Film und Fernsehen gelten solche Standards und Praktiken: Es gibt Dinge, die wir nicht sagen dürfen. In England beispielsweise durfte Ali G nicht fluchen, wenn die Sendung vor 21 Uhr ausgestrahlt werden sollte.

Hier in den USA reguliert und bewertet die Motion Picture Association of America, was wir sehen. Es gab Fälle, in denen ich Szenen aus meinen Filmen schneiden oder kürzen musste, um Standards einzuhalten. Wenn es solche Regeln dafür gibt, was Kinos und Fernsehkanäle zeigen dürfen, dann sollten Unternehmen, die Inhalte an Milliarden Menschen veröffentlichen, sich ebenfalls an grundlegende Standards und Vorgaben halten müssen.

Nehmen wir die Frage der politischen Werbung. Glücklicherweise hat Twitter sie am Ende verboten und Google arbeitet ebenfalls an Veränderungen. Aber wenn man dafür bezahlt, veröffentlicht Facebook jede „politische“ Werbung, die man will, selbst wenn eine Lüge darin steht. Zudem wird das Unternehmen den Inserenten auch noch dabei unterstützen, diese Lügen per Mikro-Targeting gezielt an Nutzer zu schicken, um die Wirkung zu optimieren. Wenn es Facebook in den 1930ern schon gegeben hätte, hätte es nach dieser verdrehten Logik Hitler erlaubt, 30-Sekunden-Werbespots für seine „Lösung“ des „jüdischen Problems“ zu schalten.

Drosselt das Tempo

Eingebetteter Medieninhalt

Hier ein Vorschlag zur Verbesserung von Standards und Praktiken an Facebook: Fangt an, politische Werbung auf ihren Wahrheitsgehalt hin zu überprüfen, bevor sie veröffentlicht wird, und die Verbreitung von Lügen per Mikro-Targeting sofort zu stoppen. Wenn Werbung Lügen enthält: einfach Geld zurück und nicht veröffentlichen!

Eine weitere „gute Praxis“ möchte ich empfehlen: Drosselt das Tempo. Nicht jeder Beitrag muss sofort veröffentlicht werden. Oscar Wilde sagte einmal, „wir leben in einem Zeitalter, in dem unnötige Dinge das einzige sind, was wir für lebensnotwendig halten“. Aber ist es wirklich notwendig, jeden Gedanken oder jedes Video sofort online zu stellen, selbst wenn sie rassistisch oder kriminell oder mörderisch sind? Natürlich nicht!

Der Schütze, der in Neuseeland zahlreiche Muslime niedermetzelte, übertrug seine Gräueltaten per Live-Stream auf Facebook, wo es dann über das ganze Internet verbreitet und vermutlich millionenfach angeschaut wurde. Es war ein Snuff-Film, also einer, der echte Morde zeigt – der Öffentlichkeit präsentiert von den sozialen Medien. Wieso kann es nicht mehr Aufschub geben, so dass derartiger traumatisierender Schmutz abgefangen und gestoppt werden kann, noch bevor er veröffentlicht wird?

Wo bleiben die Konsequenzen?

Zum Abschluss sprach sich Zuckerberg dafür aus, dass die Social Media-Unternehmen „ihrer Verantwortung gerecht werden“ sollten. Aber er sagte nichts zu den Konsequenzen, wenn sie es nicht tun. Mittlerweil ist ziemlich klar, dass man nicht darauf bauen sollte, dass sie sich selbst regulieren. Wie damals angesichts der Industriellen Revolution ist es heute Zeit für Regulierung und Gesetzgebung, die die Gier dieser skrupellosen Hi-Tech-Kapitalisten Einhalt gebietet.

In jeder anderen Branche kann ein Unternehmen zur Verantwortung gezogen werden, wenn sein Produkt Mängel aufweist. Wenn Motoren explodieren oder Sicherheitsgurte nicht funktionieren, müssen Autofirmen zehntausende Autos zurückrufen. Das kostet unter Umständen Milliarden von Dollar. Es erscheint daher nur fair, Facebook, YouTube und Twitter aufzufordern: Euer Produkt ist mangelhaft, ihr seid verpflichtet, es in Ordnung zu bringen, egal, was es kostet, und egal, wie viele Mitarbeiter ihr für die Überprüfung der Inhalte einstellen müsst.

In jeder anderen Branche kann man für den Schaden, den man anrichtet, verklagt werden. Verleger können wegen Verleumdung, Individuen wegen übler Nachrede verklagt werden. Mir ist das schon oft passiert! Gerade werde ich von jemandem verklagt, dessen Namen ich lieber nicht nenne, weil er mich erneut verklagen könnte! Dagegen sind die Social Media-Unternehmen weitgehend von der Verantwortung für Inhalte, die ihre Nutzer veröffentlichen, befreit – egal wie unanständig die Inhalte sind. Diesen Schutz gewährt Absatz 230 des – ziehen Sie sich warm an – Communications Decency Act, dessen Hauptziel die Bekämpfung von Pornographie im Internet war. Absurd!

Freiheiten sind kein Selbstzweck

Zum Glück können Internet-Firmen mittlerweile für Pädophile verantwortlich gemacht werden, die ihre Seiten nutzen, um Kinder anzusprechen. Ich sage, wir sollten Tech-Firmen auch dafür verantwortlich machen, wenn Leute ihre Seiten nutzen, um den Massenmord von Kindern wegen ihrer Rasse oder Religion zu befürworten. Und vielleicht reichen Geldstrafen nicht. Vielleicht ist es Zeit, Mark Zuckerberg und den CEO der anderen Unternehmen zu sagen: Ihr habt bereits zugelassen, dass eine Supermacht sich in unsere Wahlen eingemischt hat, ihr habt bereits einen Genozid in Myanmar unterstützt. Macht das nochmal und ihr geht ins Gefängnis!

Letztlich läuft alles auf die Frage hinaus, was für eine Welt wir haben wollen. In seiner Rede bezeichnete es Zuckerberg als eines seiner Hauptziele, „eine möglichst weite Definition der freien Meinungsäußerung zu erhalten“. Doch unsere Freiheiten sind kein Selbstzweck, sondern auch Mittel für größere Ziele: In den USA bezeichnet man sie als Recht auf Leben, Freiheit und das Streben nach Glück. Doch heute sind diese Rechte durch Hass, Verschwörung und Lügen bedroht.

Erlauben Sie mir, dass ich mit einem Vorschlag schließe, die Zielsetzung unserer Gesellschaft neu zu definieren. Es darf nicht sein, dass Menschen wegen dem, was sie sind, woher sie kommen, wen sie lieben oder wie sie beten, verfolgt, belästigt oder ermordet werden. Das zu verhindern, muss das ultimative Ziel der Gesellschaft sein.

Wenn wir die Wahrheit der Lüge vorziehen, die Toleranz dem Vorurteil, Empathie der Gleichgültigkeit und Experten den Ignoranten – dann können wir vielleicht – nur vielleicht – die größte Propaganda-Maschine der Geschichte stoppen, die Demokratie retten und einen Raum für Redefreiheit und freie Meinungsäußerung erhalten. Und vor allem: Dann werden meine Witze weiter funktionieren.

Ich danke Ihnen allen sehr.

Sacha Baron Cohen ist ein britischer Komiker und Schauspieler, der besonders für die durch ihn verkörperten Figuren Ali G, Borat, Brüno und Admiral General Aladeen bekannt ist

Lesen Sie mehr in der aktuellen Ausgabe des Freitag.


          

Are cryptocurrencies just high-risk speculative objects?

 Cache   

As I did not find any advantages of cryptocurrencies, I have been asking a few days ago "Cryptocurrencies where are the advantages?"

I got answers, which are not really advantages, like:

  • Anonymity
    Sorry, but as soon as you buy something, your anonymity gets lost.
    To buy things of daily use, the transaction fees are simply too high.
    When buying expensive goods, you need proof of purchase. That's usually an invoice on which your name and address has to be written.
    If you buy something online, the seller needs your address so that he can write an invoice and knows where to send the goods.
    If you meet the seller in person, then you are able to save the transaction fees by paying cash.
    If you like to take a wallet from uphold.com you are not anonymous too. uphold.com is even breaking the data protection law from the most countries

  • Transaction Speed
    The transaction time of Bitcoins can take up to one hour if you have enough funds in your wallet. As soon you need to transfer some funds from your bank account using an exchange service, you can add at least an additional day. If you find an exchange service, which is accepting credit cards, then you are able to speed it up, but you have to pay extra fees. In this case you can save these extra fees by paying with your credit card directly and the transaction time takes only a few seconds.

  • Investment - Cryptocurrencies will tend to increase their value on the long run
    Sorry, but as soon as some big players in the IT industry, like Google, Mark Zuckerberg or Microsoft, have the idea to create their own international payment system, the value of the existing cryptocurrencies will fall faster than a stone. Also Bitcoin will exist thereafter only as niche currency or will exist only in the memory from some people.

    Capital goods have a long lasting or increasing value like precious metals, diamonds and land or something similar. Cryptocurrencies are based purely on ideal values and are not backed up by long lasting values.

  • Better security
    I don't see any better security. I see even a higher risk with cryptocurrencies. If you are using an online wallet, then the provider can have a data breach. If you have a wallet on your local device, then a trojan or virus can steal your values.
    Here is an example about a hack: Monero Malware Warning
    Warning Monero users: If you downloaded Monero in the past 24 hours you may have installed malware. Monero's official website served compromised binaries for at least 30 minutes during the past 24 hours. Investigations are ongoing.

Other sites are promoting additional:

  • Cutting out the middle-man
    You are replacing only the middle-man (your local trusted bank) with a company or service abroad, because you need for transferring amounts from one wallet to another a service. To file a case against your local bank is much cheaper and easier than to file a case against a company abroad.

  • Access to everyone in every market
    Sorry, but you have to search for someone who is accepting cryptocurrencies on the market. As it is very hard to find any advantages beside speculation is it very hard to convince merchants accepting cryptocurrencies instead of traditional money.

    The site Finjan Cybersecurity tells you that there are currently over 1200 unique cryptocurrencies or altcoins in circulation worldwide. That are much more than traditional currencies are getting found at the whole world. Additional you'l find at the site Dead Coins 1818 coins listed, which have already no value.
    So where do you like to find any merchant, who is accepting exactly your cryptocurrency?

In summary, I come to the opinion that cryptocurrencies are nothing else than a object of speculation with a very high risk and useless for any other purpose.

Please correct me for the case I'm wrong in my opinion or views.

 


          

Jessica A Bruno (waybeyondfedup) open letter/psa to all of both of Alex, The Philosophy Society Forum, with Re: Tina (Julius) Steib, Calvin Holbrook, Happiness.com – Learn, practice and connect around your personal well-being and emotional education

 Cache   
11/25/19 25.11.19 Dear Alex, Mr. Steib (Julius), Holbrook, Ms Tebbe, Mr. Carl,Ms Weiss, Schwartz, Atlus, Mr. Zuckerberg, Miss/Mrs./Ms Smith, Reuwer, Higgins, Steyn, Dr/s. Straub/s, Dr. Michalsen, Dr/Miss/Mr/Mrs./Ms Bachman, Ari, Erica, Maxine, Phyllis, Tessa, Liam, Ms Ibsen, Whomever this may concerns, Lance, BibleFora, Mr. Steves, whomever this may concerns, Ms, Mr. Tietje, Ms Alpert, Ms/iss Bitton, […]
          

Quanto donano in beneficenza i miliardari americani, la classifica

 Cache   
quanto donano in beneficenza i miliardari americani cover
Jeff Bezos nel 2018 ha donato lo 0,1% della sua ricchezza, Mark Zuckerberg lo 0,7%... l'analisi

L'articolo Quanto donano in beneficenza i miliardari americani, la classifica è un contenuto originale di Digitalic.


          

Mark Zuckerberg failed his 2019 personal challenge to hold "public discussions about the future of technology in society."

 Cache   
Mark Zuckerberg failed his 2019 personal challenge to hold "public discussions about the future of technology in society."

↩︎ The Verge

View Post →


          

Facebook and the UFO community

 Cache   
Copyright 2019, InterAmerica, Inc.
Yes, I use Facebook and have for some time, and I invested in the company when it IPOed.

But things have changed, Facebook a pariah as cognoscenti see it.

The current New Yorker [12/2/19] has a piece about one of Facebook’s early supporters (Roger McNamee) who provided equity for the start-up but has come to loath Zuckerberg and the social media giant.

(McNamee has a book out – Zucked, which is a must-read for anyone using the service.)

Many ufologists or UFO enthusiasts love Facebook.

Me? I’m "shadow banned" by Facebook – meaning anything I put online there is not shown to my 1142 “friends’ or anyone else.

Why? Because I belong to a vocal group that is calling for the ouster of Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg and the breakup of Facebook.

I’ve put my thoughts and position online at Facebook where I’m a critic for local news media in town.

I have been public about the disaster that Facebook is. But my UFO friends won’t say a thing. They love the sappy “Likes” and the sycophantic attention they get there.

Their position is somewhat [sic] like the Germans who ignored the anti-Semitic attacks on the Jews, keeping their mouths shut in order to reap any benefits they thought the Nazis might bring them.

It’s shameful that no one I know, in the Facebook UFO community – or even newsies that I deal with mostly – have the guts to chide the company for its nefarious and outrageous exploitation of Facebook users.

UFOers there are not only sappy but stupid with how they plunder their morals and ethics in order to solicit some attention that they, otherwise, are not getting.

It’s not only sad and pathetic but also shameful and despicable.

N.B. The graphic atop is from slate.com

RR

          

Neofascist hate campaign approved by Mark Zuckerberg

 Cache   
A fascist rails against foreigners and waves a hangman’s noose in front of the El Carmen Church. The Panama News also gets rants from the far right that rail against Pope Francis and the Catholic Church. What has changed since this incident is that people like this now have voices in the National Assembly and […]
          

Mark Zuckerberg Doubles Down in Defense of Facebook Posting Political Ads That Contain Lies

 Cache   

Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg is brushing off criticism – again – about his social media company posting political ads that contain false information, explaining to “CBS This Morning” host Gayle King that he doesn’t think private companies “should be censoring politicians.”

In their first joint TV interview – which will air on “CBS This Morning” Monday — Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan invited King to their home, where Oprah’s bestie confronted the billionaire about the brouhaha surrounding his refusal to take down political ads that, as King put it, “people know are false.”

“What I believe is that in a democracy it’s really important that people can see for themselves what politicians are saying, so they can make their own judgments,” Zuckerberg said, repeating his standpoint he first made in October during a speech at Georgetown University. “And, you know, I don’t think that a private company should be censoring politicians or news.”

In late October, a group of about 200 Facebook employees signed a letter asking him to reconsider his position that political ads should be exempt from fact-checking, writing, “Free speech and paid speech are not the same.”

“Misinformation affects us all,” the letter said. “We strongly object to this policy as it stands. It doesn’t protect voices, but instead allows politicians to weaponize our platform by targeting people who believe that content posted by political figures is trustworthy.”

King asked him if they have a point.

“Well, this is clearly a very complex issue and a lot of people have a lot of different opinions,” Zuckerberg answered.

Zuckerberg dives deeper into that issue, along with talking about the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative — which strives to “advance human potential and promote equality in areas such as health, education, scientific research and energy” — in the full “CBS This Morning” interview.

You can check out the preview below.

Zuckerberg his since taken many hits from those who oppose his view. Speaking at the Anti-Defamation League’s “Never Is Now” Summit, comedian Sacha Baron Cohen said, “I believe it’s time for a fundamental rethink of social media and how it spreads hate, conspiracies and lies.” And during a recent screening of Netflix’s “The Great Hack,” The Guardian reported that Hillary Clinton said Zuckerberg “should pay a price” for harming democracy around the world.

Related stories from TheWrap:

Step Aside, Mark Zuckerberg: Facebook Should Hire New CEO, Former Security Head Says

Elizabeth Warren Slams Secret Trump-Zuckerberg Dinner: 'This Is Corruption, Plain and Simple'

Sacha Baron Cohen Blasts Mark Zuckerberg: Facebook's Inaction Against Holocaust Deniers Is 'Simply Absurd'


          

Dec 2, 2019: Chancellor's Staff Appreciation at Multiple UCSF Campus Locations

 Cache   

Dear Members of the UCSF Community:

We write to thank you for your hard work throughout the year and invite you to attend a staff appreciation breakfast on one of the dates listed below. These events provide us and other members of University leadership with an opportunity to convey our thanks in person.

· December 2, Laurel Heights, The View/Garden Room, 8:30 – 10:00 a.m.

· December 4, Mission Center Building, Conference Room 126, 8:00 – 10:00 a.m.

· December 6, Parnassus, Moffitt Café, 6:30 – 10:30 a.m.

· December 12, Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland, Friendly Café, 6:00 – 8:30 a.m.

· December 13, Mount Zion, Mount Zion Café, 7:30 – 9:30 a.m.

· December 17, Mission Bay, William and Susan Oberndorf Auditorium, 6:30 – 10:30 a.m.

Appreciation events at UCSF Fresno and Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center will be held in 2020. Please go online for a complete listing of Chancellor’s Staff Appreciation Events and other opportunities for you and your families.

We are proud of our many achievements across UCSF and UCSF Health. If you were unable to attend the annualState of the University on October 15, we encourage you to watch online and learn more about the many ways UCSF is advancing health worldwide through education, research, patient care, and public service.

Each of us has a unique and important role in making UCSF a world-renowned organization. We are all connected by our dedication to serving others. Your continued commitment to UCSF and our shared PRIDE Values is greatly appreciated.

We look forward to seeing you at the staff appreciation breakfast.

Sincerely,

Sam Hawgood, MBBS

Chancellor

Arthur and Toni Rembe Rock Distinguished Professor

Talmadge E. King, Jr., MD

Dean, UCSF School of Medicine

Vice Chancellor, Medical Affairs

Mark R. Laret

President and CEO

UCSF Health

Please bring UCSF photo identification.

View on site | Email this event


          

12/1: CBS Evening News

 Cache   
Dangerous winter storm wreaks havoc on travelers returning home from holiday weekend; Gayle King sits down with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and wife Priscilla Chan Reported by CBS News 1 hour ago.
          

Viewpoints, la nueva app de Facebook que promete proteger tus datos

 Cache   

Fanny Nathaniella

Como parte del fortalecimiento de la privacidad y protección de datos, Facebook presenta una nueva aplicación de encuestas que le otorgará a los usuarios una remuneración por su opinión. Luego de presentar varias aplicaciones que han dejado entre dicho como la compañía de Zuckerberg maneja los datos de sus usuarios, Facebook Viewpoints llega para ofrecer transparencia a los usuarios. Facebook […]

Esta entrada Viewpoints, la nueva app de Facebook que promete proteger tus datos es contenido del blog  iOSMac


          

 Cache   
Political ad seen on highway in Salt Lake City via NakedJen. What a great idea. Be sure to read the story.
          

Want to be more creative? Take a hike.

 Cache   

I have a confession, Reader: sometimes I lie to myself. Sometimes, I promise myself that I'll get work done, and then it's somehow 4 p.m. and the only meaningful thing I've done is…go for a really long walk.

I tell myself that taking long walks is a crucial part of my creative process. I simply cannot write without taking a walk. I've believed this pretty much forever.

But is there any scientific evidence for it? Or is it just a way of justifying my horrible procrastination?

Walking lifestyles of the (creatively) rich and famous

An unfortunate photo of New Jersey

Before we get into the empirical evidence for—or against—walking as a creativity booster, it's worth noting that there's fairly strong anecdotal evidence for it. Plenty of famous creative minds have credited walking as an important part of their process.

Beethoven, for example, loved to take long walks, often through the countryside when he was composing. In fact, it's widely accepted that these walks helped inspire his Symphony No. 6—which is also known as the Pastoral Symphony because of how it evokes the rural landscapes through which he walked.

Composers Mahler and Benjamin Britten were similarly enamored of walks. “[My afternoon walks are] where I plan out what I’m going to write in the next period at my desk," said Britten in a BBC interview with Lord Harewood, later featured in the book Britten on Music. For countless musicians, writers, and artists, a long walk is a key part of a productive daily routine.

But it's not just artists who have historically used walking as a thinking aid; plenty of thinkers and business people have too. Walter Isaacson's comprehensive biography of Steve Jobs reveals that the Apple co-founder was especially fond of walking. Following in his footsteps (pun fully intended), Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter founder Jack Dorsey take frequent walks, with Zuckerberg even using them as his preferred mode of interview.

What is creativity, anyway?

A walk I took in Calgary, Alberta

If so many geniuses enjoy walking, they've got to be on to something, right?

Well, maybe. In order to talk about the connection between walking and creativity, we first have to define what creativity is—and how to measure it.

As Maria Konnikova points out in The New Yorker, creativity isn't just about making something new:

In the field of psychology, there’s long been a certain haziness surrounding the definition of creativity, an I-know-it-when-I-see it attitude that has eluded a precise formulation […] What, for instance, crosses your mind when you think of creativity? Well, we know that someone is creative if he produces new things or has new ideas. A choreographer, an artist, a writer, a scientist, or a mathematician with a novel discovery—these are the creatives, the people who bring something new into the world. And yet, as John Kounios, a psychologist at Drexel University […] points out, that view is wrong, or at least not entirely right. "Creativity is the process, not the product," he says.

The ways in which researchers measure creativity reflect this process-based definition. Generally, they look at something called divergent thinking, which is the ability to come up with ideas that deviate from the norm.

A popular way to measure divergent thinking is to ask study participants to play a game called Alternate Uses. In this exercise, you're asked questions like: How many ways can you think to use a tire, besides putting it on a car's wheel?

You might think up answers like "as a tire swing" or "to do Crossfit." That's divergent thinking at work.

"To see how well you did, we could count up the number of feasible uses you mentioned (fluency), the number of different types of uses (flexibility), and how uncommon your answers were (originality)," writes Thomas Ward, a psychology professor whose research focuses on creativity.

This method is how researchers at Stanford conducted a 2014 study on the link between walking and creativity:

Three of the experiments relied on a 'divergent thinking' creativity test. Divergent thinking is a thought process or method used to generate creative ideas by exploring many possible solutions. In these experiments, participants had to think of alternate uses for a given object. They were given several sets of three objects and had four minutes to come up with as many responses as possible for each set. A response was considered novel if no other participant in the group used it. Researchers also gauged whether a response was appropriate. For example, a tire could not be used as a pinkie ring.

Turns out, exercise itself is pretty useful

My neighborhood

It's well-established scientifically that aerobic exercise in general helps improve mood. For a long time, researchers have assumed that mood improvement was why people experienced enhanced creativity post-exercise.

It intuitively makes sense: exercise makes you feel better, so you're more likely to think better too.

But more recent research indicates that exercise may improve your creative thinking independent of your mood:

Analysis of variance showed a large and significant increase in positive mood after exercise and a significant decrease in positive mood after video watching. A significant increase between the creative thinking scores of the two conditions was found on the flexibility (variety of responses) measure. A multifactorial analysis of all data failed to show a significant covariance of creative thinking with the two measures of mood.

In plain English, people think more flexibly after they've exercised—and this effect is independent of mood. So while exercise may also put you in a better frame of mind, it can still improve your creativity even if it doesn't make you happier.

The intensity of the exercise also matters. A study published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience found that, compared to resting, moderate to intense cycling resulted in poorer performance in the Alternate Uses game. These results indicate that, when it comes to improving creative thinking, more relaxed exercise might be best.

(Don't) Walk the line

My editor Justin saw some ducks once; it was alright

That's where walking comes in. The Stanford study I mentioned earlier found that walking significantly increased participants' creativity—at least when compared to doing nothing:

The overwhelming majority of the participants in these three experiments were more creative while walking than sitting, the study found. In one of those experiments, participants were tested indoors—first while sitting, then while walking on a treadmill. The creative output increased by an average of 60 percent when the person was walking.

But while walking may help you with divergent thinking, it's not particularly useful for other kinds of problem-solving. The study notes that focused thinking to find one correct answer—also known as convergent thinking—didn't improve during or after a brief walk. In fact, they performed slightly worse. So when you need to boost your convergent thinking, you might benefit more from other methods of jumpstarting your brain.

Other studies indicate that the type of walking can also determine how much of a creativity boost you experience. One such study published in Frontiers of Psychology asked participants to think up alternate uses for chopsticks after either walking in a rectangle or freely wandering around. The free walking group performed better than those who walked a rigidly defined path, scoring better on measures of fluency, flexibility, and originality.

So should I go for a walk right now?

All of this research is to say: there's probably some link between relaxed, somewhat aimless physical movement and stronger creative thinking, but no one is 100 percent sure how it works. I, for one, will stick with my walking habit.


          

Comment on A few quick thoughts on Sacha Baron Cohen’s broadside against the social media companies by David

 Cache   
I don't have much to add; he has elucidated the problem well - then gone on to prove he hasn't anymore ideas than a cardinal in the Holy Roman Empire seeking to control blasphemy. At any time, Zuckerberg can declare that his invention will henceforth be given over to public control, out of private hands, and go stand next to Saint Berners Lee. Not a lot will change. The actual opinion formers and influencers themselves need to be reminded regularly about the dangers of using lies made for effect, choosing convenient enemies and fermenting hate. I really don't care what is on Alex Jone's website - I do care that our actual leaders tweet.
          

ADL & SACHA BARON COHEN BECOME CHINESE CENSORS

 Cache   
Just why a roomful of serious-minded people decided to be lectured to about freedom of expression by a comic is hard to fathom. It was sort of like watching a football player on “Dancing with the Stars” – Cohen had no real talent as a rhetor, but he’s famous, and even when he scribbles outside the lines — folks get to say they saw him live and in person.

Cohen doesn’t like Facebook or Mark Zuckerberg. That’s fine. There are plenty of reasons not to like Zuckerberg. The fact that he won’t censor political advertising to suit the ADL is not one on those reasons.

Facebook gets immunity from suit for whatever it publishes, a privilege the press doesn’t enjoy. Facebook harvests data from users to sell to advertisers in a manner that is unaccountable. It pours its profits into the creation of proprietary algorithms that manipulate users, dividing people into silos it can target market at will. To add insult to injury, Facebook then decides on its own what content it will banish.

Because it is not a governmental entity, Facebook is not prohibited from engaging in content-based viewpoint discrimination. Thus, my client, Alex Jones is banned. The censors don’t like what he says. Want to listen to Mr. Jones or his show, Infowars? Then listen to Banned.Video. Facebook has shut Jones down.

Facebook’s power to shape desire, predict behavior and keep tabs of us is chilling.

This week, the BBC reported that China houses Uighur Moslems in indoctrination camps. You earn your way out of the camp by persuading your re-educators that you are reformed, that is, that you have learned Mandarin Chinese, lost your faith, and satisfied censors that you know how to behave. This is but an extreme version of what the Chinese are doing to their own people by means of social media – creating citizenship scores for its population. If you don’t satisfy the state-sponsored algorithm that your attitude is what the Chinese government want, you get less in terms of social services and access to goods.

Facebook is habituating us to accept the level of social control China takes for granted. That is what is terrifying about Facebook.

What is terrifying about Cohen and the ADL is that they are happy with this form of social control so long as they get to set the agenda.

Here, in condensed form, is Cohen’s argument:

1. People are free (sort of) to say hateful things on Facebook.

2. People like us – Cohen and the ADL – don’t like those hateful things said.

3. Therefore, we ought to be given the means to place limits on what can be said on Facebook.

Put bluntly – Cohen wants to be a censor. So does the ADL.

A better argument is to require that Facebook and other social media companies enjoying immunity from suit for what they publish be held to first amendment standards in deciding what they can and cannot publish. There is a body of first amendment law, principles that can be decided by jurists and that provide litigants with fair notice of what is and is not permitted. The first amendment is transparent in a way a stand-up comic and his cronies are not.

These are dangerous times from freedom of speech. The danger isn’t hate speech, whatever that is. We’ve always had vituperative speech in the United States. Hell, if someone were tarred and feathered or burned in effigy today, we’d probably declare a national emergency.

The danger is that social media creates an enormous capacity for social control. Zuckerberg misuses that ability now. Giving Cohen and the ADL the same power won’t make the world safe for freedom of expression, it will merely exchange one set of blinders for another.

I’m guessing the overlords in China watched the Cohen speech with approval. “He gets it,” they muttered. I wonder if his next gig will be in Beijing.

Read the entire article
          

Adiós a los ‘me gusta’ de Instagram

 Cache   
La compañía de Zuckerberg ha decidido que los ‘likes’ que acumula cada publicación estén solo visibles para su autor. Te contamos la causa.
          

Oculus Link beta impressions: Connecting Oculus Quest to PCs negates the Rift

 Cache   
Oculus Link is both mundane and magical. Mundane, because all you’re doing is plugging a USB-C cable into your Oculus Quest headset. Magical, because doing so now temporarily transforms the standalone Quest into a powerful PC-based system. “Your Quest is basically a Rift now too,” said Mark Zuckerberg at Oculus Connect 6—and he wasn’t lying. […]
          

De Marck Zuckerberg a Amancio Ortega: dónde viven y cuánto cuestan las casas de cinco de los hombres más ricos del mundo

 Cache   

De Marck Zuckerberg a Amancio Ortega: dónde viven y cuánto cuestan las casas de cinco de los hombres más ricos del mundo

La lista Forbes 400 nos ha vuelto a mostrar recientemente quiénes son algunos de los hombres más ricos del mundo. Una lista en la que, para entrar, es necesario tener una fortuna mayor que 2.100 millones de dólares y en la que en 2019 se han mantenido a la cabeza el fundador y CEO de Amazon, Jeff Bezos, y Bill Gates en segunda posición. Los dos, además, tienen otra cosa en común y es que son vecinos. Algo que nos ha llevado a preguntarnos: ¿dónde y cómo viven los que más tienen?

Bill Gates

Thisisbillgates 60404632 167340817604432 397222388008281226 N

La pequeña localidad residencial de Medina en Washington (Seattle) es uno de los códigos postales más ricos de todo el país norteamericano. Allí viven unas 3.000 personas con una renta per cápita media que ronda los 190.000 dólares al año. Siendo así, no es de extrañar que el valor medio de las casas sea de casi 2,8 millones de dólares. La del dueño de Microsoft es tan famosa que tiene hasta su propia página de Wikipedia.

Se trata de una mansión valorada en 127 millones de dólares que se llama Xanadú 2.0 en honor a la del personaje principal de la película Ciudadano Kane y que cuenta con 6.000 metros cuadrados construidos.

Residence Of Bill Gates

En 1998, Gates pagó dos millones de dólares por todo el terreno. A los 300 obreros que trabajaron en su construcción les llevó un total de siete años y 63 millones de dólares construir la casa, fabricada con madera de pinos Douglas de más de 500 años de antigüedad.

Tiene un total de 24 baños, 6 cocinas, diversos aparcamientos con capacidad para 23 coches, una biblioteca con 20 sofás y un salón capaz de albergar hasta 150 comensales en una cena o 200 personas de pie en un cóctel. Todo ello, además, de gimnasio con vestuarios separados para hombres y mujeres, baño de vapor, cine de estilo Art Deco con aforo para 20 personas y una casa de invitados de 176 metros cuadrados, por nombrar algunas prestaciones.

Bill Gates House 2015

La piscina (olímpica) también cuenta con su propio edificio y está dotada con un equipo de sonido que permite escuchar música dentro del agua. Aunque más estrafalario aún resulta que la cama elástica también tenga su propio cuarto, con techos de diez metros de altura, o que la arena de la playa se la traigan todos los años del Caribe.

Jeff Bezos

Jeff bezos

Por su parte, Jeff Bezos ha situado su casa en Medina cerca de la sede central de Amazon y a solo un kilómetro de la de Gates. Se trata de un terreno de más de dos hectáreas que alberga una casa principal de más de 2.600 metros cuadrados y una cabaña de campo de 400. Las dos cuentan con 5 dormitorios y 4 baños. La propiedad le costó a Bezos 10 millones de dólares cuando la compró en 1998, está situada a orillas de lago Washington y cuenta con 94 metros de costa.

Aunque el magnate, cuya fortuna valora Forbes en 135.600 millones de dólares, es famoso también por poseer otras muchas y espectaculares propiedades. Por un lado, tiene una villa de estilo español, de más de 20 millones de dólares, en Beverly Hills (Los Ángeles). Esta mansión dispone de siete habitaciones, el mismo número de baños, pista de tenis, piscina, cuatro fuentes y garaje con seis plazas.

Bezos Beverly Hill

Cambiando de estilo, compró un rancho en Van Horn, Texas, de más de 10.000 metros cuadrados y, en 2017, adquirió la casa más grande de Washington DC, que era un antiguo museo textil reconvertido en vivienda de lujo. Por ella pagó 23 millones de dólares, a los que habría que sumar los 12 que les costó reformarla. La reforma supuso construir 11 habitaciones, 25 cuartos de baño, cinco salas de estar, dos ascensores y un solarium.

Bezos Museo

Además, tiene diversas propiedades en los mejores rincones de Nueva York. Empezó en 1999 adquiriendo tres edificios de apartamentos en el Upper West Side. Una construcción, con espectaculares vistas a Central Park, que es un emblema del Art Decó. La última transacción en Manhattan la ha llevado a cabo este mismo año con un ático triplex y los dos pisos vecinos por 72 millones de dólares. Si el empresario uniera las tres viviendas tendría una sola de casi 1.600 m2 y 12 habitaciones.

Está ubicado en la Quinta Avenida y tiene vistas al Madison Square Park, gimnasio, simulador de golf, sala de juegos y una sala de cine. La vivienda también cuenta con varias terrazas al aire libre. Están decoradas con vegetación en las paredes y disponen de camas balinesas, tumbonas para tomar el sol.

jeff bezos

Warren Buffet

Warren Buffett

Warren Buffett es uno de los hombres más rico del mundo. Más concretamente, está posicionado el tercero en la lista de Forbes. Inversor y empresario, su fortuna está valorada en 87.000 millones de dólares. A pesar de ello, vive en la misma casa desde 1958, una mansión, más modesta que las anteriores, situada en un barrio tranquilo de Omaha (Nebraska). Buffett la compró, en su momento, por 31.500 dólares, lo que supone un 0,001% de su patrimonio. Aunque, según datos de Bussiness Insider, en la actualidad estaría valorada en unos 652.600 dólares.

Casa Warren Buffet 4 Jpg 231334169

La vivienda de 610 metros cuadrados, fue construida en 1921 y cuenta con 5 dormitorios, 3 baños, jardín y se encuentra vallada y protegida por cámaras. La razón por la que nunca se ha mudado es, como él mismo declaró en una famosa declaración recogida en un documental de la BBC, porque en ella es feliz y solo se mudaría si pensara que en otro lugar iba a ser más feliz.

Mark Zuckerberg

Zuck 13285280 1736055476633086 1416897415 N

La casa de Mark Zuckerberg, el cuarto en la lista Forbes 400, es una propiedad de 500 metros cuadrados, más sencilla que las de Bill Gates y Jeff Bezos. Se encuentra en la exclusiva zona de Edgewood Drive, en Palo Alto (California), a menos de 10 minutos en coche de la sede de Facebook en Menlo Park.

Casa De Mark Zuckerberg 768x576

Zuckerberg la adquirió por 5,6 millones de dólares en 2011. Una compra a la que ha ido sumando las casas que la rodean por motivos de privacidad y para poder decidir personalmente quiénes son sus vecinos. Se trata de cuatro casas por las que pagó 24 millones de dólares.

Interior

Dispone de cinco habitaciones, la misma cantidad de baños y una piscina de agua salada. Aunque una de las partes más atractivas de la casa es su perímetro ya que dispone de un gran jardín al aire libre, ideal para organizar fiestas y eventos.

Mark Zuckerberg House Palo Alto

El interior de la casa se compone de suelos de madera y muebles sencillos y tradicionales, con una decoración bastante austera. No obstante, a pesar de su sencillez, la vivienda cuenta con un pabellón de entretenimiento, chimenea, barbacoa y spa.

Jardin

Amancio Ortega

Amancio Ortega

Según el ránking de las personas más adineradas del mundo que realiza anualmente Forbes, Amancio Ortega es el sexto hombre más rico del mundo y la primera fortuna de España.  La misma publicación ha estimado su fortuna en 63.200 millones de euros. No obstante, el empresario es conocido por su estilo de vida relativamente sencillo. Un reflejo de ello se encuentra en sus propiedades.

Tras su separación de Rosalía Mera en 1986 se instaló en un dúplex con vistas a la playa de Orzán en el barrio de clase media de Zalaeta (A Coruña). Un barrio al que se le conoce popularmente como "Zaraeta" por el gran número de ejecutivos y mandos intermedios de Inditex que viven en él.

Actualmente, Amancio Ortega reside en su casa de O Parrote, también en el centro de A Coruña, donde se celebró la boda de su hija Marta con Carlos Torretta. Se trata de un edificio de cuatro plantas, con una superficie construida de más de 3.000 metros cuadrados, que data de principios del siglo XIX y que fue rehabilitado por el empresario.

Vista Aerea De La Zona Donde Estan La Casa De Ortega Y El Club Nautico Google

Con un singular valor arquitectónico por su amplio frente, sus inmensas puertas de arco y por sus tres galerías, es uno de los edificios que conforman la emblemática fachada marítima de galerías de A Coruña. Además, Amancio Ortega cuenta también con una residencia familiar en el Pazo de Anceis, en una zona rural a las afueras de la ciudad.

Jmrey42 50682948 209093873384917 8996150897976296470 N

No ha trascendido por cuánto dinero podría haber adquirido el empresario sus propiedades pero la zona de O Parrote es conocida por tener los alquileres más caros en el centro de la ciudad. Según un estudio de la Federación Galega de Empresas Inmobiliarias el precio por metro cuadrado del vecindario casi duplica la media de la ciudad de 7,3 euros.

Fotos | Google Maps, NBC, Wikipedia, The Backyard, Instagram de jmrey42.


          

TikTok-ing Through the Apocalypse (Part 1)

 Cache   

In this two-part series we explore the international phenomenon and emerging social media platform: TikTok. From the failing Shanghai tech company that created Musical.ly to ByteDance’s $1b acquisition in 2017, we explore how TikTok became the highest-valued startup to date now totalling over $75b. In part 1 we’ll break down the app and its powerful machine learning technology, and how its Chinese roots are critical to understanding the future of the company.

Eating For Free is a bi-weekly gossip podcast reporting from the edge of the internet! We're a new wave of celebrity reporters at a time when pop culture is increasingly chaotic and media lacks the ability or moral direction to make sense of this capitalist nightmare!

Do you have a tip for us? Got some hot gossip? Need to get any questions off your chest? Call our hotline at Call 1-810-EAT-FREE (1-810-328-3733) or send us an email at questions@eatingforfree.com!

Become a Patreon backer for exclusive access to weekly bonus episodes and more! You can also find us on our websiteTwitter, and Instagram. For behind-the-scenes gossip and access, join our exclusive Facebook group: Girls & Gays (G.A.G.S.)

Sources: 


          

Comment on Facebook’s S-1 Letter From Zuckerberg Urges Understanding Before Investment by Vouch raises $45M led by YC Continuity for business insurance that targets startups - Cafevp

 Cache   
[…] fast and break things” is a term we usually associate with Facebook (at least, until 2014) and the general startup ethos of being disruptive. Now, in true […]
          

Comment on Facebook’s S-1 Letter From Zuckerberg Urges Understanding Before Investment by Vouch raises $45M led by YC Continuity for business insurance that targets startups – Betarjis – Best for you

 Cache   
[…] fast and break things” is a term we usually associate with Facebook (at least, until 2014) and the general startup ethos of being disruptive. Now, in true […]
          

Gayle King sits down with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and wife Priscilla Chan

 Cache   
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan talk with Gayle King in their first joint TV interview. The three discussed why Facebook has chosen not to limit political advertising like Twitter and Google have.
          

Why the ‘Ok Boomer’ phenomenon is short-sighted

 Cache   

Starting as an internet meme, the ‘OK boomer’ trend has exploded, from TikTok videos to merchandise including hoodies, iPhone cases and shower curtains. Image taken from Amazon.com.

The “Ok Boomer” meme, which many young people are using online as a rebuttal against out-of-touch baby boomers, taps into frustrations disproportionately experienced by millennials and Generation Zers—particularly in Canada’s most unaffordable cities. Unfortunately, however, the meme also represents a discourse that ignores the many older people experiencing poverty, discrimination and hardship.

The meme began as a rallying cry for young internet users responding to a TikTok video, in which a white-haired man claims “the millennials and Generation Z have the Peter Pan syndrome, they don’t ever want to grow up.” According to New York Times columnist Taylor Lorenz, teenagers quickly started using the phrase as a reply to “basically any person over 30 who says something condescending about young people.”

Now, savvy merchants have cashed in, transforming “Ok Boomer” into a fast-selling product line, allowing youth to express their frustrations at the older folk with t-shirts, hoodies and baseball caps.

“The older generations grew up with a certain mind-set, and we have a different perspective,” designer Shannon O’Connor told the New York Times. “A lot of them don’t believe in climate change or don’t believe people can get jobs with dyed hair, and a lot of them are stubborn in that view.”

In other words, the great social battles of our time are being fought primarily along generational lines—or so this narrative would have it.

However, while it is true that millennials are much less likely to achieve the same material comforts as members of their parents’ generation (like buying property in Vancouver or Toronto), many low-income Canadians from older generations face similar struggles to their younger counterparts.

For example, according to the Canadian Rental Housing Index, the primary household maintainer was aged between 45 and 64 in 195,035 rental households and aged over 65 in 94,801 such households in British Columbia in 2016. 22 percent of renters aged 45 to 64 and 21 percent of those aged 65 and over spent 50 percent or more of their income on rent and utilities.

While a slightly higher percentage of 15 to 29 year-old renters spent half their income on rent (28 percent), a large number of adults effectively living in rent poverty fall roughly into the baby boomer age range.

Significant numbers of people belonging to the older generations experience poverty and hardship in other ways as well.

In 2017, 238,000 Canadians aged 65 and over lived below the poverty line. A CIBC poll last year found 32 percent of all Canadians aged between 45 and 64 have no retirement savings.

A 2014 survey found that 15.6 percent of people who said they experienced “hidden homelessness”—defined by the Canadian Observatory on Homelessness as “the situation of an individual or family without stable, permanent, appropriate housing, or the immediate prospect, means and ability of acquiring it”—were aged 55 and over.

A 2017 survey by Statistics Canada, meanwhile, found that the prevalence of disability leaps from 15.3 to 24.3 percent when people reach 45 to 64 years old. Disability puts people at a higher risk of falling into poverty, and the survey noted that 10.4 percent of over-65s with severe disabilities were living below the poverty line.

Jacobin editor Bhaskar Sunkara noted similar hardships faced by older generations in the US, with many approaching retirement with little or no savings.

“They were victims of corporate raiders, neoliberal deregulation and predatory loans – and the situation is even more dire for those of them who are black and brown,” he wrote.

These are just a few examples of the groups of vulnerable people who are too easily forgotten when we replace a class-based analysis of social inequality with a shallow ‘millennial-versus-boomer’ discourse.

Notwithstanding perceived differences in attitudes that might exist between age groups, it iss better to stand in solidarity with boomers living in poverty, struggling with disability and/or racial, sexual, or other forms of discrimination, rather than identifying with people simply because they happen to have been born at around the same time as us.

True, the “Ok Boomer” meme is probably, in most cases, targeted at that red-faced equity-rich uncle who bought his multi-million dollar detached Vancouver home for $600,000 in 2005, and now rails against his children for buying too much avocado toast instead of saving up for a 20 percent down payment on a million-dollar house.

Yet wealthy elites of all ages—from Chip Wilson and Jeff Bezos, to Mark Zuckerberg and former Uber executive Ryan Graves—share a common interest in lower taxes, fewer regulations and less public investment in the social safety net.

No doubt those billionaires would prefer to see young people venting their frustrations at irritating uncles instead of calling for progressive measure such as income redistribution and a wealth tax.

So, a simple question to ask yourself might be: do you have more in common with a Lamborghini-driving twenty-something wearing an “Ok Boomer” sweatshirt, or a fifty-something handing over half their income to a landlord?

For most of us, the answer is the latter.

Alex Cosh is a PhD student and journalist based in Powell River, BC.


          

Zuckerberg says Trump did not 'lobby' him during dinner

 Cache   
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said President Trump did not “lobby” him during an October dinner meeting.Zuckerberg made the remarks to CBS News's Gayle King in an interview that aired Monday on "CBS This Morning."“[W]e talked about a number of things...
          

Las caras de Zuckerberg para tu próxima noticia

 Cache   

Los medios suelen comprar de bancos de imágenes fotografías, eligen la adecuada y publican la nota. La circunstancia de la fotografía NUNCA es casual, no es la primera que encuentran, es la más conveniente para complementar la nota.

Esto implica que si la noticia habla en contra de un personaje en particular la fotografía elegida será una que provoque poca empatía, cara fea, mal momento, incómoda, inhumana; en cambio si habla a favor la foto en particular será una sonriente, empática, contagiosa.

Hoy por hoy hay un personaje que está en ese lugar donde nadie querría estar: Mark Zuckerberg. El CEO de Facebook es atacado, con razón, por todos los frentes posibles así que me propuse coleccionar las fotografías que utilizan los medios para hablar de él cuando le estan pegando, de paso que sirva de base de datos para tu siguiente nota :D



Seguir leyendo el post »


Creative Commons (CC) 1998-2019, Fabio Baccaglioni [Permalink] [Comentarios] [Humor]


          

Comment on Are you at risk of being a Boomer? Four things you need to know. by harris497

 Cache   
Penny, You wrote, "Do not doubt my conclusion. Mark Zuckerberg just dumped $100 million into the Newark Public schools and confirmed that more money for schools doesn’t help kids in poverty." I disagree! Change takes time and the benefit of social interventions need time and nurturing to bear fruit. I am an immigrant and had to work lots of menial jobs so I could get educated and pay off loans (my parents mortgaged the house so I could have a semester of tuition while I learned the system.) Even when I graduated and got an office job, I still had to work in food service to pay the bills. My kids won't have to work menial jobs, but it took 25 years of me busting my hump to provide that outcome. Zuckerberg's money will make a difference if it benefits the same population K thru 12. But more of that population would be helped and the benefit more profound, if social ills were also addressed as you suggest. There is no miracle cure, but i love the discourse you stimulate! My2centsworth:) Peace, D
          

12/1: CBS Evening News

 Cache   
Dangerous winter storm wreaks havoc on travelers returning home from holiday weekend; Gayle King sits down with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and wife Priscilla Chan
          

Facebook CEO says people should "make their own judgments" on political ads

 Cache   
For the first time, Facebook CEO and co-founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, are sitting down together for a network TV interview. “CBS This Morning” co-host Gayle King spoke with the couple about the challenges confronting Facebook, including the criticism over its handling of political advertising. Watch their extended conversation Tuesday, Dec. 3 on “CBS This Morning.”
          

Zuckerberg: People should "make their own judgments" on political ads

 Cache   
For the first time, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, are sitting down together for a network TV interview.
          

Up to public to judge politician ads, Zuckerberg says in latest Facebook defence

 Cache   
Facebook chief drawn to decision to allow political ads on Facebook once again as elections loom.
          

Commenti su Introfada. La rivoluzione dei timidi di Andrea Inglese

 Cache   
è affascinante, divertente, perspicace l'introfada, e ovviamente manicheista… Credo che la potenza di fuoco del capitalismo si nutra anche di discretissime eminenze grigie, che amano essere "invisibili" al grande pubblico, si nutre anche di personaggi non proprio estroversi, come Mark Zuckerberg, ma persino il nazismo aveva i suoi introversi come Adolf Eichmann… ma è innegabile che l'introfada ha comunque senso perché puo' parlare alla parte non produttivistica della nostra personalità, quello che potrebbe rinunciare a esibirsi, a promuoversi, ad agitarsi, la parte bianciardiana, che non vuole collaborare alla grande elettrizzante messa in scena del mondo attuale… (insomma anche se non tutti gli introversi e sensibili sono innocenti, offre un nuovo punto d'attacco e di critica)
          

Jan 9, 2020: Special Seminar- Katja Brose, PhD- Science Program Officer, Neurodegeneration Challenge Network, Chan Zuckerberg Initiative at Icahn Medical Institute- 1425 Madison Avenue, 13th Floor

 Cache   

Chan Zuckerberg Initiative: Science Strategy and Neurodegenerative Disease Funding Opportunity

View on site | Email this event


          

Sospecha ante las investigaciones internas de Facebook

 Cache   
La red social creada por Mark Zuckerberg habría probado una herramienta que arroja ciertas dudas
          

Tutti i problemi di Libra, la criptovaluta di Facebook

 Cache   
Non ci sono solo promesse di inclusione finanziaria e rosee aspettative dietro il lancio del progetto Libra, la criptovaluta di Facebook che dovrebbe entrare in funzione il prossimo anno. Il piano voluto da Zuckerberg si basa su un notevolissimo potenziale di business (e di guadagni) per la sua azienda, ma comporta anche una serie di problematiche gigantesche. Vediamole.
Il business delle rimesse
Secondo l'ultimo rapporto dedicato al fenomeno globale delle rimesse finanziarie dei migranti dalla Banca Mondiale, sono oltre 300 i milioni di persone che vivono al di fuori dei loro Paesi di nascita e oltre 750 milioni di persone migrano all'interno dei loro Paesi. Nel 2019, i flussi di rimesse transfrontaliere annuali dei migranti verso i Paesi a basso e medio reddito dovrebbero raggiungere a livello globale i 550 miliardi di dollari, un valore superiore a quello degli investimenti esteri diretti e dei finanziamenti ufficiale allo sviluppo.
Nel 2018, i flussi di rimesse hanno raggiunto 529 miliardi, con un aumento del 9,6% rispetto a 2017, crescendo in particolare nell'Asiameridionale (12,3%) e in Europa e Asia centrale (11,2%). Ma nel primo trimestre del 2019 il costo... [continua sul sito]
          

Lakewood, NJ: Failure to Vaccinate or Vaccine Failure?

 Cache   
Anti Vaxxer Article by Mr. Justin Steiner of Lakewood posted origianly on Childrens health Defense .org (Justin Steiner is a pseudonym for the author who lives in Lakewood, NJ and prefers anonymity given the current controversy over vaccination.)

  On November 14, thousands congregated at the National Mall in Washington DC the V.I.E. (Vaccine Injury Epidemic) Event, calling on legislators to hear us out. But was anyone listening?

Apparently not in New Jersey.

In a letter dated November 14th, Senator Bob Menendez sent a letter to Mark Zuckerberg lamenting that New Jersey’s measles outbreak last winter, “has been fueled, in part, by misinformation about vaccine safety spread via Facebook ads”.

I live in Lakewood, where most of the NJ measles cases occurred. Early last winter, there were 30 documented cases of measles in Ocean County.  Everyone recovered without incident and no serious complications were reported, but the Lakewood “outbreak” made national news and was used to amplify fears over what is a generally benign virus and create panic both within the community and throughout the state.  Additionally, the outbreak was used to promote a sneaky legislative amendment that seeks to abolish religious exemptions in New Jersey. As winter approaches this year, it’s worth reviewing the facts on the ground.



… rather than revisiting the concerns of those seeking exemptions, many officials dismissed these people as reckless, ignorant and in need of an education.
Reviewing the facts
The fear mongering tactics prompted enough skepticism for some community members to pursue Freedom of Information Act (FOIA, known in NJ as Open Public Records Act [OPRA]) requests from various health and government agencies, and they yielded some interesting information.

Since 2008, CHEMED, an Ocean County health clinic has received more than $2 million from the State of New Jersey to increase vaccine uptake. Substantial efforts were directed towards promoting vaccine compliance in the non-public school population, but despite these efforts, religious exemption rates in this cohort more than doubled from 2.4% to 5.2% within the span of just a few years. Obviously, this did not bode well for the clinic’s future funding and public relations campaign.  But rather than revisiting the concerns of those seeking exemptions, many officials dismissed these people as reckless, ignorant and in need of an education.

During the Lakewood measles outbreak, many private schools were actively encouraged to exclude children who had not received the MMR vaccine even though current public health policy does not call for exclusion of unvaccinated children from school unless there’s illness in that particular school [2]. However, CHEMED successfully pressured the Ocean County Health Department (OCHD) to exclude all unvaccinated children from school until the outbreak ended[3].  Additionally, children were banned from school for an arbitrary 42 days after the last reported case, allegedly to ensure no conceivable transmission. These sweeping school exclusions have no precedent in public health and are merely a social engineering tool used to force compliance[4].

Since many families who choose not to vaccinate are also not afraid of measles, the results of this overreaching and punitive policy were predictable: many parents opted to expose their children to measles. Then, after self-limiting symptoms and rapid recovery, the kids were able to bypass the extended exclusion period enforced by the health department and rejoin their friends at school. In effect, the clinic and OCHD incentivized families to get measles so that children could return to school, thereby magnifying the gravity of the outbreak they had the power to better contain.

Examining this “outbreak” more closely, 23 of 30 cases occurred in just four families. Of the remaining seven cases, six were among vaccinated individuals, including the “index case”, the first person to come down with the disease in Lakewood. The only other clear-cut case of measles was in a six-month old infant, too young to be vaccinated, who caught the disease directly from the index case and recovered uneventfully.

An additional 46 reported cases were either determined to be vaccine strains or failed to meet clinical criteria for measles. Many of these cases occurred days after vaccination, leading to the uncomfortable reality that the vaccine itself was causing measles. To the health department’s credit, unlike the Disneyland outbreak, these 46 cases were not added to the total tally of the measles outbreak.

Recognizing that people may be concerned by the vaccine’s apparent ineffectiveness or even disease-causing properties, the health department reassured people with the unsupported claim that if they were vaccinated and contracted measles, it would be “less severe illness”[5].

In Lakewood, “vaccine hesitancy” is based on reality, not rhetoric. People are concerned for the health of their children.
Vaccine failure and failure to vaccinate
In reality, the measles outbreak in Lakewood is a story at least as much about vaccine failure as it is about the failure to vaccinate. The index case was a vaccinated individual. In addition, many cases of those with “measles-like symptoms” implicated the vaccine itself.

In Lakewood, as elsewhere, many parents have stopped vaccinating because they have observed devastating vaccine injuries in their own families. New Jersey leads the nation in autism, and with an estimate of over 4,000 cases of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), Ocean County may have the highest rate in New Jersey. The Orthodox Jewish community where the outbreak has occurred, is a very close-knit community. After witnessing a child’s regression into autism, or the development of another neurological or autoimmune condition that occurred in close proximity to the administration of a vaccination, they share their stories with friends and family. In Lakewood, “vaccine hesitancy” is based on reality, not rhetoric. People are concerned for the health of their children.

Ocean County health authorities have not sought to understand these concerns.  By not following evidence-based practices they spread the measles, hurt families, scarred children and created the illusion that those who question vaccines are disease ridden. It is time to expand the conversation regarding vaccines beyond the initiatives that seek to vaccinate every person without consideration for individual needs and beliefs. We need to work toward a framework that listens to the concerns of families as we work to preserve and improve the health of our children.


          

信息泄露丑闻频曝 扎克伯格新年愿望:未来讨独立账户股票股指配资论技术的社会作用

 Cache   
第一配资网获悉,扎克伯格(MarkZuckerberg)周二发表文章,公布2019年新年愿望。作为今年个人挑战的一独立账户股票股指配资部分,扎克伯格决定将围绕着技术未来在社会中发挥的作用举行一系列公开讨论。他在博文中说:“我是一名工程师,过去经常只想着兑现自己的创意,希望创意能为它自己代言。考虑到我们所做事情的重要性,光是这样已经远
          

Zdjęcia z Facebooka wkrótce wyślemy bezpośrednio do Zdjęć Google

 Cache   
Przesyłanie zdjęć z Facebooka do innych usług niebawem powinno stać się znacznie wygodniejsze. Firma Marka Zuckerberga ogłosiła właśnie wprowadzenie nowego narzędzia. Zdjęcia wprost z Facebooka do Zdjęć Google Obecnie, aby wrzucić zdjęcia z Facebooka do chmury Google, Microsoftu czy Apple, musimy trochę poklikać. Po pierwsze, trzeba pobrać fotki na dysk lokalny, a następnie wejść na […]

Przeczytaj pełny artykuł tutaj: Zdjęcia z Facebooka wkrótce wyślemy bezpośrednio do Zdjęć Google

Źródło


          

When Commerce is Not Enough

 Cache   

Why is anger a large part of your customer base? That’s the question we should ask when we look at what “woke capitalism” is doing in America. The answer lies in the shifting nature of America’s basic values. In many ways, what the corporations are doing is as American as mom and apple pie, yet it may still prove to be a mistake that damages both corporations and American unity.

For many years, students of what is called cultural cognition have recognized that what underpins many of our decisions, whether commercial or political, are our most basic values. According to the late political theorist Aaron Wildavsky, there are three such groups in America—egalitarians, libertarians, and “hierarchists.” The basic motivators of these three groups are, respectively, fairness, freedom, and order or stability.

Politicians have long recognized that to get majority support for a policy, they need to appeal to more than their core value group. So, a politician who advocates for, say, a wholesale restructuring of the health care system could argue that her plan would not just lead to fairer health outcomes, it would increase individual agency by reducing the burden of health care costs and heal communities devastated by opioid addiction.

Corporations recognize this, too. As my old boss Fred Smith used to say, they need to reach not only Joan Consumer, but also Joan Citizen. A company that advertises simply on the basis of cost is only speaking to Joan Consumer. One that signals “we share your values” is speaking to Joan Citizen. A car dealer who flies a gigantic American flag is speaking to the hierarchists. It’s a technique as old as the hills. Combine all three, and you’ve got a winning formula.

Yet, large modern corporations have discovered they can go further. They have at their fingertips vast networks they can use not just to appeal to Joan Citizen, but to influence her politically as well, thereby creating a feedback loop of political action in favor of both the corporation and the consumer’s values. They have built up vast amounts of knowledge about consumers thanks to loyalty programs and tracking data from ads. They know if their customers are politically active and they know what issues motivate them. Some of today’s largest corporations are networks themselves.

At the same time, America’s value groups are shifting. Egalitarians used to be typified by the union household, which valued highly both the local community and freedoms regarding such things as gun rights. Today’s egalitarians are, well, much more egalitarian. They are also far wealthier. College-educated young people who are not on the property ladder have large amounts of disposable income and tend to be transient, which reduces the importance they place on community stability as a value. As polls tell us, they are likely to be progressives or even democratic socialists, whose politics informs their every action.

If these are your networks, “woke capitalism” is a no-brainer. Mozilla’s firing of Brendan Eich for giving money to a campaign against gay marriage was a legitimate business decision based on what the company knew about its consumers. Google’s firing of James Damore was justified because of the need to quell the outrage among one of its most important networks—the engineers who build its products.

Yet there is a danger here, too. As noted, real change is accomplished by uniting all the values groups together. Woke capitalism may be at risk, though, of intensifying a war between values groups. When Nike publicly backed Colin Kaepernick, they weren’t just playing to their networks, they were saying to the group that values the American flag that they don’t matter.

This isn’t unprecedented, of course. TV networks and movie studios that removed gay actors (or more likely helped gay actors conceal their sexuality) did the same thing, telling the egalitarians and libertarians that they weren’t important to them. They could do this because the hierarchists had the money and political power. Today, the boot is on the other foot.

Yet, the lesson of previous business decisions that set values groups against one another is that politicized decisions lead to political reactions. Anti-discrimination legislation stopped casual firings of actors based on their sexuality, but it also has prevented some cake shop owners from exercising their religion as they saw fit. There is a real threat that political views may soon become protected in the same way—or that politicians will use the sledgehammer of antitrust law to break up woke capitalist corporations to stop their “abuse of power.”

On the other hand, woke capitalist corporations may cease to be capitalist at all and look to use government’s power to squelch dissent – or government may see them as a conduit for increasing their control. In countries without a First Amendment equivalent, this is a particular threat. A woke corporatist world would be extremely hostile to both freedom and tradition.

Large corporations should instead realize that, like successful politicians, their best way forward is to unite the country behind them by appealing to all the value groups, even if some of them aren’t strongly represented in their current networks. This may be what Mark Zuckerberg was trying to do with his recent defense of free speech.

At the moment, however, it is more likely that today’s hyper-partisan environment will continue to influence business decisions. When politics is commercialized by the use of data, it should be no surprise when commerce becomes political.

Originally published at Law and Liberty.

Image: 
Experts: 
Iain Murray
Date: 
Tuesday, November 26, 2019
Media appearance type: 
Teaser: 
Why is anger a large part of your customer base? That’s the question we should ask when we look at what “woke capitalism” is doing in America. The answer lies in the shifting nature of America’s basic values. In many ways, what the corporations are doing is as American as mom and apple pie, yet it may still prove to be a mistake that damages both corporations and American unity.

          

Zuckerberg Stands By Facebook Ad Policy, Saying Politicians Shouldn't Be Censored

 Cache   
The social media giant's CEO reiterated his decision to not remove political ads that contain knowingly false and erroneous information.
          

Up to public to judge politician ads, Zuckerberg says in latest Facebook defence

 Cache   
Facebook chief drawn to decision to allow political ads on Facebook once again as elections loom.


Next Page: 10000

© Googlier LLC, 2019