Next Page: 10000

          Facebook 'regrets' adding confetti and balloons to Indonesia earthquake posts      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
When your reach is global, it's perhaps difficult not to inadvertently stick your fingers in a few places they don't belong — especially if you happen to be rocking the blithe self-assurance of one Mark Zuckerberg.

When a natural disaster strikes, people often turn to Facebook to express ... Reported by Mashable 5 hours ago.
          Messenger estrena realidad aumentada en varios juegos para videollamadas      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   

Justo cuando Snapchat ha anunciado que han perdido 3 millones de usuarios en los últimos tres meses, Facebook ha anunciado una novedad para Messenger. ¿La relación? Que de nuevo la firma de Mark Zuckerberg apuesta por la realidad aumentada, de una forma similar a como hicieron con las máscaras de Instagram Stories, que tanto han perjudicado a la red social Snapchat. Esta vez, la realidad aumentada es para varios juegos que podemos poner en funcionamiento en videollamadas en grupo.

Leer más...

El artículo Messenger estrena realidad aumentada en varios juegos para videollamadas escrito por Carlos González se publicó en ADSLZone.


          Szép remények és rémálmok      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Jókora pofont kapott a részvényesektől Mark Zuckerberg és a Facebook, történelmi zuhanást produkáltak a cég papírjai a tőzsdén a második negyedéves eredmények közlése után. Palkovics László többek között az MI-ről tárgyalt kollégáival; Satya Nadella pedig 100 milliárd dollár fölé vezette a Microsoftot.
          How to Improve the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   

On June 28, California enacted the Consumer Privacy Act (A.B. 375), a well-intentioned but flawed new law that seeks to protect the data privacy of technology users and others by imposing new rules on companies that gather, use, and share personal data. There's a lot to like about the Act, but there is substantial room for improvement. Most significantly:

  • The Act allows businesses to charge a higher price to users who exercise their privacy rights.
  • The Act does not provide users the power to bring violators to court, with the exception of a narrow set of businesses if there are data breaches.
  • For data collection, the Act does not require user consent.
  • For data sale, while the Act does require user consent, adults have only opt-out rights, and not more-protective opt-in rights.
  • The Act’s right-to-know should be more granular, extending not just to general categories of sources and recipients of personal data, but also to the specific sources and recipients. Also, the right-to-know should be tailored to avoid news gathering.

The law goes into effect in January 2020, which means privacy advocates have 18 months to strengthen it—and to stave off regulated companies' attempts to weaken it.

Background to the Act

For many years, a growing number of technology users have objected to the myriad ways that companies harvest and monetize their personal data, and users have called on companies and legislators to do a better job at protecting their data privacy. EFF has long supported data privacy protections as well.

In March 2018, the Cambridge Analytica scandal broke. The public learned that private data was harvested from more than 50 million Facebook users, without their knowledge and consent, and that the Trump presidential campaign used this private data to target political advertisements. Demand for better data privacy rules increased significantly.

In May 2018, supporters of a California ballot initiative on data privacy filed more than 600,000 signatures in support of presenting the initiative to voters, nearly twice the number of signatures required to do so. But ballot initiatives are an imperfect way to make public policy on a complex subject like data privacy. Before enactment, it can be difficult for stakeholders to help improve an initiative’s content. And after enactment, an initiative can be difficult to amend.

California legislators hoped to do better, but now they faced a deadline. June 28 was the last day the initiative’s sponsor could remove it from the ballot, and the sponsor told the legislature that he would do so only if they passed data privacy legislation first. Legislators rushed to meet this deadline, but that rush meant privacy advocates didn’t have much chance to weigh in before it was passed.

The Basics of the CCPA

The CCPA creates four basic rights for California consumers: 

  • A right to know what personal information a business has about them, and where (by category) that personal information came from or was sent. See Sections 100, 110, 115. See also Section 140(c) (defining “business”), and Section 140(o) (defining “personal information”).
  • A right to delete personal information that a business collected from them. See Section 105. While the right-to-know extends to all information a business collected about a consumer, the right-to-delete extends to just the information a business collected from them.
  • A right to opt-out of sale of personal information about them. See Section 120. See also Section 140(t) (defining “sale”).
  • A right to receive equal service and pricing from a business, even if they exercise their privacy rights under the Act, but with significant exceptions. See Section 125.

The Act also creates a limited right for consumers to sue businesses for data security breaches, based on California’s existing data breach notification law. See Section 150. Most of the Act’s enforcement punch, however, rests with the California Attorney General (AG), who can file civil actions against violations of the Act. See Section 155. The AG is also responsible for promulgating regulations to flesh out or update the CCPA framework. See Section 185.

As we explained above, the CCPA was put together quickly, and with many important terms undefined or not clearly defined. As a result, these rights in some cases look better than they really are. Fortunately, the new CCPA is generally understood to be a work in progress. Legislators, privacy advocates, and regulated companies will all be seeking substantive revisions before the law goes into effect. The rest of this post focuses on EFF's suggestions.

Opt-in Consent to Collection

Many online services gather personal data from technology users, without their knowledge or consent, both when users visit their websites, and, by means of tracking tools, when users visit other websites. Many online services monetize this personal data by using it to sell targeted advertising. New legislation could require these online services to obtain the users’ opt-in consent to collect personal data, particularly where that collection is not necessary to provide the service.

The CCPA does not require online services to obtain opt-in consent before collecting personal data from users. Nor does it provide users an opportunity to opt-out of collection. The law does require notice, at or before the point of collection, of the categories of collected data, and the purposes of collection. See Section 100(b). But when it comes to users’ autonomy to make their own decisions about the privacy of their data, while notice is a start, consent is much better. The legislature should amend the Act to require it.

Some limits are in order. For example, opt-in consent might not be required for a service to perform actions the user themselves have requested (though clear notice should be required). Also, any new regulations should explore ways to avoid the “consent fatigue” that can be caused by a high volume of opt-in consent requests.

“Right to Know” About Data Gathering and Sharing

Technology users should have an affirmative “right to know” what personal data companies have gathered about them, where the companies got it, and with whom the companies shared it, subject to some limits to ensure that the right to know does not impinge on other rights.

The CCPA creates a right to know, empowering “consumers” to obtain the following information from “businesses”:

  • The categories of personal information collected. See Sections 100(a), 110a)(1), 110(c)(1), 115(a)(1).
  • The categories of sources of the personal information. See Sections 110(a)(2), 110(c)(2).
  • The purposes for collecting the personal information. See Sections 110(a)(3), 110(c)(3).
  • The categories of third parties with whom businesses shares personal information. See Sections 110(a)(4).
  • The categories of personal information sold. See Sections 115(a)(2), 115(c)(1).

The Act defines a “consumer” as any natural person who resides in California. See Section 140(g). The Act defines a “business” as a for-profit legal entity with: (i) annual gross revenue of $25 million; (ii) annual receipt or disclosure of the personal information of 50,000 consumers, households, or devices; or (iii) receipt of 50% or more of its annual revenue from selling personal information. See Section 140(c).

The Act’s right-to-know would be more effective if it was more granular. It allows people to learn just the “categories” of sources and recipients of their personal data. People should be able to learn the specific sources and recipients.

Moreover, the Act’s right-to-know should be tailored to avoid impacting news gathering, which is protected by the First Amendment, when undertaken by professional reporters and lay members of the public alike. For example, if a newspaper tracked visitors to its online edition, the visitors’ right-to-know could cover that tracked information, but should not also extend to a reporters’ investigative file.

Data Portability

Users generally should have a legal right to data portability, that is, to obtain a copy of the data they provided to an online service. People might use this data in myriad ways, including self-publishing their own content, better understanding their service provider, or taking their data to a rival service.

The CCPA advances data portability. Consumers may obtain from businesses the “specific pieces” of personal information collected about them. See Sections 100(a), 110(c)(5). Moreover, the Act provides that if “provided electronically, the information shall be in a portable and, to the extent technically feasible, in a readily useable format that allows the consumer to transmit their information to another entity.” See Section 100(d).

It will be important to ensure that “technical infeasibility” does not become an exception that swallows the rule.

Also, it may be appropriate to address scenarios where multiple users’ data is entangled. For example, suppose Alice posts a photo of herself on social media, under a privacy setting that allows only certain people to see the photo, and Bob (one of those people) posts a comment on the photo. If Bob seeks to obtain a copy of the data he provided to that social media, he should get his comment, but not automatically Alice’s photo.

Consent to Data Sharing

As discussed above, EFF supports properly tailored legislation that requires companies to get opt-in consent before collecting a user’s personal data. Opt-in consent should also be required before a company shares that data with a third party. The more broadly that personal data is disseminated, the greater the risk of theft by malicious hackers, misuse by company employees, and expanded uses by company managers. Technology users should have the power to control their personal data by deciding when it may be transferred from one entity to another.

The CCPA addresses sale of personal data. It defines “sale” to include any data transfer “for monetary or other valuable consideration.” See Section 140(t). Adults have a right to opt-out of sales. See Sections 120(a), 120(c). To facilitate such opt-outs, businesses must provide a “do not sell my personal information” link on their homepages. See Section 135(a)(1). Minors have a right to be free from sales absent their opt-in consent. See Sections 120(c), 120(d). Also, if a third party buys a user’s personal data from a company that acquired it from the user, the third party cannot re-sell that personal data, unless they notify the user and give them an opportunity to opt-out. See Section 115(d).

However, the Act’s provisions on consent to data sharing are incomplete. First, all users—adults as well as minors—should be free from data sales and re-sales without their opt-in consent. While opt-out consent is good, opt-in consent is a better way to promote user autonomy to make their own decisions about their data privacy.

Second, the opt-in consent rules should apply to data transfers that do not yield (in the Act’s words) “valuable consideration.” For example, a company may find it to be in its business interests to give user data away for free. The user should be able to say “no” to such a transfer. Under the current Act, they cannot do so. By contrast, the original ballot initiative defined “sale” to include sharing data with other businesses for free.

Notably, the Act empowers the California Attorney General to issue regulations to ensure that the Act’s various notices and information are provided “in a manner that may be easily understood by the average consumer.” See Section 185(a)(6). We hope these regulations will address the risk of “consent fatigue” that can result from opt-in requests.

Deletion

The CCPA provides that a consumer may compel a business to “delete” personal information that the business collected from the consumer. See Section 105(a).

The Act provides several exceptions. Two bear emphasis. First, a business need not delete a consumer’s personal information if the business needs it to “exercise free speech, ensure the right of another consumer to exercise his or her right of free speech, or exercise another right provided for by law.” See Section 105(d)(4). Second, a business may keep personal information “to enable solely internal uses that are reasonably aligned with the expectations of the consumer based on the consumer’s relationship with the business.” See Section 105(d)(7).  Confusingly, another exception uses similar language, and it’s unclear how these interact. See Section 105(d)(9) (“Otherwise use the consumer’s personal information, internally, in a lawful manner that is compatible with the context in which the consumer provided the information”).

Deletion is a particularly tricky aspect of data privacy, given the potential countervailing First Amendment rights at issue. For example, suppose that Alice and Bob use the same social media service, that Alice posts a photo of herself, that Bob re-posts it with a caption criticizing what Alice is doing in the photo, and that Alice becomes embarrassed by the photo. A statute empowering Alice to compel the service to delete all copies of the photo might intrude on Bob’s First Amendment interest in continuing to re-post the photo. EFF is working with privacy and speech advocates to find ways to make sure the CCPA ultimately strikes the right balance.

But EFF will strongly oppose any provision empowering users to compel third-party services (including search engines) to de-list public information about them. Laws outside the United States that do this are often called the “right to be forgotten.” EFF opposes such laws, because they violate the rights to free speech and to gather information. Many of us may be embarrassed by accurate published reports about us. But it does not follow that we should be able to force other people to forget these reports. Technology users should be free to seek out and locate information they find relevant.

Non-discrimination

The CCPA provides that if a user exercises one of the foregoing statutory data privacy rights (i.e., denial of consent to sell, right to know, data portability, or deletion), then a business may not discriminate against the user by denying service, charging a higher price, or providing lower quality. See Section 125(a)(1). This is a critical provision. Without it, businesses could effectively gut the law by discriminating against users that exercise their rights.

Unfortunately, the Act contains a broad exemption that threatens to swallow the non-discrimination rule. Specifically, a business may offer “incentives” to a user to collect and sell their data, including “payments.” See Section 125(b)(1). For example, if a service costs money, and a user of this service refuses to consent to collection and sale of their data, then the service may charge them more than it charges users that do consent. This will discourage users from exercising their privacy rights. Also, it will lead to unequal classes of privacy “haves” and “have nots,” depending upon the income of the user. EFF urges the California legislature to repeal this exemption from the non-discrimination rule.

This problem is not solved by the Act’s forbidding financial incentives that are “unjust, unreasonable, coercive, or usurious.” See Section 125(b)(4). This will not stop companies from charging more from users who exercise their privacy rights.

The Act also allows price and quality differences that are “reasonably related” or “directly related” to “the value provided to the consumer by the consumer’s data.” See Sections 125(a)(2), 125(b)(1). These exemptions from the non-discrimination rule are unclear and potentially far-reaching, and need clarification and limitation.

Empowering Users to Enforce the Law

One of the most powerful ways to ensure enforcement of a privacy law is to empower users to take violators to court. This is often called a “private cause of action.” Government agencies may fail to enforce privacy laws, for any number of reasons, including lack of resources, competing priorities, or regulatory capture. When a business violates the statutory privacy rights of a user, the user should have the power to decide for themselves whether to enforce the law. Many privacy statutes allow this, including federal laws on wiretaps, stored electronic communications, video rentals, driver’s licenses, and cable subscriptions.

Unfortunately, the private right of action in the CCPA is woefully inadequate. It may only be brought to remedy certain data breaches. See Section 150(a)(1). The Act does not empower users to sue businesses that sell their data without consent, that refuse to comply with right-to-know requests, and that refuse to comply with data portability requests. EFF urges the California legislature to expand the Act’s private cause of action to cover violations of these privacy rights, too.

The Act empowers the California Attorney General to bring suit against a business that violates any provision of the Act. See Section 155(a). As just explained, this is not enough.

Waivers

Too often, users effectively lose their new rights when they “agree” to fine print in unilateral form contracts with large businesses that have far greater bargaining power. Users may unwittingly waive their privacy rights, or find themselves stuck with mandatory arbitration of their privacy rights (as opposed to their day in an independent court).

So we are very pleased that the CCPA expressly provides that contract provisions are void if they purport to waive or limit a user’s privacy rights and enforcement remedies under the Act. See Section 192. This is an important provision that could be a model for other states as well.

Rule Making

The CCPA empowers the California Attorney General to adopt regulations, after it solicits broad public participation. See Section 185. These regulations will address, among other things, new categories of “personal information,” new categories of “unique identifiers” of users, new exceptions to comply with state and federal law, and the clarity of notices.

EFF will participate in this regulatory process, to help ensure that new regulations strengthen data privacy without undue burden, particularly for nonprofits and open-source projects.

Next Steps

The CCPA is just a start. Between now and the Act’s effective date in January 2020, much work remains to be done. The Act itself makes important findings about the high stakes:

The proliferation of personal information has limited Californians’ ability to properly protect and safeguard their privacy. It is almost impossible to apply for a job, raise a child, drive a car, or make an appointment without sharing personal information. . . . Many businesses collect personal information from California consumers. They may know where a consumer lives and how many children a consumer has, how fast a consumer drives, a consumer’s personality, sleep habits, biometric and health information, financial information, precise geolocation information, and social networks, to name a few categories. . . . People desire privacy and more control over their information.

EFF looks forward to advocating for improvements to the Act in the months and years to come.


          Facebook throws an extra $10m at Zuck's personal security      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   

Zuckerberg -- who says privacy isn't a value that's important to most people any more -- owns the four houses on either side of his Silicon Valley house so that no one can use them as a perch to spy on him; he bought 100 acres around his Hawai'ain beach house, suing native Hawai'ians to force them to sell to him, so that he could have a buffer between him and the world. (more…)


          Brand WTF of the Week: Twitter decides to help Alex Jones spread lies      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   

One of the worst things most people can imagine is the horror of losing one’s child to gun violence. For Veronique De La Rosa and Leonard Pozner–whose six-year old son, Noah Pozner, was one of the 20 first-graders killed in the Sandy Hook shooting six years ago–the mourning has been compounded by a harassment campaign on- and offline. The couple has had to switch residences seven times in the years since the tragedy, in order to avoid a group of people who believe this very real suffering is all part of an elaborate hoax.

The man who pushed the misinformation that inspired all the harassment has recently been banned from almost all major platforms he relies on to spread lies–all except for one.

Twitter.

News about Alex Jones, the frequently bloviating founder of Infowars.com, hit like a downhill snowball early Monday morning. First Apple banned Jones from iTunes, with Facebook and YouTube following suit shortly afterward. No one deserves a Profile in Courage, but we’re getting somewhere. By the end of the day, only Twitter remained. The company’s executives apparently laid low and surveyed the reaction to the de-platforming in real time, before making a decision. As even more outlets appeared to take stances against Jones, who recently claimed that special prosecutor Robert Mueller runs a pedophilia ring and who is the subject of multiple lawsuits, Twitter held strong. The company would allow Alex Jones to remain a tweeter in good standing.

After the company was bombarded with negative feedback on its own platform throughout Tuesday, CEO Jack Dorsey released a string of tweets at the end of the day explaining the decision. Doing so only served to throw gasoline on the company’s already controversial position.

Dorsey also linked to a company blog explaining Twitter’s ever evolving rules.

The problem with Dorsey’s explanation is two-fold. Firstly, Jones’s accounts don’t just “sensationalize issues and spread unsubstantiated rumors.” They maliciously disseminate false information while screaming about how disgraceful mainstream media is for not covering it. Jones can only hawk his brain pills if Infowars fans believe that he is the last sane man and that everyone else is lying to them. He uses his Twitter accounts both to indoctrinate his followers and spread his intentionally dishonest gospel.

Secondly, Dorsey’s suggestion that journalists “document, validate, and refute such information directly so people can form their own opinions” totally passes the buck. Worse still, it passes the buck onto a group that already has its hands full exposing a thoroughly corrupt administration while millions believe their every effort is “fake news.” It’s impossible to play wack-a-mole with every Alex Jones lie as it charts a viral course through potentially millions of Twitter moles. The easier, more sensible, and decent thing to do would be for Dorsey and co. to cut off the flow at the source, once it’s clear that Jones is using his platform the way that he’s proven to have done–and for now, continues to do.

It would’ve been better for Dorsey and the company’s already embattled image if they had stuck to their guns without explaining further. Instead, their interest in doing whatever it takes to ensure that white supremacists and conspiracy peddlers never feel like victims on this platform now appears more evident than ever.

Fortunately for Twitter, the very journalists the company will be relying on to refute Jones’s lies from now on–because it’s so easy!–will continue to rely on Twitter to spread their own work. As you can see by the tweet below from one writer, though, they don’t have to like it.


          Zuckerberg’s totally shitting a brick right now.      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   

The post Zuckerberg’s totally shitting a brick right now. appeared first on The Funniest Pictures.


          Comment on Tim Cook sends Mark Zuckerberg, YouTube, and Spotify scrambling over Infowars’ Alex Jones by ban6dit      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
This isn't Europe we don't have hate speech laws. Hate speech is just speech. The US is the only country in the world with true free speech and it needs to stay that way. You are proving MDN's take right. People like you are why the left will keep on losing for the foreseeable future and companies that think I mean feel like you, are losing money or will start losing tons of money.
          Comment on Tim Cook sends Mark Zuckerberg, YouTube, and Spotify scrambling over Infowars’ Alex Jones by SJBMusic      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
I got it. It may not be as well know as The Onion, but everything BabylonBee does should be treated in the same way. ;)
          Comment on Tim Cook sends Mark Zuckerberg, YouTube, and Spotify scrambling over Infowars’ Alex Jones by SJBMusic      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
"Well, whatever you say about Microsoft, at least they haven’t gotten into the business of censoring speech on their platforms." https://www.wired.com/2017/03/now-we-know-why-microsoft-bought-linkedin/ https://www.cnet.com/news/alex-jones-infowars-removed-linkedin-pinterest-still-up-on-instagram-twitter/
          Comment on Tim Cook sends Mark Zuckerberg, YouTube, and Spotify scrambling over Infowars’ Alex Jones by GoeB      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Stay on topic and spare us the self-loathing whining first post. “especially after the recent STFU posts I’ve received here recently. Crybaby complaint: Number One. “I certainly don’t mind being called a warped libtard, self-righteous snowflake, a plague, a cancer, a liar, hypocrite, dishonest, cowardly, a POS, amongst a barrage of other derogatory and denigrating personal comments” Crybaby complaint: Number Two. You LIE. Of course you mind or you would not mention it Mr. Offended self righteous. “because the irony is that you banned me over a word that I was using and it wasn’t even a word directed at a person, rather a country.” Not a person, right. An excuse and only in your defensive mind. You “directed” it at over 300 million persons with your hatred toward the USA. “It still makes me laugh every time I get a personal insult, which is very common these days and it certainly demonstrates to everyone the value of the MDN brand and how seriously you take the rule that you made and you posted about ad hominem attacks.” Crybaby complaint: Number Three. We laugh at your broken record HATRED for the USA that protects your country and you have no problem with fellow citizens not paying their fair share of NATO. Let’s hear you constantly complain about that fact and get them to pay up. Saved the best for last of the other broken record whining complaint. MDN not enforcing or selectively enforcing their “ad hominem” policy is patently FALSE. ad ho·mi·nem ˌad ˈhämənəm/ adverb & adjective (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining."vicious ad hominem attacks" KEY: “directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining” I can assure you almost 100% of the pushback has nothing to do with the “person.” It has EVERYTHING TO DO with your “position” bad mouthing the USA at every turn and complaining about MDN policy. Obviously, it is crystal clear you are incapable of understanding and taking responsibility for your own special brand of FALSE ACCUSATIONS. Its OK, cry some more. Bottom line: Don’t complain about the snow on my rooftop when your doorstep is unclean. Have a nice day ... USA!🇺🇸USA!🇺🇸USA!🇺🇸
          Zuckerberg Looks To Clear Up Stance On Facebook, Fake News And The Holocaust      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is clarifying remarks he made about whether his platform should remove content posted by Holocaust deniers, saying he wasn't defending them when he commented that it was hard to know their intentions. His initial comments set off intense criticism earlier this week. "I personally find Holocaust denial deeply offensive, and I absolutely didn't intend to defend the intent of people who deny that," Zuckerberg wrote to Kara Swisher of Recode on Wednesday, the day after the site published a lengthy interview with the billionaire. In the original interview, Swisher asked Zuckerberg about Facebook's policy of taking down fake news — something it has combated using a variety of approaches after fake news sources were found to have been used to manipulate voters in the 2016 presidential election. Swisher used the Sandy Hook school massacre as an example, asking Zuckerberg why Facebook would allow an organization to post a conspiracy theory that claims the killings
          CCNT “Soul in Silico & Filter Dysmorphia” - 08.08.2018      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   

This week on Canary Cry NewsTalk, Forbes publishes pro-transhumanist and anti-god propaganda; plastic surgeons are noticing Snapchat dysmorphia; an update on Flippy’s growing family, and Bezos could do so much better. If you want MORE, Become a Patron, join the exclusive community, and receive Extended Reports of CCNT every week!

AGG for the WEEK OF July 31-Aug 7

YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST FOLKS! (Updates on stories)

Ancestry and 23andMe Agree to New Rules to Make You Feel Safer Handing Over Your DNA

Tesla suspends shares after Elon Musk tweets he wants to take the carmaker private

 

TECHNOLOGY/AI

AI Vs. God: Who Stays And Who Leaves?

The future of artificial intelligence is the toaster

New Artificial Intelligence Device Identifies Objects at the Speed of Light

Particle physicists team up with AI to solve toughest science problems

World class AI experts share what their favorite algorithm is

Video Friday: Professor Ishiguro’s New Robot Child, and More - IEEE Spectrum

Lip-reading artificial intelligence could help the deaf—or spies | Science | AAAS

ai: The beginning of a wave: AI tiptoes into the workplace - The Economic Times

Ethics and the pursuit of artificial intelligence | South China Morning Post

Artificial intelligence: Scary predictions for AI

20 terrifying uses of artificial intelligence - TechRepublic

BBC - Future - 12 new tech terms you need to understand the future

 

BIOMEDICAL/GENETICS/TRANSHUMANISM

Shivom is creating a genomic data hub to elongate human life with AI | VentureBeat

Captain America on Mars - Scientific American Blog Network

Genetics technology could lead to more crops, fresher food

 

CRYPTOCURRENCY/B-B-B-BLOCKCHAIN

Weed's Biggest Wedding Announcement Just Happened And Cryptocurrency Is The Bride

 

CONSPIRACY THEORIES AND SOMETIMES FACTS!

Freemasons Reportedly Ready to Welcome Transgender Women - Sputnik International

Are you being recorded while placed on hold? - abcactionnews.com WFTS-TV

Alex Jones' Infowars Still Not Banned On App Stores, Instagram And Twitter

#QAnon, the pro-Trump conspiracy theory, explained - Vox

Why the GOP is so easily infiltrated by bonkers conspiracy theorists - The Washington Post

 

SPACE/ALIEN/ETs/UFOs

A Mysterious, Powerful Force is Flinging Radio Waves at Us From Deep Space

NASA space telescope TESS starts search for Earth-like planets

Top Scientists Explain to Senators Why We Must Look for Aliens

Is Humanity About To Accidentally Declare Interstellar War On Alien Civilizations?

Should the Moon Be Quarantined? - Scientific American

 

STORIES THAT DOVETAIL OTHER RESEARCHER’S WORK

Stonehenge mystery solved, says breakthrough scientific study | Fox News

Ancient Roman Library Discovered Beneath German City

 

SOCIAL MEDIA/GOOGLE/AMAZON

Plastic surgeons say more patients coming in with 'Snapchat dysmorphia' | TheHill

Social media is making children regress to mentality of three-year-olds, says top brain scientist

Facebook: Hey Can We Pretty Please Maybe Have Lots of Your Banking Information Too?

Facebook Dating offerings can be seen in leaked pre-launch screenshots | Fox News

Without Sergey Brin, Google has lost its fear of authoritarian China — Quartz

Senators Demand Answers About Google’s Censored Chinese Search Engine | Fortune

Employees at Google, Amazon and Microsoft Have Threatened to Walk Off the Job Over the Use of AI



“THE FOUR HORSEMEN of the TECHNOCALYPSE!”

Amazon’s Jeff Bezos would need to spend $28 million a day to avoid getting richer - MarketWatch

Elon Musk says Tesla is making a mini-car that can fit an adult - Business Insider

Elon Musk: I know more about nuking Mars than scientists

Is Mark Zuckerberg Wet or Dry?

 

BASIL’S CAREER ADVICE

Upwork: Blockchain the Fastest Growing Skill in US Freelance Job Market

7 Job Skills Of The Future (That AIs And Robots Can't Do Better Than Humans)

How to Get Started in Machine Learning and Robotics

DeepMind Cofounder Gives Teenage AI Fan 5 Pieces Of Advice

 

THE DOORS OF PERCEPTION AND OTHER NEAT THINGS ABOUT THE BRAIN

10-Year-Old Boy Recovers Impressively After One-Sixth of His Brain Is Removed

Past experiences shape what we see more than what we are looking at now

The DolphinView headset lets you ‘see’ like your favorite sea creature - The Verge

Telepathic communication just 'a matter of time' as twins reveal blueprint for brain interface

Can you hear these silent GIFs? You may have a new form of synesthesia. - Vox

 

OTHER INTERESTING STORIES THAT POINT TOWARDS THE END TIMES

USPS: Carriers to wear flea repellent for deliveries in Sacramento County neighborhood

Donald Trump's star voted off Hollywood Walk of Fame

 

ICKY NEWS UPDATE

Catherine Oxenberg feels 'horrendous guilt' after bringing daughter into alleged sex cult | Fox News

Nikki Goldstein visits sex robots with artificial intelligence | Daily Mail Online

German Couple Convicted Of Selling Child On The Darknet : NPR

 


          Comment on No Mark Zuckerberg, I don’t need your help by Karel Donk's Blog » Censorship on the Internet getting worse      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
[…] have a lot of experience with being censored and blocked because of those so called “community […]
          Warum Kanye West bisher nicht bei „Carpool Karaoke“ war      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
James Corden und Kanye West finden einfach nicht zusammen – zumindest wenn es um „Carpool Karaoke“ geht. Und Kylie Jenner überholt Mark Zuckerberg.
          Facebook Inc (FB) COB and CEO Mark Zuckerberg Sold $39.9 million of Shares      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Read more » »
Related Stocks: FB,
          Facebook CROSSES THE LINE Again! Now Zuckerberg Wants YOUR Banking Data!      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Hey "Z-Man", "F"-Off! {{embed|t=aHRGo_1533777368}}
          Ingraham on Tech 'Corporate Censorship': 'This Isn't About Alex Jones --- It's About Freedom and Access to Information'      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Tuesday on Fox News Channel’s “The Ingraham Angle” during her show’s monologue, host Laura Ingraham questioned the motives of tech companies, including Facebook and Apple, banning Alex Jones and Infowars from its platforms. Ingraham argued the focus shouldn’t be on what was banned but the idea that the public’s freedom to make these choices on their own was being infringed upon. Partial transcript as follows: INGRAHAM: Remember what Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg told the Senate hearing back in April? (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MARK ZUCKERBERG, CEO, FACEBOOK: There’s certain content that clearly, we do not allow. Hate speech, terrorist content, nudity, anything that makes people feel unsafe in the community. From that perspective, that’s what we generally try to refer to what we do as a platform for all ideas. (END VIDEO CLIP) INGRAHAM: A platform for all ideas. Really? Over the past few months, Facebook and other tech giants have given us ample reasons to doubt that proclamation. The latest example started early yesterday morning when Apple pulled several podcasts associated with the controversial and incendiary Alex Jones. Facebook followed suit, unpublishing four of Jones’ pages, claiming that the videos on those pages violated that hate speech policy. Hours later YouTube
          Facebook negocia con los bancos que le cedan los datos de sus usuarios y opere a través de su chat Messenger      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
La red social, Facebook, tiene previsto convertirse en el intermediario entre los bancos y sus clientes. Según una información del diario The Wall Street Journal, la compañía de Mark Zuckerberg estaría en conversaciones con entidades financieras estadounidenses tales como JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup y US Bancorp a las que habría pedido que compartan información...
          8/9/2018: NEWS: How Holocaust experts want to help Zuckerberg solve FB denial dilemma      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Holocaust experts want to meet with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg over the social network’s unwillingness to automatically remove antisemitic and Holocaust-denial material. The heads of organizations and experts involved in Holocaust and genocide...
          Facebook Inc (FB) COB and CEO Mark Zuckerberg Sold $39.9 million of Shares      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   

Related Stocks: FB,
          Cruising the Web      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Senator Chuck Grassley goes to the WSJ to call out the emptiness of Senator Schumer's demand to see Brett Kavanaugh's documents from his time as staff secretary to President George W. Bush. Schumer has announced that he has no intention of voting for Kavanaugh, so why does he need to see the documents if his mind is already made up?
Presumably, Mr. Schumer announced that he would oppose Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination before he read the judge’s 307 written opinions and the many other opinions he joined. Certainly, it was before he reviewed the more than 17,000 pages Judge Kavanaugh provided to the committee in response to our bipartisan questionnaire and an estimated one million pages of documents the committee has requested from the Bush White House, where Judge Kavanaugh once worked.

It stands to reason that Senator Schumer wasn’t too concerned about Judge Kavanaugh’s record before he announced his opposition. Why is it so important to Senator Schumer now?

Democratic leaders are demanding access to every page from every email and every paper record from every one of the hundreds of White House aides who came and went during the entire eight years of President Bush’s time in office. This includes records that merely mention Judge Kavanaugh’s name and records he’s never seen. That is not reasonable. As I have made clear, I will not put taxpayers on the hook for a fishing expedition.

These documents include those from Judge Kavanaugh’s time as White House staff secretary, a post that manages the paper flow into and out of the Oval Office. They are both the least relevant documents to the nomination and the most sensitive to the executive branch, two considerations that have guided previous review processes. They’re extremely sensitive because they contain policy advice that went directly to President Bush, and the policy directives that came directly from him, on the full range of presidential responsibilities, including national security.

The staff secretary is an important position, but it’s decidedly less revealing of Judge Kavanaugh’s legal thinking than his 12 years as a judge on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and his legal service in the White House Counsel’s Office and the Office of Independent Counsel—roles in which he acted as a lawyer. The staff secretary documents consist largely of materials Judge Kavanaugh didn’t write. They were prepared by policy advisers across the executive branch. The materials are also saturated with irrelevant documents—including miscellaneous news clippings, the daily schedule, and even the White House lunch menu....

So recent complaints from Mr. Schumer and other Democrats about the scope of records requests ring hollow, especially coming from senators who have already declared their opposition to Judge Kavanaugh and initially refused even to meet with him....

The next time you hear complaints about the Senate Judiciary Committee’s vetting process—the most extensive and transparent in history—remember Mr. Schumer’s pledge to oppose Judge Kavanaugh with everything he’s got. How much more do Democratic leaders need to know when they’re already voting no?
Exactly. I'm glad that Grassley is signaling that he's not going to fall for these stalling tactics.


David French writes in the NYT
about the banning of Alex Jones by Apple, Facebook and YouTube. As French and anyone with a moral sense acknowledges, Alex Jones is a loathsome person. But there is another method for tackling his disgusting statements - slander and libel laws rather than having private companies deciding suddenly that his language is too objectionable for their platforms.
Let me start by making a few things abundantly clear. First, Alex Jones is a loathsome conspiracy theorist who generates loathsome content. Second, there is no First Amendment violation when a private company chooses to boot anyone off a private platform. Third, it seems reasonably clear that Mr. Jones’s content isn’t just morally repugnant, it’s also legally problematic. He makes wild, false claims that may well cross the line into libel and slander.

Right now, Mr. Jones is defending lawsuits filed by multiple Sandy Hook Elementary families accusing him of making intentionally false factual statements. Most appallingly, he has insisted that these grieving families were faking their pain: “I’ve looked at it and undoubtedly there’s a cover-up, there’s actors, they’re manipulating, they’ve been caught lying and they were preplanning before it and rolled out with it.”

So on Monday, when Apple, Facebook and YouTube acted — in seemingly coordinated fashion — to remove the vast bulk of Mr. Jones’s content from their sites, there’s no cause for worry, right? After all, this was an act of necessary public hygiene. A terrible human being who has no regard for truth or decency is finally getting what he deserves.
The problem is the subjectivity of the sites' decisions.
Rather than applying objective standards that resonate with American law and American traditions of respect for free speech and the marketplace of ideas, the companies applied subjective standards that are subject to considerable abuse. Apple said it “does not tolerate hate speech.” Facebook accused Mr. Jones of violating policies against “glorifying violence” or using “dehumanizing language to describe people who are transgender, Muslims and immigrants.” YouTube accused Mr. Jones of violating policies against “hate speech and harassment.”

These policies sound good on first reading, but they are extraordinarily vague. We live in times when the slightest deviation from the latest and ever-changing social justice style guide is deemed bigoted and, yes, “dehumanizing.” We live in a world where the Southern Poverty Law Center, a formerly respected civil-rights organization, abuses its past trust to label a host of mainstream organizations (including my former employer, the Alliance Defending Freedom) and individuals as “hate groups,” “white nationalists” or “anti-Muslim extremists,” based sometimes on disagreements about theology or sexual morality or sometimes on outright misreadings and misrepresentations of an individual’s beliefs and views.

Exhibit A of how wrong the center has been: In June, it paid Maajid Nawaz $3.375 million for labeling him an “anti-Muslim extremist.” This is rich, considered Mr. Nawaz is a former Islamist turned Muslim reformer.

Yet Big Tech still listens to the Southern Poverty Law Center and takes action to punish its targets. Amazon recently booted Alliance Defending Freedom from its AmazonSmile charity program because of the center’s designation....

One doesn’t even have to look to Big Tech to see the almost infinite malleability of the “hate speech” label. In the name of stopping hate speech, university mobs have turned their ire not just against alt-right figures like Milo Yiannopoulos and Richard Spencer, but also against the most mainstream of conservative voices, like Ben Shapiro and Heather Mac Donald.

Dissenting progressives aren’t spared, either. Just ask Evergreen State College’s Bret Weinstein, who was hounded out of a job after refusing to participate in a “day of absence” protest in which white students and faculty members were supposed to leave campus for the day to give students and faculty members of color exclusive access to the college.
Rather than having these private companies decide on their own what is objectionable to them with vague definitions of hate speech, it would be better, French argues to make their decisions based on the legal definitions of libel and slander.
To be sure, this would tie their hands more: Unlike “hate speech,” libel and slander have legal meanings. There is a long history of using libel and slander laws to protect especially private figures from false claims. It’s properly more difficult to use those laws to punish allegations directed at public figures, but even then there are limits on intentionally false factual claims.

It’s a high bar. But it’s a bar that respects the marketplace of ideas, avoids the politically charged battle over ever-shifting norms in language and culture and provides protection for aggrieved parties. Nor do tech companies have to wait for sometimes yearslong legal processes to work themselves out. They can use their greater degree of freedom to conduct their own investigations. Those investigations would rightly be based on concrete legal standards, not wholly subjective measures of offensiveness.

Private corporations can ban whoever they like. But if companies like Facebook are eager to navigate speech controversies in good faith, they would do well to learn from the centuries of legal developments in American law. When creating a true marketplace of ideas, why not let the First Amendment be your guide?
Sounds like a much more reasonable standard than something as amorphous and subjective as "hate speech."

Ben Shapiro, who has been a target of personal attacks from Jones and thinks Jones is a vile person, also criticizes the decision by these companies to ban him. But, as Shapiro argues, the Left won't stop with Alex Jones.
But I’m far more concerned with social-media arbiters suddenly deciding that vague “hate speech” standards ought to govern our common spaces than I am with the daily dose of detritus distributed by this delirious dunce. Social-media giants had a choice here. If they wanted Jones gone, they could simply have defined a standard limit on the number of debunked conspiracy theories one could peddle on the site before being banned, or they could have created a standard prohibiting public threats.

Instead, they chose the most politically correct way of booting Jones: They claimed he’d violated undefined standards regarding “hate.” That’s why so many on the right are rushing to Jones’s defense — not because they like Jones or anything he stands for, but because the Left is happy to apply double standards under the rubric of “anti-hate measures.”

To see how, we only need to examine the last week of news. Sarah Jeong, the newest member of the New York Times editorial board, has tweeted dozens of times, in racist fashion, about white people. The Left defended Jeong, not on the grounds that the New York Times ought to ignore social-media mobbing, but on the grounds that people of color can’t be racist. Were Jeong white, the Left dutifully explained, she would justifiably be fired; but since she is an Asian-American graduate of Berkeley and Harvard Law School, she’s a victim of the white patriarchy, and thus fully entitled to use racist slurs to target those with less melanin in their skin. “Hate speech,” it seems, only runs one way.

And it only applies to particular viewpoints, too. Suggest that Caitlyn Jenner is a man, and you might be violating crucial social-media “hate speech” taboos; suggest that the Jews are bloodsucking demons, as Louis Farrakhan does, and the leaders of the Women’s March will still hobnob with you.

Is it any wonder, then, that conservatives don’t trust social-media hall monitors to apply their alleged rules with equal vigilance? It’s demonstrative of the echo chamber that is Silicon Valley that rather than going after Jones on some semblance of an objective standard, they went directly for the buzzwords that will be most popular among those who love Sarah Jeong.

Unfortunately, the informal implementation of left-wing “hate speech” standards will likely be only a precursor to far more devastating culture wars to come. That’s because the Left does not operate in good faith. People of rational mind agree that Jones is a never-ending font of silly garbage. But the Left won’t leave it at Jones, which is why the social-media giants didn’t craft an objective standard to apply.


Robby Soave also weighs in to argue that the issue isn't free speech, - after all, these are private companies -
but the "incoherence of 'hate speech.'"
Facebook doesn't actually need a reason to ban people from its platform. It can take virtually any action it thinks will improve the user experience. It could ban all conservatives tomorrow if it so desired.

Facebook did give a reason for banning Jones, though, and it's a fairly weak and ill-defined one. "As a result of reports we received, last week, we removed four videos on four Facebook Pages for violating our hate speech and bullying policies," the company explained. The problem was not that Jones was lying, or engaged in libel, or spreading fake news. The problem was hate speech. But we don't know which statements he made were deemed hateful, or why. We don't know if Jones is being singled out, or if anyone who said the things he said would be banned. We don't know if a statement has to be targeted at a particular person to count as bullying, or whether generic trutherism could fit the bill.

I'm saying this for a third time so that I'm not misunderstood: Facebook can define hate speech however it wants. I am criticizing the lack of clarity in its definition, not because I think the government should intervene, but because I am a user of Facebook who worries that a stronger anti-bullying policy will be difficult to apply evenly.

Jones has been engaged in the same shtick for years. I can't imagine that no one had ever complained about him before. So why now? What is so hateful or bullying about his speech that wasn't apparent last week? What prompted the clearly coordinated campaign to remove him from so many major publishing platforms?
Soave quotes what he wrote in response to Zuckerberg's comments that Holocaust deniers should not be banned from Facebook.
In our modern political discourse, Facebook plays a role very much akin to the public square: a massive one, involving the entire world. The arguments for letting nearly all voices—even deeply evil ones, provided they do not organize direct violence or harassment—be heard on this platform are the same arguments for not taking the European route on hate speech: Policing hate on a very large scale is quite difficult given the frequently subjective nature of offense; we risk de-platforming legitimate viewpoints that are unpopular but deserve to be heard; and ultimately, silencing hate is not the same thing as squelching it.
The story of what has happened with Alex Jones is a good trial of whether or not people believe anymore in the famous quote that Voltaire, apparently, never said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Such an attitude has long been the classical liberal attitude toward freedom of speech. Sadly, it no longer is. Just about everyone can agree that Alex Jones is truly loathsome. Let him rant his ugliness. Let the courts proceed with the suit by the Sandy Hook parents. At least, if they're going to ban him, don't do it because of some ill-defined "hate speech." Do it because he has made reckless statements about the killings at Sandy Hook that have led to harassment of grieving parents by his rabid viewers. What is more important is the precedent that has been set and where it goes from here.


For an example of how those on the Left will band together to try to ban speech of which they disapprove, witness the recent story about how journalists pressured the Newseum, the museum devoted to freedom of the press, to stop selling T-shirts that say "Fake News." Their objection was that this was legitimizing Trump's attacks on the press. As Tunku Varadarajan points out, they were missing the history of the phrase which first arose by Trump's opponents to characterize how Trump and his supporters manipulated the news. Several months later Trump started using the phrase and was able to turn the tables on those criticizing him. But the media critics of Trump ignored that history and pressured the Newseum to stop selling the shirts.
This sweeping mea culpa leads one to wonder how well the folks at the Newseum know their history. “Fake news” isn’t Mr. Trump’s own coinage. He first tweeted the phrase on Dec. 10, 2016, several months after his media detractors had used it as a barb against him. The modern paternity of the phrase, in other words, lies with the people who wanted to kill off the T-shirt.

But its first recorded use predates the Trump presidency by some distance. On June 7, 1890, the Cincinnati Commercial Tribune headlined a story thus: “Secretary Brunnel declares that fake news about his people is being telegraphed over the country.”

That said, the main objection to the Newseum’s decision isn’t pedantic. It has misunderstood completely the semiotics of the T-shirt. Who takes a T-shirt’s text literally? Wearers put them on for all sorts of reasons, frequently in pursuit of irony. Donning a T-shirt that blares “Fake News” on its front can just as easily be a subversion of the idea—a slap at Mr. Trump—as an endorsement of it.

You’d think the guardians of journalism would get that—even as they strong-arm a museum dedicated to free speech to pull a T-shirt whose message they dislike.


Democratic Senator Mazie Hirono has decided to ask judicial nominees about their sexual history.
At the time, she claimed such questions were relevant because at least one judge had been accused of sexual harassment. The judge in question was Alex Kozinski – on the 9th Circuit – while the first judge Hirono asked these questions to was nominated to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Not that the difference matters, but it’s basically like someone from Facebook asking if you ever embezzled money because someone from Twitter was accused of doing so. Same industry, different companies, and using one incident to justify asking inappropriate questions....

Hirono in January asked Judge Kurt Engelhardt two questions about his sexual history designed to look like perjury if someone in the future accused him. Engelhardt was confirmed to the 5th Circuit despite Hirono’s questions, and has thus far not been accused of sexual misconduct.

During his senate hearing, Hirono asked Engelhardt the following:
Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?

As Woehrle and attorney Scott Greenfield have pointed out, this is an incredibly leading question that has two unrelated parts.

“This question deliberately lumps together two very different things,” Woehrle wrote. “A request to your spouse for sexual favors is not illegal, even if your spouse says he doesn’t want sex; by contrast, assault of a sexual nature certainly is illegal, and should preclude anyone who commits it from ever being a judge.”

But as anyone with commonsense would know, there is no way to know something is unwanted until you ask.

“Defenders of Senator Hirono’s questions say they are appropriate because she is asking about unwelcome sexual advances, and sexual harassment involves unwelcome sexual advances,” Woehrle wrote. “But that is as illogical as saying that because Aristotle is a man, all men are Aristotle. To be sexual harassment, sexual advances or other behavior must be ‘unwelcome.’ But that does not mean that all, or even most, unwelcome behavior is sexual harassment.”

Woehrle points out that courts have up held that to be sexual harassment in the legal sense, the unwelcome conduct “must be ‘severe or pervasive’ enough to create a hostile environment for a ‘reasonable person,’ based on their sex, and be ‘objectively offensive,’ not just subjectively unwelcome.”


Kamala Harris, who is all set to run for president in 2020, is fully embracing identity politics. She just doesn't want to call it that. But she's happy to advocate that Democrats should be choosing more women of color. And, by happy coincidence, she is a woman of color. Isn't that a wonderful coincidence?
“I have a problem, guys, with that phrase, ‘identity politics,’” Harris told the audience. “Because let’s be clear, when people say that, it’s a pejorative. That phrase is used to divide, and it is used to distract. Its purpose is to minimize and marginalize issues that impact all of us. It is used to try and shut us up.”

The left have become experts at flipping reality on its head, blaming others for the very behavior they project.

Harris launched into the discussion on identity politics after noting the Democrats “shouldn’t just be thanking women of color for electing progressive leaders in 2018, we should be electing women of color as those leaders.”

The California lawmaker declared Democrats “won’t be shut up, and we won’t be silenced” on issues like playing the race card, abortion and advocating for illegal immigrants.

“And let’s be clear these issues that they’re trying to diminish and demean are the very issues that will define our identity as Americans,” she concluded.
Who knew that our identity as Americans meant supporting abortion and illegal immigration?


One member of the Santa Cruz City Council has made a political gaffe by actually saying what he really believes.
A Santa Barbara city councilman inadvertently let slip the primary purpose of progressivism in 21st century America.

The city recently criminalized the use of plastic straws. Speaking to that issue, Councilman Jesse Dominguez said, “Unfortunately, common sense is just not common. We have to regulate every aspect of people’s lives.”

Got that? "We" are smarter than you and know what's best for you better than you do.
That isn't a conservative using hyperbole to characterize the progressive agenda - that's a politician stating what he believes the real goal is. Now he's apologizing for saying what he really thinks.
The comment sparked an immediate backlash from people who read the quote in Noozhawk and other local media, wondering “did he really say that?” Yes, he did, and on Tuesday, Dominguez apologized for the comment.
“I just wanted to apologize,” Dominguez said at the beginning of the meeting. “A few weeks ago I made a string of words in a rhetorical fashion about regulation and they were not taken as rhetorical and that’s my fault so I want to apologize.”

Steven Hayward comments,
Now, we do have to admit that the good councilman has a point about Santa Barbara citizens lacking common sense. He’s on the city council, after all. Sort of an inversion of the great rhetorical question both Thomas Jefferson and Ronald Reagan liked to ask: “Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?”

But “string of words”? I know of a new editorial board member at the New York Times who will buy that, but otherwise I think everyone can understand exactly what the councilman believes. That “string of words” combines into a noose for individual liberty. And common sense. Here’s to hoping the voters of Santa Barbara recover their common sense and pull the string on Dominguez (and his “words”) at the next election, along with the other five knuckleheads who voted for the plastic straw ban.
Maybe he can address exactly which aspects of our lives he doesn't believe the government should regulate.


Tamara Berens explains how anti-Semitism is a chosen strategy of Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party's leadership. It's been clear for a while now that Corbyn has a history of hanging with anti-Semites and participating in anti-Israel activities. But Corbyn isn't apologizing or resigning as most politicians would have to do if even half of what has been made public about Corbyn's history had come to light. And other leaders of Labour with similarly ugly histories are remaining in leadership. It's clear that this is now a choice and that says a lot about the state of British politics.
erate action to sow discord with both the Jewish community and moderate Labour MPs. The Labour National Executive chose not to fully adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism used by the British government, Metropolitan Police, and many other institutions around the globe. They opted instead to omit examples of antisemitism relating to Israel from their definition, including guidance that calling the creation of Israel a racist endeavor is an antisemitic claim. After reacting to the Jewish community’s longstanding pleas for change with empty promises, the adoption of the IHRA definition in full was a prime opportunity for the Labour party to achieve an easy win. The choice to reject it should be seen as nothing less than a deliberate snub of British Jewry.

As well as snubbing the Jewish community, Jeremy Corbyn appears to be actively seeking the silencing of his internal political opponents. Margaret Hodge, a veteran Jewish Labour MP, recently publicly confronted Corbyn about his attitude towards antisemitism, accusing him of being a “racist and anti-Semite.” Ian Austin MP, supporter of the parliamentary Labour Friends of Israel group, also stood up for his values and made his disagreement with Corbyn’s rejection of the IHRA definition known. They are now both under formal investigations by the party and were sent letters threatening "disciplinary action."These investigations seem to be moving suspiciously more swiftly than those initiated by the party against Corbyn allies Ken Livingstone and Naz Shah.

Finally, an old video recently resurfaced of Jeremy Corbyn linking a terror attack in Egypt to “the hand of Israel.” The 2012 interview on Iranian-owned Press TV saw him pedal anti-Israel conspiracy theories in a discussion of a bombing where 16 Egyptian policemen were killed in the Sinai desert. His comments from 2012 were defended last week by a Labour party spokesperson, who asserted that his “speculation” had been factually based on previous Israeli actions in Egypt.
So why would he be doing all this? It could be that he's just an unreconstructed anti-Semite but it seems more like he's chosen this as a political strategy that he thinks will help Labour. It's also clear that Corbyn likes hanging with the sort of company that anti-Semitism puts him into.
Anti-Zionism—and by extension, giving credence to antisemites—is fundamental to the worldview Corbyn has cultivated on his journey to political stardom. For most of his political career, Corbyn was a fringe socialist politician and supporter of the USSR, Syria’s Assad, the Iranian Ayatollahs and Maduro’s Venezuela. After becoming Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn toned down some of this support for radical anti-Western groups. Nonetheless, he has consistently maintained his support for anti-Zionist causes. What’s undoubtable is that throughout his career, his ultimate goal has remained the same; rejecting Western values and embracing the alliance between radical socialists and Islamists in a strategic bid to normalize and implement socialism in the UK.

Politically, Corbyn’s strategy is working: According to a recent YouGov poll, 61 percent of the party believes Corbyn is handling accusations of antisemitism well. And 80 percent of the party deems him a good leader overall. The events of the past few weeks indicate that the Labour leadership has been able to build on their apparent success to formally distance themselves from the overwhelmingly Zionist British-Jewish community. This perhaps became most apparent last Friday, when Jeremy Corbyn published another article in The Guardian disregarding his part in normalizing antisemitism in the party. The piece came out at 5pm, when the majority of Jews in the country were busy preparing for the Sabbath.

The reality is that support from the Jewish community is no longer an indispensable part of the Labour party. In fact, Corbyn’s foreign policy—a large aspect of his political differences to Blair’s Labour—rests on weakening UK-Israel relations. Corbyn has constructed a successful strategy for claiming the Labour party as his own socialist vehicle for disruption of the Western liberal order. Labeling recent events a “scandal” greatly underestimates the strategic nature of his leadership.


If you live in Washington D.C., as my daughters do, and already hate the Metro, now there is an additional reason to be contemptuous of how the Metro is being run.
All of the new 7000 Series rail cars on Washington D.C.’s Metrorail subway system must undergo repairs to replace the cars’ wiring, a new report says.

According to a review conducted by Metro’s Quality Assurance, Internal Compliance & Oversight office, the wire crimping on the cars was not correctly completed. The flawed wiring has and has been a factor in issues with the rail cars and can lead to major delays.

As a result, all of the 548 new rail cars currently in service must undergo repairs that are likely to take a full year to complete. The review determined that Metro did not demand Kawasaki, who was manufacturing the rail cars, to conduct relevant quality checks.
More delays - oh, joy. How can the leaders of Metro not demand quality checks?

I lived in D.C. when the Metro system was built and first opened. At the time, I was so very impressed at its design and how it operated. It was so clean compared to other cities' older systems. It's still clean, but it seems to have slow-downs and gets shut down on some routes way too often.
          Facebook 'regrets' adding confetti and balloons to Indonesia earthquake posts      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
TwitterFacebook

When your reach is global, it's perhaps difficult not to inadvertently stick your fingers in a few places they don't belong — especially if you happen to be rocking the blithe self-assurance of one Mark Zuckerberg.

When a natural disaster strikes, people often turn to Facebook to express sympathy and concern for those caught in Mother Nature's unforgiving wake. And, at least in the case of the Sunday earthquake in Indonesia that has so far claimed the lives of over 300 people, Facebook responded by treating that concern as a cause for celebration. 

SEE ALSO: Facebook denies report that it’s coming for your financial data Read more...

More about Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, Social Media, Earthquakes, and Tech
          Comment on Freedom of speech is under attack from the big cybertech companies by AesopFan      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Baklava on August 8, 2018 at 12:53 pm at 12:53 pm said: Dave, That is the reason why Zuckerberg cozied up with Obama and company. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358363/Steve-Jobs-Mark-Zuckerberg-meet-President-Obama-technology-summit.html * * Old news, but a solid tell up there with "I'll have more flexibility after the election." Looks kind of like, oh, I don't know, collusion?
          complete biography of mark zuckerberg       Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
complete biography of mark zuckerberg

          mark zuckerberg biography in tamil       Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
mark zuckerberg biography in tamil

          Facebook: Fragen Banken nicht nach Finanztransaktionsdaten der Nutzer      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Facebook will nicht allein von Werbung leben und bietet seine Tools auch Unternehmen für Dienstleistungen an. Nach dem Willen von Chef Mark Zuckerberg sollen auch Banken ihre Kunden via Facebook betreuen können. Spioniert der Dienst dabei die Konten aus?
          Facebook throws an extra $10m at Zuck's personal security      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   

Zuckerberg -- who says privacy isn't a value that's important to most people any more -- owns the four houses on either side of his Silicon Valley house so that no one can use them as a perch to spy on him; he bought 100 acres around his Hawai'ain beach house, suing native Hawai'ians to force them to sell to him, so that he could have a buffer between him and the world. (more…)


          Facebook throws an extra $10m at Zuck's personal security      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   

Zuckerberg -- who says privacy isn't a value that's important to most people any more -- owns the four houses on either side of his Silicon Valley house so that no one can use them as a perch to spy on him; he bought 100 acres around his Hawai'ain beach house, suing native Hawai'ians to force them to sell to him, so that he could have a buffer between him and the world. (more…)


          How to Improve the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   

On June 28, California enacted the Consumer Privacy Act (A.B. 375), a well-intentioned but flawed new law that seeks to protect the data privacy of technology users and others by imposing new rules on companies that gather, use, and share personal data. There's a lot to like about the Act, but there is substantial room for improvement. Most significantly:

  • The Act allows businesses to charge a higher price to users who exercise their privacy rights.
  • The Act does not provide users the power to bring violators to court, with the exception of a narrow set of businesses if there are data breaches.
  • For data collection, the Act does not require user consent.
  • For data sale, while the Act does require user consent, adults have only opt-out rights, and not more-protective opt-in rights.
  • The Act’s right-to-know should be more granular, extending not just to general categories of sources and recipients of personal data, but also to the specific sources and recipients. Also, the right-to-know should be tailored to avoid news gathering.

The law goes into effect in January 2020, which means privacy advocates have 18 months to strengthen it—and to stave off regulated companies' attempts to weaken it.

Background to the Act

For many years, a growing number of technology users have objected to the myriad ways that companies harvest and monetize their personal data, and users have called on companies and legislators to do a better job at protecting their data privacy. EFF has long supported data privacy protections as well.

In March 2018, the Cambridge Analytica scandal broke. The public learned that private data was harvested from more than 50 million Facebook users, without their knowledge and consent, and that the Trump presidential campaign used this private data to target political advertisements. Demand for better data privacy rules increased significantly.

In May 2018, supporters of a California ballot initiative on data privacy filed more than 600,000 signatures in support of presenting the initiative to voters, nearly twice the number of signatures required to do so. But ballot initiatives are an imperfect way to make public policy on a complex subject like data privacy. Before enactment, it can be difficult for stakeholders to help improve an initiative’s content. And after enactment, an initiative can be difficult to amend.

California legislators hoped to do better, but now they faced a deadline. June 28 was the last day the initiative’s sponsor could remove it from the ballot, and the sponsor told the legislature that he would do so only if they passed data privacy legislation first. Legislators rushed to meet this deadline, but that rush meant privacy advocates didn’t have much chance to weigh in before it was passed.

The Basics of the CCPA

The CCPA creates four basic rights for California consumers: 

  • A right to know what personal information a business has about them, and where (by category) that personal information came from or was sent. See Sections 100, 110, 115. See also Section 140(c) (defining “business”), and Section 140(o) (defining “personal information”).
  • A right to delete personal information that a business collected from them. See Section 105. While the right-to-know extends to all information a business collected about a consumer, the right-to-delete extends to just the information a business collected from them.
  • A right to opt-out of sale of personal information about them. See Section 120. See also Section 140(t) (defining “sale”).
  • A right to receive equal service and pricing from a business, even if they exercise their privacy rights under the Act, but with significant exceptions. See Section 125.

The Act also creates a limited right for consumers to sue businesses for data security breaches, based on California’s existing data breach notification law. See Section 150. Most of the Act’s enforcement punch, however, rests with the California Attorney General (AG), who can file civil actions against violations of the Act. See Section 155. The AG is also responsible for promulgating regulations to flesh out or update the CCPA framework. See Section 185.

As we explained above, the CCPA was put together quickly, and with many important terms undefined or not clearly defined. As a result, these rights in some cases look better than they really are. Fortunately, the new CCPA is generally understood to be a work in progress. Legislators, privacy advocates, and regulated companies will all be seeking substantive revisions before the law goes into effect. The rest of this post focuses on EFF's suggestions.

Opt-in Consent to Collection

Many online services gather personal data from technology users, without their knowledge or consent, both when users visit their websites, and, by means of tracking tools, when users visit other websites. Many online services monetize this personal data by using it to sell targeted advertising. New legislation could require these online services to obtain the users’ opt-in consent to collect personal data, particularly where that collection is not necessary to provide the service.

The CCPA does not require online services to obtain opt-in consent before collecting personal data from users. Nor does it provide users an opportunity to opt-out of collection. The law does require notice, at or before the point of collection, of the categories of collected data, and the purposes of collection. See Section 100(b). But when it comes to users’ autonomy to make their own decisions about the privacy of their data, while notice is a start, consent is much better. The legislature should amend the Act to require it.

Some limits are in order. For example, opt-in consent might not be required for a service to perform actions the user themselves have requested (though clear notice should be required). Also, any new regulations should explore ways to avoid the “consent fatigue” that can be caused by a high volume of opt-in consent requests.

“Right to Know” About Data Gathering and Sharing

Technology users should have an affirmative “right to know” what personal data companies have gathered about them, where the companies got it, and with whom the companies shared it, subject to some limits to ensure that the right to know does not impinge on other rights.

The CCPA creates a right to know, empowering “consumers” to obtain the following information from “businesses”:

  • The categories of personal information collected. See Sections 100(a), 110(a)(1), 110(c)(1), 115(a)(1).
  • The categories of sources of the personal information. See Sections 110(a)(2), 110(c)(2).
  • The purposes for collecting the personal information. See Sections 110(a)(3), 110(c)(3).
  • The categories of third parties with whom businesses shares personal information. See Sections 110(a)(4).
  • The categories of personal information sold. See Sections 115(a)(2), 115(c)(1).

The Act defines a “consumer” as any natural person who resides in California. See Section 140(g). The Act defines a “business” as a for-profit legal entity with: (i) annual gross revenue of $25 million; (ii) annual receipt or disclosure of the personal information of 50,000 consumers, households, or devices; or (iii) receipt of 50% or more of its annual revenue from selling personal information. See Section 140(c).

The Act’s right-to-know would be more effective if it was more granular. It allows people to learn just the “categories” of sources and recipients of their personal data. People should be able to learn the specific sources and recipients.

Moreover, the Act’s right-to-know should be tailored to avoid impacting news gathering, which is protected by the First Amendment, when undertaken by professional reporters and lay members of the public alike. For example, if a newspaper tracked visitors to its online edition, the visitors’ right-to-know could cover that tracked information, but should not also extend to a reporters’ investigative file.

Data Portability

Users generally should have a legal right to data portability, that is, to obtain a copy of the data they provided to an online service. People might use this data in myriad ways, including self-publishing their own content, better understanding their service provider, or taking their data to a rival service.

The CCPA advances data portability. Consumers may obtain from businesses the “specific pieces” of personal information collected about them. See Sections 100(a), 110(c)(5). Moreover, the Act provides that if “provided electronically, the information shall be in a portable and, to the extent technically feasible, in a readily useable format that allows the consumer to transmit their information to another entity.” See Section 100(d).

It will be important to ensure that “technical infeasibility” does not become an exception that swallows the rule.

Also, it may be appropriate to address scenarios where multiple users’ data is entangled. For example, suppose Alice posts a photo of herself on social media, under a privacy setting that allows only certain people to see the photo, and Bob (one of those people) posts a comment on the photo. If Bob seeks to obtain a copy of the data he provided to that social media, he should get his comment, but not automatically Alice’s photo.

Consent to Data Sharing

As discussed above, EFF supports properly tailored legislation that requires companies to get opt-in consent before collecting a user’s personal data. Opt-in consent should also be required before a company shares that data with a third party. The more broadly that personal data is disseminated, the greater the risk of theft by malicious hackers, misuse by company employees, and expanded uses by company managers. Technology users should have the power to control their personal data by deciding when it may be transferred from one entity to another.

The CCPA addresses sale of personal data. It defines “sale” to include any data transfer “for monetary or other valuable consideration.” See Section 140(t). Adults have a right to opt-out of sales. See Sections 120(a), 120(c). To facilitate such opt-outs, businesses must provide a “do not sell my personal information” link on their homepages. See Section 135(a)(1). Minors have a right to be free from sales absent their opt-in consent. See Sections 120(c), 120(d). Also, if a third party buys a user’s personal data from a company that acquired it from the user, the third party cannot re-sell that personal data, unless they notify the user and give them an opportunity to opt-out. See Section 115(d).

However, the Act’s provisions on consent to data sharing are incomplete. First, all users—adults as well as minors—should be free from data sales and re-sales without their opt-in consent. While opt-out consent is good, opt-in consent is a better way to promote user autonomy to make their own decisions about their data privacy.

Second, the opt-in consent rules should apply to data transfers that do not yield (in the Act’s words) “valuable consideration.” For example, a company may find it to be in its business interests to give user data away for free. The user should be able to say “no” to such a transfer. Under the current Act, they cannot do so. By contrast, the original ballot initiative defined “sale” to include sharing data with other businesses for free.

Notably, the Act empowers the California Attorney General to issue regulations to ensure that the Act’s various notices and information are provided “in a manner that may be easily understood by the average consumer.” See Section 185(a)(6). We hope these regulations will address the risk of “consent fatigue” that can result from opt-in requests.

Deletion

The CCPA provides that a consumer may compel a business to “delete” personal information that the business collected from the consumer. See Section 105(a).

The Act provides several exceptions. Two bear emphasis. First, a business need not delete a consumer’s personal information if the business needs it to “exercise free speech, ensure the right of another consumer to exercise his or her right of free speech, or exercise another right provided for by law.” See Section 105(d)(4). Second, a business may keep personal information “to enable solely internal uses that are reasonably aligned with the expectations of the consumer based on the consumer’s relationship with the business.” See Section 105(d)(7).  Confusingly, another exception uses similar language, and it’s unclear how these interact. See Section 105(d)(9) (“Otherwise use the consumer’s personal information, internally, in a lawful manner that is compatible with the context in which the consumer provided the information”).

Deletion is a particularly tricky aspect of data privacy, given the potential countervailing First Amendment rights at issue. For example, suppose that Alice and Bob use the same social media service, that Alice posts a photo of herself, that Bob re-posts it with a caption criticizing what Alice is doing in the photo, and that Alice becomes embarrassed by the photo. A statute empowering Alice to compel the service to delete all copies of the photo might intrude on Bob’s First Amendment interest in continuing to re-post the photo. EFF is working with privacy and speech advocates to find ways to make sure the CCPA ultimately strikes the right balance.

But EFF will strongly oppose any provision empowering users to compel third-party services (including search engines) to de-list public information about them. Laws outside the United States that do this are often called the “right to be forgotten.” EFF opposes such laws, because they violate the rights to free speech and to gather information. Many of us may be embarrassed by accurate published reports about us. But it does not follow that we should be able to force other people to forget these reports. Technology users should be free to seek out and locate information they find relevant.

Non-discrimination

The CCPA provides that if a user exercises one of the foregoing statutory data privacy rights (i.e., denial of consent to sell, right to know, data portability, or deletion), then a business may not discriminate against the user by denying service, charging a higher price, or providing lower quality. See Section 125(a)(1). This is a critical provision. Without it, businesses could effectively gut the law by discriminating against users that exercise their rights.

Unfortunately, the Act contains a broad exemption that threatens to swallow the non-discrimination rule. Specifically, a business may offer “incentives” to a user to collect and sell their data, including “payments.” See Section 125(b)(1). For example, if a service costs money, and a user of this service refuses to consent to collection and sale of their data, then the service may charge them more than it charges users that do consent. This will discourage users from exercising their privacy rights. Also, it will lead to unequal classes of privacy “haves” and “have nots,” depending upon the income of the user. EFF urges the California legislature to repeal this exemption from the non-discrimination rule.

This problem is not solved by the Act’s forbidding financial incentives that are “unjust, unreasonable, coercive, or usurious.” See Section 125(b)(4). This will not stop companies from charging more from users who exercise their privacy rights.

The Act also allows price and quality differences that are “reasonably related” or “directly related” to “the value provided to the consumer by the consumer’s data.” See Sections 125(a)(2), 125(b)(1). These exemptions from the non-discrimination rule are unclear and potentially far-reaching, and need clarification and limitation.

Empowering Users to Enforce the Law

One of the most powerful ways to ensure enforcement of a privacy law is to empower users to take violators to court. This is often called a “private cause of action.” Government agencies may fail to enforce privacy laws, for any number of reasons, including lack of resources, competing priorities, or regulatory capture. When a business violates the statutory privacy rights of a user, the user should have the power to decide for themselves whether to enforce the law. Many privacy statutes allow this, including federal laws on wiretaps, stored electronic communications, video rentals, driver’s licenses, and cable subscriptions.

Unfortunately, the private right of action in the CCPA is woefully inadequate. It may only be brought to remedy certain data breaches. See Section 150(a)(1). The Act does not empower users to sue businesses that sell their data without consent, that refuse to comply with right-to-know requests, and that refuse to comply with data portability requests. EFF urges the California legislature to expand the Act’s private cause of action to cover violations of these privacy rights, too.

The Act empowers the California Attorney General to bring suit against a business that violates any provision of the Act. See Section 155(a). As just explained, this is not enough.

Waivers

Too often, users effectively lose their new rights when they “agree” to fine print in unilateral form contracts with large businesses that have far greater bargaining power. Users may unwittingly waive their privacy rights, or find themselves stuck with mandatory arbitration of their privacy rights (as opposed to their day in an independent court).

So we are very pleased that the CCPA expressly provides that contract provisions are void if they purport to waive or limit a user’s privacy rights and enforcement remedies under the Act. See Section 192. This is an important provision that could be a model for other states as well.

Rule Making

The CCPA empowers the California Attorney General to adopt regulations, after it solicits broad public participation. See Section 185. These regulations will address, among other things, new categories of “personal information,” new categories of “unique identifiers” of users, new exceptions to comply with state and federal law, and the clarity of notices.

EFF will participate in this regulatory process, to help ensure that new regulations strengthen data privacy without undue burden, particularly for nonprofits and open-source projects.

Next Steps

The CCPA is just a start. Between now and the Act’s effective date in January 2020, much work remains to be done. The Act itself makes important findings about the high stakes:

The proliferation of personal information has limited Californians’ ability to properly protect and safeguard their privacy. It is almost impossible to apply for a job, raise a child, drive a car, or make an appointment without sharing personal information. . . . Many businesses collect personal information from California consumers. They may know where a consumer lives and how many children a consumer has, how fast a consumer drives, a consumer’s personality, sleep habits, biometric and health information, financial information, precise geolocation information, and social networks, to name a few categories. . . . People desire privacy and more control over their information.

EFF looks forward to advocating for improvements to the Act in the months and years to come.


          Investor Minta Mark Zuckerberg Mundur dari Posisi Chairman      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Facebook kini tengah dalam masalah Skandal Cambridge Analytica beberapa waktu lalu ditambah lagi dengan laporan pendapatan yang merosot berpengaruh pada kepercayaan para pemegang saham di ...
          Deepfakes are coming. Is Big Tech ready?      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   

Mark Zuckerberg insisted at Facebook’s annual developer conference earlier this year that his company “will never be unprepared … again” for meddling and disinformation efforts like those run by Russian trolls on its platform during the run-up to the 2016 election.

The post Deepfakes are coming. Is Big Tech ready? appeared first on News.


          Scoop: Twitter's Jack Dorsey expands media tour amid Alex Jones saga      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey will be making more stops on his media tour amid the Alex Jones controversy and is planning to speak with NBC's Lester Holt on Nightly News next week and CNN's Brian Stelter on Reliable Sources next Sunday, according to sources familiar with the sit-downs.

Why it matters: Twitter is being criticized for appealing to the right by doing a radio interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity on Wednesday, but Dorsey's charm offensive is about to go wider.


The interviews, which sources say were in the works before Hannity's show, come as Dorsey defends his status as the last CEO of a major online platform company not to take down content associated with Jones and InfoWars.

The interview with Holt has been in the works for weeks. A source familiar with the booking process says Dorsey met with Holt in New York several weeks ago where they discussed the possibility of an interview.

  • The interview with Stelter has also been in the works for several weeks and Stelter and Dorsey corresponded before Hannity’s interview, a source familiar with the matter said. The network is likely to tape the interview next week, the source said. That may take place in San Francisco but plans have not been finalized.

Why now: The media tour comes amid controversy that while other tech platforms simultaneously banned Jones, Twitter went its own way and stood behind its existing policies. A source familiar says the purpose of this media tour is to be transparent and to have Dorsey be the face of the decision and explain it.

Twitter's decision thus far has had a mixed reaction. The tech company is being criticized by some on the left for allowing Jones, who has trafficked in conspiracy theories, to remain on the platform. It says that if Jones violates its policies, it will take action, but as long as he is in compliance he can continue to use the platform.

The bigger picture: Televised interviews are not common for many tech CEOs who are also founders of their companies, like Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, Snapchat's Evan Spiegel and Dorsey. But media tours are becoming more routine in the wake of controversies around big issues, like censorship and privacy, that become national news.


          苹果坚称 iPhone 不会偷听你的对话      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
随着语音助理的盛行,以及受众分析后定向投放的广告愈来愈普及,坊间开始出现了其实你的装置无时无刻都在偷听四周的对话,并且从中寻找关键字的传闻,甚至到了众议院还特地发函给各大科技公司要求要解释的地步。据传,无论是手机还是智慧喇叭其实平常麦克风都是开着的,「表面上」是在等待你的 Hey, Siri 或 OK, Google 指令,但其实私底下是在偷偷分析你说的话。 对此,Facebook 早前已经严正声明 Facebook 的 App 没有这样的行为,Zuckerberg 并称其为「阴谋论」。苹果现...
          Comment on Tim Cook sends Mark Zuckerberg, YouTube, and Spotify scrambling over Infowars’ Alex Jones by GoeB      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
“The following message published on our platform explains why you should assassinate a public official. We do not necessarily agree.” In your Apple fanboy defensive posts several things are glaring and stand out. You have no problem with kill cops rapper lyrics, correct? Antifa and Black Lives Matter HATE, correct? No problem with Apple making a profit on leftist HATE, movies, music and podcasts, correct? You ONLY have a problem with hate from the right, correct? Actually, a disclaimer is exactly the way to go. It is done on A.M. talk radio everyday in the USA when Rush is broadcast in a liberal market. The company admitting they do not support the views may provide legal protection. But more importantly, they come off as champions of free speech, open minded and do not CENSOR some views over other views and drop the hypocrisy. Correct fake conservative? ...
          Comment on Tim Cook sends Mark Zuckerberg, YouTube, and Spotify scrambling over Infowars’ Alex Jones by kent      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
I remember when all the leftists at Apple lied about how much they cared about "net neutrality" - everyone having equal access. What a pure crock of shit. Tim Cook and all the Marxist Apple fanboys like censorship. They dont give a shit about equal access. They are actually just like the infantile Antifa hood wearing thugs breaking things on the streets of our cities. Pure thugs.
          Facebook, Twitter and Google Have All the Control      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   

This is a dangerous situation but it’s a wake up call that you don’t have freedom on social media. You are under the control of people like Jack Dorsey, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page and Sergey Brin.

The post Facebook, Twitter and Google Have All the Control appeared first on Stock Market News, Finance and Investments | Money Morning Australia.


          蘋果堅稱 iPhone 不會偷聽你的對話      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
隨著語音助理的盛行,以及受眾分析後定向投放的廣告愈來愈普及,坊間開始出現了其實你的裝置無時無刻都在偷聽四週的對話,並且從中尋找關鍵字的傳聞,甚至到了眾議院還特地發函給各大科技公司要求要解釋的地步。據傳,無論是手機還是智慧喇叭其實平常麥克風都是開著的,「表面上」是在等待你的 Hey, Siri 或 OK, Google 指令,但其實私底下是在偷偷分析你說的話。 對此,Facebook 早前已經嚴正聲明 Facebook 的 App 沒有這樣的行為,Zuckerberg 並稱其為「陰謀論」。蘋果現...
          Does A National Political Warfare Center Make Sense?      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   



A very thought-provoking topic by that title over at Forward Observer today:
“There is currently no U.S. government organization, U.S. nongovernmental organization, or U.S. academic institution that focuses on the full range of unconventional, irregular, political, informational, diplomatic, and economic threats and activities employed by adversary powers.” 
There's a lot of things worth reading in it.
RTWT.

My 2¢:

Facebook's anti-conservative/alt-right/anything-less-than-frothing-moonbat-communist campaign has cost them $100B in real value on the stock market, the biggest loss of any firm in stock market history. Google and the other platforms are about to get a similar lesson on asymmetrical warfare, particularly the economic kind.

Nature abhors a vacuum, and all they're doing is creating a gaping opening for someone, or ten thousand someones, to exploit and become the Fox Network of social media. It's already happening to a small degree, but the harder the Zuckerbergs and Gates' squeeze their jello empires, the more of it leaks out of their grasp forever. They don't know nor understand Adam Smith's "invisible hand", and they don't understood or never learned that you can't set up Pravda unless you control all the organs of power. And even that was a joke even inside the sphere of totalitarian control. Reagan made a political career of ridiculing the communists with the folk humor of their own people. Zuckerberg and his ilk have now nominated themselves to becoming the butt of those kind of jokes for a generation or more, if not right up until they roll over and die.

Be still, my beating heart.

Meanwhile, Alex Jones is now the Klansmen marching in Skokie, or Larry Flynt being prosecuted for obscenity: gone from disreputable underdog to underground hero and champion civil rights exemplar, which is how you create exactly the sort of Joan of Arc/Rocky Balboa character that kicks you right in your fourth point of contact, and just like that boot stomping on a human face, it will be happening forever.

Worse, when the lunatics are given the keys, parody becomes impossible, and the richest humor will be when clever people on our side decide the best way to undermine the other side is to appear sincere, and go full retard, pretending to be the vanguard of the Left, when in fact they'll be pinning the world's largest "Kick Me" signs on their backs, and jumping on their soapboxes, complete with clown shoes and red rubber nose.

Pride goeth before a fall, and with a host of people like Sabo, et al, greasing the sidewalks with a pressure washer for them, the Left is in the worst of all positions: unpopular, unpowerful, unliked, and sitting in their little firebases of conformity at the bottom of a ring of surrounding high ground, both actual and moral.


"The moral is to the physical as three is to one." - some little Corsican NCO

Monkey, meet wrench.
Napoleon, meet dynamite.

That situation is what people like Musashi and Sun Tzu called "Death Ground", for good reason.


The Left has also forgotten their own prophet, St. Alinsky:
"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon."

They have become the most ridiculous thing on the planet, and they've been sniffing their own farts for so long, they can't even recognize themselves for what they are.

It's never a good idea to get in a shoving match with serious people when your head is shoved way up into a very dark, small place.

We used to have a National Political Warfare Center: it used to be called the president's Cabinet. But those goofs and their nominal minions have been so penetrated with moles and double agents, they're a national joke, and like all bureaucracies, more concerned with their own institutional survival than doing the nation's business, except by accident.

If someone popped a nuke over D.C. on a Tuesday morning in fall, the rest of the nation would probably sign a treaty of everlasting friendship with the perpetrators.

Ten days out of nine those bureaucracies, including the Pentagon, are trying harder to undo the nation than work for it, and eventually in such a situation, either the overburdened mule quits, dies, or throws everyone off and kicks at anything within range.

When nations do that, it tends to get pretty enthusiastically ugly.

Until that point, do what you can in every other sphere of activity.



           El alza y la caída de Facebook       Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   

Hace dos semanas la acción de Facebook cayó 20 por ciento en el New York Stock Exchange. La pérdida de $120 mil millones de dólares es la más grande en la historia de la bolsa.

El ajuste al valor de la compañía fue causado por una disminución en las ganancias. La compañía está en crisis desde que se reveló su rol en la manipulación rusa de las elecciones estadounidenses ya que sus usuarios reaccionaron gravemente al uso que le da Facebook a la información privada que recauda. Es un reto nuevo para el rey de las redes sociales, Mark Zuckerberg, pero el problema radica desde la incepción del concepto de su compañía.

La historia de la fundación y crecimiento astronómico de Facebook ha sido extensamente documentada e incluso dio lugar a la galardonada película “La Red Social”. Lo que cepilla a un lado la cobertura y, consciente o inconscientemente, han ignorado los usuarios de las redes es que el valor de la red está en su capacidad de manipular la información que discretamente recibe y publica sobre y para sus suscriptores.

El adagio de los empresarios (entrepreneurs) de la industria tecnológica es: “construye una base enorme de clientes primero, descifra como monetizar después”. El problema es, si no están cobrando en dinero, tiene que cobrar de alguna otra forma. Las redes sociales cobran capturando la información de sus usuarios y vendiéndosela a quien les quiere vender algo.

Durante mucho tiempo ha sido evidente que empujaban publicidad de manera explícita, pero ahora se ha vuelto claro que también lo hacen de manera escondida. Promocionan noticias para manipular las opiniones de sus suscriptores, bloquean otras para que no vean información que la contradiga. Usan la información que publicaron sus usuarios, no solo el texto, pero, también lo que buscan y los botones que aprietan en sus buscadores para generar perfiles que les muestran cómo venderles algo.

Facebook se metió en aprietos al vender el servicio de manipular las opiniones de sus usuarios a favor del entonces candidato y ahora presidente de los Estados Unidos, Donald Trump. Sus suscriptores toleraron que los convencieran qué tipo de ropa usar o cuál serie de televisión ver, pero respingaron cuando se dieron cuenta que Facebook escogía qué noticias ven y cuáles opiniones leen. No es solo que la red social haya perdido usuarios, sino que sus suscriptores empezaron a meterse menos y más importantemente, dejaron de compartir e interactuar con el servicio.

De hecho, la compañía ha empezado una campaña para rehabilitar su imagen, incluso por primera vez compraron publicidad por televisión con un comercial en el que aceptan que “perdieron su rumbo” y que el contenido que reciben sus suscriptores dejó de ser notificaciones y novedades de sus redes sociales y se convirtió en un enorme canal de publicidad constante.

No será sencillo recapturar la buena fe del público y probablemente la haya perdido para siempre. Este evento cambió a Facebook en la percepción de la gente de la empresa naciente (startup) sin intenciones malévolas de lucro a una compañía más tratando de succionar ganancias capitalistas.

Aún así, no se sientan mal por Zuckerberg, ni teman por el futuro del servicio. A pesar de la campaña de rehabilitación, Facebook sabe que su negocio siempre fue y será el controlar y manipular la información de sus suscriptores y está preparada para mantener a sus usuarios cautivados con una plataforma cada vez más adictiva y el próximo lanzamiento de su productora de entretenimiento para competir con Netflix, Amazon y las que vienen de Disney y Apple.

juanmaria7@gmail.com
www.osomaloso.com


          08/08 Links Pt2: Dozens of rockets fired at south, IDF strikes 12 Hamas targets; Why the Nazi Analogy and Holocaust Inversion are Antisemitic; Murray: The Left is deceiving itself over antisemitism      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
From Ian:

As dozens of rockets fired at south, IDF strikes 12 Hamas targets in Gaza
Israel’s air force bombed 12 Hamas positions across the Gaza Strip Wednesday night, the military said, as dozens of rockets and mortar shells were fired at southern Israeli communities from the Palestinian enclave, including one barrage that slammed into the city of Sderot, injuring several Israelis.

Throughout the night, wave after wave of alarms sounded in the Hof Ashkelon, Sha’ar Hanegev and Eshkol regions, outside Gaza, sending thousands of Israelis into bomb shelters, where many bedded down for the night with their families.

There were no immediate reports of fresh Israeli injuries or damage.

According to the Israel Defense Forces, 36 projectiles were fired at southern Israel on Wednesday night, including the eight that were launched at Sderot.
Three hurt as rockets fired from Gaza slam into Sderot
Three people were injured when rockets fired from Gaza struck the southern Israeli town of Sderot on Wednesday evening, as tensions between Israel and the Palestinian enclave spiraled dramatically a day after Hamas vowed revenge for the deaths of two of its gunmen.

According to the Israeli military, eight rockets were fired at southern Israel from Gaza at approximately 7:40 p.m. Two of them were intercepted by the Iron Dome missile defense system, and at least two landed in the town of Sderot.

Police said officers were sent to four sites where rockets or fragments of Iron Dome missiles struck Sderot.

Dramatic video taken during the attack showed a rocket appearing to strike near where a group of children were huddled against a wall, apparently unable to reach a shelter in time.


IDF strikes Hamas posts in Gaza as fresh rocket sirens sound in south
Israel’s air force bombed a number of Hamas positions across the Gaza Strip Wednesday night, as rocket sirens blared in Israeli communities near the Palestinian enclave hours after a vollay of rockets slammed into the city of Sderot, injuring several Israelis.

Several waves of alarms were heard in the Hof Ashkelon, Sha’ar Hanegev and Eshkol regions, outside Gaza, sending thousands of Israelis into bomb shelters.

There were no immediate reports of injuries or damage.

The Iron Dome missile defense system intercepted a number of incoming projectiles that were headed toward the Eshkol region, according to a local government spokesperson.



Alan Johnson: Why the Nazi Analogy and Holocaust Inversion are Antisemitic
The following is an excerpt from ‘Antisemitism in the Guise of Anti-Nazism: Holocaust Inversion in the United Kingdom during Operation Protective Edge’, a chapter that will appear in Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism: The Dynamics of Delegitimization, ed. Alvin H. Rosenfeld (Indiana University Press, forthcoming). The editor and publisher have kindly agreed to the advance publication of this excerpt in light of its topicality. The UK Labour Party is debating whether to incorporate the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, including all its accompanying examples, into its own statutes. This part of my chapter sets out why the use of the Nazi analogy to attack Jews, Israelis and ‘Zionists’ should be considered antisemitic, not least because, understanding more deeply the way racism actually works, the best anti-racist scholarship and practice has long abandoned the notion that for racism to be present, a racist subjectivity and motivation, provable to boot, must be co-present. As well as being cut by two-thirds, the chapter has been edited in a couple of places to help the reader. Thanks to Alvin Rosenfeld for making this possible. (Alan Johnson)

The Nazi analogy and Holocaust inversion, which involves ‘the portrayal of Israel, Israelis and Jews as modern-day Nazis, and Palestinians as the new Holocaust-era Jews’, is a moral disease.[i] The meaning of the analogy and the inversion —specifically, whether it is antisemitic—is contested. A locus of the dispute was the contrasting submissions of two academics, David Feldman and Ben Gidley, to the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Antisemitism’s inquiry into antisemitism in the United Kingdom during the Gaza conflict in the summer of 2014.[ii] The final report of the inquiry noted delicately that ‘there was some debate between those from whom we took expert testimony regarding the nuances of the definition of antisemitism when it comes to Nazi comparison.’[iii] In short, Gidley defined examples of Holocaust inversion as antisemitic discourse, but Feldman, director of the Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism at Birkbeck University, did not, arguing that ‘the fact that they are wrong and hurtful does not render them anti-Semitic.’[iv]

Feldman advanced two reasons to deny that Holocaust inversion is antisemitic discourse. First, the inversion is banal (my word, not his)—that is, it is a ‘much used rhetorical device,’ a common rhetorical trope used in many arguments about many subjects, often light-mindedly, lacking any specifically antisemitic content. Feldman cited attacks on the UK Independence Party as Nazis as one example of banality and Israel’s leaders calling its enemies Nazis as another. Second, Feldman pointed out that the inversion is not motivated by an anti-Jewish subjectivity. The target, he points out, was Israel, not Jews; therefore, the inversion cannot be antisemitic. Only when discourse ‘endorse[s] Nazi persecution of Jews’ (e.g., brandishing a ‘Hitler Was Right!’ placard on the high street, as at least one protestor did in 2014) did Feldman consider it antisemitic.[v]
PMW: Abbas running org. designated by Israel as a terror organization
This week the PLO announced 30 positions for top PLO leaders
It announced that Mahmoud Abbas is "responsible for the Palestinian National Fund"
Last year Israel declared the Palestinian National Fund a terror organization
Under Israel's 2016 Counter Terrorism Law: "One who heads a terror organization or manages it or takes part in directing the terror organization in general, directly or indirectly, his sentence - 25 years imprisonment"

The PLO has announced 30 top positions for PLO leaders. In addition to leading the PLO, Mahmoud Abbas is cited as "the one responsible for the Palestinian National Fund":
"1. Chairman Mahmoud Abbas - head of the PLO Executive Committee and the one responsible for the [Palestinian] National Fund" [Official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Aug. 2, 2018]

On March 16, 2017, Israeli Minister of Defense Avigdor Liberman declared the Palestinian National Fund a terrorist organization, due to the fund's "massive support for elements responsible for committing severe acts of terrorism against Israel," and because the fund serves "as a significant financial pipeline for tens of millions of shekels that are transferred on a monthly basis to security prisoners held in Israel for committing acts of terrorism and to members of their families."

What is the significance of Mahmoud Abbas now being "responsible" for a terror organization?

According to Israel's "Counter Terrorism Law 2016-5776": "Heading a terrorist Organization
20. One who heads a terror organization or manages it or takes part in directing the terror organization in general, directly or indirectly, his sentence - 25 years imprisonment;"
Kuwait Airlines to pay damages for denying Israeli passenger service
Kuwait Airways will pay an Israeli citizen damages for refusing to sell her a plane ticket in November 2017.

Mandy Blumenthal filed a racial discrimination and harassment lawsuit with the assistance of U.K. Lawyers for Israel against Kuwait Airways after they refused to sell her a plane ticket to Bangkok once she presented an airline representative with her Israeli passport, Britain's Jewish News reported.

The incident was caught on video.

Blumenthal said, "It is horrible to be singled out, to be told you are not allowed to do something because of who you are. … In my mind, it is an anti-Semitic policy to single out the only Jewish state to boycott."

David Berens, one of Blumenthal's attorneys, said, "The law is clear: Direct discrimination on grounds of nationality in the provision of a service to the public is illegal. Ms. Blumenthal has done a service in showing up Kuwait Airways' illegal policy. Kuwait Airways is now legally obliged to end this policy or end its services from the U.K. altogether."
Douglas Murray: Jeremy Corbyn and the cynical tactics of the left
There is the decent option – which is also the hardest. This would consist of sincerely trying to work out why the main party of the British left is now led by a man who keeps turning up in every international anti-Semitic fever swamp. There doesn’t seem like there’s much of an appetite for that option.

So then there are the indecent options. These include attempting to change the subject while merely pretending to deal with the first matter. For the time being this appears to be the most attractive alternative.

Thus it is that portions of the left have decided to counter what they regard as the ‘anti-Semitism card’ with the ‘Islamophobia card’. Of course there are other people hanging around with not very much to do who are very happy to join this bandwagon. ‘You criticise me for anti-Semitism? Fine – I raise you “Islamophobia”.’ How admirable. How cynical. How revealing.

Of course there are so many problems with this tactic (for tactic it is) that it is hard to know where to begin. How about with the basics? Such as the fact that anti-Semitism is a centuries (indeed millennia) old disease, rooted not in facts but in conspiracy-theories, and which in living memory led to the physical annihilation of a third of the world’s Jewish population. Whereas ‘Islamophobia’ is a concept invented by Islamists in the 1990s in order to try to prevent any and all criticism of the religion of Islam.

And just one problem that the proponents of ‘Islamophobia’ vs anti-Semitism will always keep coming across is the problem of what we used to call ‘the facts’. For instance, if two Muslims attack and decapitate a British soldier in broad daylight on the streets of London, or another two Muslims cut the throat of an elderly priest as he is saying mass at a church in Rouen, what are we to say about this? Those who throw around ‘Islamophobe’ want us to say that the people shouting ‘Allah Akbar’ while they slit the throats of infidels are not Muslims. If you fail to toe this line then you are an ‘Islamophobe’.
Douglas Murray: The Left is deceiving itself over antisemitism
The Labour party’s antisemitism problem appears to be here to stay. And one reason for that lies deep beneath any one day’s news. It is not just that the Labour party under Jeremy Corbyn is riddled with antisemites from top to bottom: people who have existed in the party and its surrounding areas for years but who have only now had a light shone upon them. It is much, much more than that. The problem is that there remains a set of fundamental misunderstandings on the political Left over what antisemitism is and where it comes from.

In May, I wrote for this website about the roots of this misunderstanding, which are there for anyone with ears to hear. It is there when Jeremy Corbyn and his followers claim that they will “defeat” or “end” antisemitism; as though one of the world’s oldest hatreds is some medical problem which can be solved with the right medicine. Or if enough ‘will’ is deployed. As I said back then, most Jews will laugh darkly at the idea that you can ever ‘eradicate’ antisemitism.

But the misunderstanding is telling. And it leads to the problem underlying the latest eruption of charges and embarrassments within UK Labour. One of the causes – which can be heard among all of the cheerleaders on the Corbynite Left – is that antisemitism is basically a right-wing disease and something which ‘anti-fascists’ of the kind that Corbynites like to fancy themselves as being could not possibly fall into.

You can hear it in the more honest disputes and debates on the Labour Left: “How dare they use this accusation against us? Don’t they realise this is the sort of stick we use to beat them?”

Of all the simplistic readings of history that prevail in our time, this is one of the most disheartening. Which is why I am forever recommending that people – especially young people – read a book by the distinguished, liberal, New York-based writer Paul Berman.
UK delegation to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance issues statement condemning tampering with the International Definition of Antisemitism
The UK delegation to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) has issued a statement condemning efforts to tamper with the International Definition of Antisemitism by removing or amending the examples of antisemitism which form part of the definition.

The statement does not mention the Labour Party, but the timing and content of the statement appears to be a response to the Labour Party’s refusal to adopt a number of the examples in the definition.

In a pointed remark, the statement says: “Any ‘modified’ version of the IHRA definition that does not include all of its 11 examples is no longer the IHRA definition. Adding or removing language undermines the months of international diplomacy and academic rigour that enabled this definition to exist. If one organisation or institution can amend the wording to suit its own needs, then logically anyone else could do the same. We would once again revert to a world where antisemitism goes unaddressed simply because different entities cannot agree on what it is.”

Campaign Against Antisemitism welcomes IHRA’s intervention to defend the integrity of the definition. It should shame the Labour Party that its efforts to tamper with and undermine the definition precipitated such a move.
Leaked Labour papers reveal scale of challenge to tackle antisemitism
Leaked Labour disciplinary papers have laid bare the scale of the challenge the party’s governing body faces in tackling antisemitism.

The paperwork, seen by the Guardian, was sent to national executive committee (NEC) members on 3 July, ahead of a meeting of the governing body’s disputes panel, which can refer members for expulsion.

The papers for the disputes panel, which all members of the ruling body can attend, lay out the party’s case against suspended members, compiled by party officers who then recommend sanctions to take.

Around 70 cases are believed to be pending. However, the papers reveal only a minority were considered by the NEC because of time constraints. At least three of the most serious cases of antisemitism were referred to Labour’s highest disciplinary body for possible expulsion.

Examples considered by the disciplinary panel included:
- The founder of the controversial Facebook group Palestine Live calling it a “badge of honour” to be investigated by the party
- A member claiming the Israeli lobby had manufactured the party’s antisemitism crisis
- A member suggesting Adolf Hitler’s policy on Zionism “might not be mutually exclusive with his later actions”
(h/t Zvi)
Jeremy Corbyn reportedly applauded antisemitic poetry at Palestine Solidarity Campaign meeting
Jeremy Corbyn applauded the reading of an antisemitic poem during a meeting of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign in 2012 at which he was a guest speaker, according to a report from 2012 that has now come to light.

Anti-racism activist Richard Millett wrote in 2012 that Mr Corbyn sat on stage and listened while an anti-Israel activist, Claire Quinn, recited a poem entitled Israel is dying, applauding afterwards. Mr MIllett says that the poem included the lines: “It is now not the Nazi state but Israel that blocks the seas. ¬ It is not Auschwitz that stops the ship that carries hope and messages, ¬ But those that might have died there. ¬ So let this poem drive the Hope that heads for Gaza. ¬ The victims are now the torturers. ¬ Freedom must be for all not just the victors ¬ Whose victory brings forgetfulness of what they suffered once now brought to others.”

In other allusions to the atrocities of the Nazi regime, speakers compared Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto, where tens of thousands of Jews were forcibly imprisoned prior to being despatched to extermination camps, and asserted in reference to Israel that “no oppression or injustice has ever gone without falling. The apartheid regime ended, the collapse of Nazism…”

The International Definition of Antisemitism states that, “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis” is antisemitic.
CAA exposes Labour Councillor Irfan Mohammed, who shared Facebook post claiming Jews were warned to stay home on 9/11
Campaign Against Antisemitism has exposed a Labour councillor, Ifran Mohammed, who shared a Facebook post claiming that Jews were warned to stay home on 9/11.

Mr Mohammed is a councillor for the Ferndale Ward in Lambeth. According to Lambeth Council’s website, Mr Mohammed sits on the Equality Impact Assessment Panel and is a member of Faiths Together in Lambeth.

In stark contrast with his supposed commitment to equality and interfaith togetherness, on 5th December 2015 he posted a video on Facebook claiming that Jews “received a text message before the incident ‘Do not come to work in [sic] September 11’” and that there are “Israeli ties to the September 11 attacks”.

After Mr Mohammed failed to respond to our attempt to contact him, we provided details about the matter to the media. He did not respond to their requests for comment either, however he has been active on social media and has deleted the original Facebook post.

The claim that Jews were behind the 9/11 atrocities is one of the most vile antisemitic conspiracy theories of recent times, not least because so many Jews lost their lives that day.
Labour policy decision-maker George McManus suspended following antisemitic Facebook comment
George McManus, who sits on the Labour Party’s National Policy Forum as its first chair, has been suspended from his Party role after posting a Facebook comment about Tom Watson likening him to “Judas” for accepting donations from Jewish businessman Sir Trevor Chinn.

McManus wrote: “Apparently [the] Electoral Commission states that Watson received £50,000+ from Jewish donors. At least Judas only got 30 pieces of silver.” Judas was supposedly a disciple of Jesus who betrayed him for money, and is often used as a means of portraying Jews as money-obsessed and disloyal.

Labour MP Wes Streeting condemned Mr McManus’ post as an “antisemitic trope”, and veteran Labour activist Luke Akehurst decried it as “naked antisemitism, jumping straight to the medieval Christian version”.

Mr McManus’ suspension came after Luciana Berger, leader of the Jewish Labour Movement, submitted a formal complaint to the Party. In response to his suspension Momentum, which Mr McManus represents on the National Policy Forum, tweeted thanks to those who “drew attention to the appalling, antisemitic comment”, and assured their followers that Momentum will not tolerate “any antisemitism, racism or online abuse from candidates we support”.


IsraellyCool: WATCH: Johnny Rotten’s Epic Rant Against Jeremy Corbyn & The Labour Party; “I Am Jew!”
We already knew that former Sex Pistol Johnny Rotten was one of the most unorthodox defenders of Israel out there. So it might not surprise you to see this: an epic rant against Jeremy Corbyn and his antisemitism-plagued Labour party.

Do I even need to put up a language warning?!
New York Democrat Ocasio-Cortez cheered at Jewish museum event
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Democratic congressional candidate and rising progressive star, was cheered at an event at a Jewish museum Tuesday that did not touch on Israel or the Jewish community.

Ocasio-Cortez appeared at a conference hosted by the Immigrant Arts Coalition at the Museum of Jewish Heritage, participating in a panel focused on women in the arts. While politics did frequently come up, none of the panelists — including Ocasio-Cortez, who has been critical of Israel — mentioned Jews or Israel.
NGO Monitor: Analysis of EU-Funded Projects on Israeli Civil Society to I’lam Center
In 2016, the European Union (EU), via the European Neighbourhood and Partnership funding Instrument (ENI), provided the Israeli NGO Il’am Arab Center for Media Freedom Development and Research a total of €365,803 (2017-2019) for “The Creation of the Freedom Protection Council: Ensuring democratic space for Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) in Israel.” As indicated by this title and noted explicitly by the EU, “The overall objective of this action is to ensure active engagement of Civil Society Organisations by countering systemic barriers that limit their participation in policymaking processes.”1 The EU database lists the Van Leer Jerusalem Institute as a partner, and Van Leer refers to the role of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel in formulating this agenda.

Political lobbying as a central facet of this project is made explicit in a “strategic action plan” (Hebrew), which bears the EU’s logo on every page, published by I’lam.2 The plan calls for what amounts to opposition political activity: extensive lobbying efforts in the Knesset and multiple media campaigns. I’lam and its partners will “act in the Knesset and public sphere in order to form public and political coalitions whose aim will be to prevent legislation that harms freedoms and advances [legislation] that promotes them.”

The “[Freedom Protection] Council’s flagship demand” is expressed in lobbying efforts aimed at uniting MKs “who identify with the activities of the [left wing] organizations” in order to “initiate counter-legislation” aimed at fighting the right’s attempt to “aggressively promote its worldview, regardless of ideological or national minority groups.”

In addition, the contextual background of Il’am plan is highly politicized and derogatory, intimating throughout that Israel is not and never was a democratic country. Historically, the State of Israel was established “on the ruins of the Palestinian people, which was the demographic majority in the geographic region where [Israel] was founded.” For decades, the authors assert that Israel has maintained for decades a “sophisticated system of control consisting of a policy of segregation, dependence, and supervision.”
Contradicting Netanyahu, EU says it hasn’t stopped funding left-wing association
The European Union on Wednesday denied Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s claim that the bloc had agreed to halt its funding for an Israeli association of left-wing groups, saying it was merely “examining possible breaches of contractual obligations.”

A day after Netanyahu declared that the decision to terminate funds for the Freedom Protection Council stemmed from Israeli pressure, the EU said in a statement that such decisions were “for the EU to take, and for the EU alone.”

Israel charges that the Freedom Protection Council, established in 2017 by Arab-Israeli media freedom NGO I’lam, seeks to “delegitimize” Israel.

It is composed of representatives of dozens of leftist Israeli NGOs including B’Tselem and Adalah, with the stated objective of fighting attempts to limit democratic freedoms in the country and resisting attacks on human rights groups.
Jewish community grows angry, impatient with Sawant and Seattle Council
After a recent anti-Semitic event and the ongoing vandalism of a Jewish cemetery, some in Seattle’s Jewish community are left wondering if the city cares about their concerns.

In May, scores of local Jews called out Councilmember Kshama Sawant and the Seattle LGBTQ Commission for hosting a virulently anti-Semitic event. Others have been disgusted with the frequent vandalism of Bikur Cholim cemetery in Seattle, which seems to go unaddressed. And a younger demographic of Jewish Seattleites are dealing with open anti-Semitism, masquerading as a legitimate social justice movement, at the University of Washington.

Some see these issues indicative of a bigger concern for the Jewish community.

“I don’t think the city could care less [about the] straight-up anti-Semitism or slightly watered down anti-Zionism/BDS [Boycott, Divest, Sanctions Movement],” Ian Eisenberg, owner of Uncle Ike’s, told me. “The city doesn’t want to get involved. We are on our own [and] Sawant leads the charge.”

Others believe there are valid concerns, but that Seattle is a great place for the Jewish community.

“I don’t think they’re indicative of any kind of broad-based movement or reflection of anti-Semitism or how Jews have quality of life here,” Democratic State Senator Reuven Carlyle (WA-36) explained to me. “I think, overall, you have a really fabulous connection to the community and the vast views of the majority of Seattle reflect well upon the Jewish community and our overall quality of life.”
IsraellyCool: Radical Leftist Group Jewdas Calls Bibi Netanyahu a “Known Antisemite” & “Notorious Jew-Hater”
A radical leftist group Jewdas has published a vile piece claiming – wait for it – that Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is antisemitic according to the IHRA working definition of antisemitism.

Netanyahu is antisemitic, according to IHRA definitions

World leaders have been criticised for sharing a platform with known antisemite, Benjamin Netanyahu.

Donald Trump, Angela Merkel and Theresa May have all come under fire for meeting the notorious Jew-hater and prime minister of Israel.

The Israeli Prime Minister, self-styled as ‘Bibi’ has become notorious worldwide for Jew-baiting, racist stereotyping and Holocaust minimisation.

In her most scathing teshuva yet, Rabbi Geoffrey Cohen denounced Netanyahu as a racist. “Several times in the last year, Bibi has egregiously flouted the IHRA examples of antisemitism. Any world leader who meets with this man is guilty of racism by association.”
Amazon Selling "Make Israel Palestine Again" T-Shirts
Amazon.com is selling T-shirts that say "Make Israel Palestine Again," a not so subtle endorsement of ending the State of Israel. The shirts are listed as "In Stock. Ships from and sold by Amazon.com." This stands in contrast with some merchandise Amazon sells that comes from third-party sources.

Similar shirts are available on Etsy.com.

The slogan "Make Israel Palestine Again" is used often on social media, including a Twitter page and an Instagram account. An image on the Twitter feed shows President Trump wearing a "Make America Great Again" hat Photoshopped to say "Make Israel Palestine Again."

Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) activist Miko Peled used the Trump-style "Make Israel Palestine Again" hat as his Twitter avatar and in a November 2016 post. Peled linked to a petition that calls Israel's existence into question.

The BDS movement aims to isolate Israel politically and economically using sanctions and boycotts of Israeli goods.
Rappers Tyga and Fat Joe Cause Cancellation of Entire Music Festival in Israel, Citing ‘Security Situation’
American celebrity rappers Fat Joe and Tyga, who were slated to headline the Shaka music festival in Rishon Lezion on Thursday, cancelled suddenly on Sunday, citing the “security situation.”

The pair were set to be joined by a lineup of Israeli hip hop artists.

The sudden loss of the two top performers led to the cancellation of the entire festival. Ticket holders were informed that they would be able to secure refunds. Shocked fans expressed their disappointment on social media, with many asking “what security situation?”

Over the past several years, many musicians and other artists have come under pressure from the BDS movement to not perform in the Jewish state. It is unclear if the BDS movement played a role in this cancellation.

The performance was to be the first in Israel for Tyga and Fat Joe, both Grammy-nominated performers in the rap category. Last year’s Shaka Festival featured rapper Sean Paul, who performed for 15,000 attendees.
Muslim RA Resigns After ‘Physically Fight Zionists’ Remark
Stanford student Hamzeh Daoud seems to have deleted his Facebook now, but people who saw it in late July might’ve come across a post where he said: “I’m gonna physically fight Zionists on campus next year if someone comes at me with their ‘Israel is democracy bullshit’ 🙂 And after I abolish your ass I’ll go ahead and work every day for the rest of my life to abolish your petty ass ethnosupremacist settler-colonial state,” according to The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Hamzeh, who’s a member of Stanford’s Students for Justice in Palestine chapter, had second thoughts four hours later and changed the phrase “physically fight Zionists” to “intellectually fight Zionists,” but that didn’t stop his original post from making its rounds on the interwebs, with the College Republicans and others criticizing it.

The student released a statement Friday saying he is a “third-generation Palestinian refugee” and that he bears “trans-generational trauma.” Trans-generational trauma? What does that even mean? This is starting to remind me of black Americans who demand reparations for injustices that, while absolutely horrible, they, themselves, have not suffered. No, sorry, collectivism isn’t a Western principle.

Anyways, Hamzeh goes on to say “I apologize from the bottom of my heart to everyone who was triggered by it. I recognize that I was projecting my own trauma onto others in a way that is never acceptable.” He’s apparently enrolling in “trauma-based therapy” at Stanford and says he’s resigning from his position as RA to focus on his schoolwork and also to think about the consequences of his post.


University revises textbook that blamed victims of the Holocaust
A controversial textbook for a University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill fitness course has been revised for this fall, university officials say.

In a statement, the university said the department of exercise and sport science worked with the publisher of “21st Century Fitness” to make “multiple edits to the content and length of the book.”

“These edits are based on student and department faculty feedback and are part of an ongoing curriculum review process by the Exercise and Sport Science Curriculum Committee,” the statement said. “Among other changes, the publisher has confirmed that references to the Holocaust and to cancer as ‘a disease of choice’ had already been removed from the fall 2018 edition.”

It drew scorn from some for its references to a theory by Holocaust survivor and Austrian psychotherapist Victor Frankl about concentration camps. About Frankl and his philosophy, the book said: “The people in the camps who did not tap into the strength that comes from recognizing their intrinsic worth succumbed to the brutality to which they were subjected.”

Last week, a Jewish human rights organization demanded that UNC drop the textbook. The Simon Wiesenthal Center issued a news release saying the book should be removed by UNC because it “insults the memory of Holocaust victims.”
IsraellyCool: Israel Haters Make Up Another Fake BDS Victory
Quds News Network is claiming yet another victory for BDS – the cancellation of a friendly soccer match between Ireland and Israel.

There’s just one problem with this – it is completely false.

For a start, there is no news outlet reporting this (no, I do not consider Quds News Network to be an actual legitimate news outlet).

Then there’s the fact the BDS movement itself never got the memo; their call for the Irish Football Association (IFA) to cancel the friendly is still in play, with no news on their site of any victory in this regard.

Did I also mention that the IFA itself has said it has no intention of cancelling the friendly?
Michael Lumish: This Week on Nothing Left
Here is this week's episode of Nothing Left ...

3 min Editorial: the ECAJ and AIJAC attack on AJA

4 min Lauren Southern clip, in Lakemba

20 min Gideon Rozner, Inst of Public Affairs

51 min Dr Tanveer Ahmed, Muslim psychiatrist

1 hr 9 Raphael Ahren, Times of Israel

1 hr 30 Isi Leibler in Jerusalem, on Nation-State bill
How Holocaust experts want to help Zuckerberg solve Facebook’s denial dilemma
Holocaust experts want to meet with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg over the social network’s unwillingness to automatically remove anti-Semitic and Holocaust denial material.

The heads of organizations and experts involved in Holocaust and genocide education offered to meet with Zuckerberg and help raise Holocaust awareness within the Facebook community.

In late July, Zuckerberg said in an interview published online that he would not automatically remove Holocaust-denying posts from the social network he founded.

“Facebook must not allow complete and utter falsehoods about the Holocaust, and about the Jewish people, to go systematically unchecked,” the letter dated Tuesday to Zuckerberg says. “Virulent antisemitism is a proven pathway that leads from rhetorical hatred to actions of violence. Freedom of speech laws are not a reason to do nothing — inaction is always the opportunity for evil to flourish. All genocide starts with distortion of the truth and prejudice.”

The experts later say: “We offer you tangible, rapidly executable steps towards Facebook becoming part of the solution. We can deliver proven educational resources in multiple languages, ready for digital deployment with Facebook — important as you may wish to break the task down by different jurisdictions with different laws.”
Facebook: Farrakhan’s Anti-Semitic Conspiracy Theories Don’t Violate ‘Hate Speech’ Rules
Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan’s official Facebook page is rife with anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and other hateful speech, which have not been censored by Facebook content monitors, a Daily Caller News Foundation review of the page reveals.

Videos posted to Farrakhan’s Facebook page show the Nation of Islam leader claiming that Jews are secretly controlling government agencies to suppress black Americans and blaming Jews for “weaponizing” marijuana with “chemicals” to “feminize” black men.

Neither of those videos violate Facebook’s rules prohibiting hate speech, a Facebook spokeswoman told The Daily Caller News Foundation in a phone interview Tuesday.

Another video that showed Farrakhan warning against interracial marriage — which he blames on “the enemy” in Hollywood — to keep the black race “from being any further mongrelized,” was originally ruled not to violate hate speech rules, according to the Facebook spokeswoman.
Gaza man jailed for assaulting Jew wearing kippah in Switzerland
A Palestinian man who assaulted a Jewish man wearing a kippah on a train in Switzerland was sentenced to four months in prison for assault, but was not convicted of a hate crime.

The assault occurred in February aboard a train near Lausanne, the German-language 20 Minuten news website reported Monday. It had not been reported in major Swiss media prior to this week.

The perpetrator, a 40-year-old man who was born in Gaza, identified only as Mohammed, threw a shirt in the face of the victim, identified as Israel. He stole the victim’s water bottle, book and kippah, throwing the latter in a trash bin. Mohammed, who has multiple drug-related convictions, also stole Israel’s watch, broke his glasses and hit the Jewish man all over his body.

Mohammed told Israel he’d like to slit his throat, according to witnesses.

Johanne Gurfinkiel, the secretary-general of the CICAD watchdog group on anti-Semitism in Switzerland, said the details of the case suggest that Mohammed singled out Israel for attack because he was visibly Jewish. Yet Mohammed’s conviction, handed down last month, does not reference a hate crime as an aggravated element in the assault.

The 20 Minuten report did not say whether Mohammed indicated his motivation for assaulting Israel.
Report: Berlin Harbors 20% of German Anti-Semitic Crimes
According to German police, anti-Semitic crime affects Berlin more than any other German state, Tagesspiegel reported Tuesday. The police report is based on preliminary findings regarding 80 anti-Jewish crimes committed in Berlin in the first half of 2018, compared with Bavaria which is in second place with 43 anti-Semitic offenses. Four of the 80 offenses in Berlin were violent.

There were 401 anti-Semitic incidents in the first six months of 2018 in Germany. Berlin, which is both the capital city and a state, experienced 20% of these.

According to police, the Berlin numbers went up in the second quarter of this year. From January to March, police recorded 26 anti-Semitic offenses in the city, and from April to June there were 54, including the four acts of violence. Most offenses, 62 in total, were committed by right-wing anti-Semites. In eight cases, the suspects were identified with “foreign ideology.” This is, of course, code for Muslims. Another three cases fell under “religious ideology,” meaning there was no way to deny that the perpetrators were Islamists. Three offenses were by leftsts. Four cases were not assigned an ideological source.

A total of 23 suspects were apprehended.
Neo-Nazi state senate candidate plans to establish 'antisemitic capital'
Patrick Little's Senate campaign against incumbent Diane Feinstein failed in April. Now Little is reportedly taking his message of antisemitism and white nationalism to North Idaho, where he claims he plans to establish a "regional capital" intended to fight "the nation-wrecking plans of leftists and their Jewish controllers who aim to ruin people forever."

Little espoused his message of hate and segregation via robocalls he allegedly left on the voicemails of residents of Sandpoint, Idaho. Playing in the background is The Rembrandts' hit 1995 single "I'll Be There for You," otherwise known as the theme song of sitcom "Friends."

"America has a Jewish problem," a chipper Little says to begin the call, audio of which was obtained by the Spokesman-Review. He goes on to announce his plans to make Sandpoint "one of my new regional capitals throughout the country" when he arrives in mid-August.

Little then says he is traveling around the nation to engage "with folks on the problems we face and how to solve them together as the extended family our European people are." He finishes by touting North Idaho's "pioneer spirit of hard work, family values, common sense and fighting off the nation-wrecking plans of leftists — and their Jewish controllers who aim to ruin our people forever."
Poland obtains archive of diplomats' efforts to rescue Jews
Poland has obtained a World War II-era archive that documents the efforts of Polish diplomats in Switzerland to get Jews out of Europe by issuing phony passports from Latin American countries.

The Culture Ministry and the Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum announced Monday that Poland had obtained the archive after more than a year of negotiations with a private owner in Israel.

The ministry and the museum said 330 people are known to have survived the Holocaust as a result of having the faked passports, while 387 were killed despite having the false documents and the fate of 430 others has not been determined.

The wartime effort to rescue Jews was led by Poland's ambassador to Switzerland at the time, Aleksander Lados, and included three other Polish diplomats and two representatives of Jewish organizations. The archive is named for one of the Jewish representatives, Rabbi Chaim Eiss, who died of a heart attack in late 1943.

Poland's purchase of the archive comes as the Polish government works to emphasize the help some Poles provided Jews during the Nazi occupation of the country.
A smiling setting sun for Brian Wilson
It was only a little more than two years ago when famed Beach Boys founder and pop composer Brian Wilson made his Israel debut, performing the 1966 masterpiece Pet Sounds in its entirety at the Ra’anana Amphitheater.

Thanks to his stellar band, featuring co-Beach Boys mate Al Jardine and 1970s member Blondie Chaplin, it was a triumph. They covered up Wilson’s deficiencies at the piano and vocals with a gorgeous glossy backdrop of sound and harmony.

Tuesday night at the Charles Bronfman Auditorium in Tel Aviv, the 76-year-old Wilson seemed even frailer and less involved. Recovering from back surgery in May, he needed a walker and assistants to get on stage for a ‘greatest hits’ show. Looking distracted and disengaged, he sang lead on only about half the tunes, and you couldn’t really tell whether he was playing much behind the white baby grand piano.

And yet… the show was a blast. Wilson’s songbook of classics is astounding, and his 10-piece band led by his secret weapon – longtime musical director and keyboardist Darian Sahanaja - did it justice with authenticity and enthusiasm. The slack was picked up by the spry 75-year-old Jardine, who led renditions of “Little Deuce Coupe” and “Help Me Rhonda” and by Jardine’s son, Matthew, whose spot-on falsettos sparked each song, especially his lead vocals on one of Wilson’s finest, “Don’t Worry Baby.”
Suzanne Vega returns to Israel for two shows
American singer-songwriter Suzanne Vega will be returning to Israel next month for two unique shows - both accompanied by a string orchestra from the Ra'anana Symphonette.

Vega's first performance will be at the Tamar Festival at Masada on September 26. The long-running festival, held on the intermediary days of Sukkot, also features an extensive lineup of local talent, including Rita, Sarit Haddad, David Broza, Avraham Tal and many more.

The following day, Vega will take the stage at the Haifa Congress Center for a second show.

The folk singer, who rose to fame in the 1980s, has released nine studio albums. Her most famous songs include "Luka," "Tom's Diner" and "Left of Center."

Vega most recently performed in Israel in 2015, when she played two shows in Tel Aviv with the Israel Philharmonic.
The Islamic school that ensures its boys understand the Israeli point of view
Abdul, 15, on the Israel team, says his side had to work harder: “I told the team, swallow your pride, just do it. Even after hours and hours of research we thought Palestine had a stronger argument, so to find an argument for Israel and the Jews to have this thing was really difficult.

“But we did find it, we found small things to pick out and expand on, and we were very close to actually winning. I was more on the other side but now I’ve got a bit more understanding and think Israel does have a point. In this school especially we are trying to become Muslim scholars but we have to go out there and we need to be aware of what’s going on – this is Britain, we need to understand British values. All of this will help us understand tolerance, etc. If we are biased to one opinion by ignorance then it’s not fair. No matter if they are Jews or whatever, they are still human. We have to respect them.”

Earlier this year, Davies split his Lancaster Grammar students into two groups. One was taught the Israeli view, the other the Palestinian. Afterwards, they were surveyed on the Balfour declaration and if the British should have signed it. Their answers were influenced by what they had been taught. Almost 60% of those taught the Jewish side said the British should be praised, while almost 50% of those taught the Palestinian narrative said the British should be criticised.
Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate - sent direct to you
Read more

After the Abrar lesson, just two boys say that they still believe Israel does not have a right to exist.

“Obviously you have to look at it with a sympathetic view when you are dealing with the Jewish part of things because they came out of the holocaust and needed a land of their own and Palestine did have a bit of space,” says Mohammed, 19.

“But what makes me say that Israel doesn’t have the right to exist is the fundamentals of what it was built on and how they deal with Palestine right now.” (h/t Zvi)



We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
          Social Network - Potenzia il tuo ecommerce. Come usare al meglio instagram per il tuo negozio online (Eshoppingadvisor)      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Eshoppingadvisor scrive nella categoria Social Network che: Instagram for Business, il social che a partire dalle immagini, collega eshop e acquirenti digitali di tutto il mondo! Privilegiato soprattutto dai giovani e dalle donne, il social acquistato qualche anno fa da Zuckerberg guarda oramai al business; sapersi destreggiare tra i suoi post e hashtag
vai agli ultimi aggiornamenti su: instagram ecommerce eshop feedback
1 Voti

Vai all'articolo completo » .Potenzia il tuo ecommerce. Come usare al meglio instagram per il tuo negozio online.
Potenzia il tuo ecommerce. Come usare al meglio  instagram per il tuo negozio online
          Youtube en passe de détrôner Facebook sur le podium des sites les plus visités aux États-Unis      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
top-5-v-2-768x432

La chute vertigineuse du trafic de Facebook ces derniers mois pourrait causer un sérieux tort au réseau social. De deuxième site le plus visité aux États-Unis, Facebook pourrait laisser sa place à YouTube selon une étude de Market Intelligence Central. Tandis que la fréquentation de la plateforme de Mark Zuckerberg décline de 8,5 à 4,7 […]

The post Youtube en passe de détrôner Facebook sur le podium des sites les plus visités aux États-Unis appeared first on Blog du Modérateur.


          After a catastrophic few weeks, Facebook could now lose its place as America's 2nd-biggest website in a 'paradigm shift'      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   

Mark Zuckerberg

  • Facebook has had a chastening couple of weeks, and it now seems likely to be overtaken by YouTube as the second-biggest website in the US.
  • The market-research firm SimilarWeb said Facebook's monthly visits had fallen from 8.5 billion two years ago to 4.7 billion in July, while YouTube has been quietly edging up.
  • Facebook's losses must be seen in context, however, as its portfolio is growing on the back of its app and other platforms, like Instagram.

The biggest share-price nosedive in Wall Street history, a shareholder revolt, another round of election meddling, and the barring of a notorious conspiracy theorist only after a rival had acted. It's been a cataclysmic couple of weeks for Facebook.

And, according to a study by SimilarWeb, the news is not about to get any better. In a blog post published Wednesday, the market-research firm said it thought Facebook was about to lose its place as the second-biggest website in America to YouTube.

In what SimilarWeb's Stephen Kraus described as a "paradigm shift," he said his projections suggested "YouTube's traffic will pull ahead of Facebook" as the runner-up to Google in the next two to three months.

Facebook's monthly visits fell from 8.5 billion two years ago to 4.7 billion in July, SimilarWeb found, while YouTube has been quietly edging up, hitting 4.5 billion visits last month. You can see the trend in SimilarWeb's chart below.

Facebook YouTube

There were signs of flattening in Facebook's second-quarter earnings in July, when it revealed that overall monthly active users in the US and Canada were flat at 241 million. It also lost a million users in Europe, where it had 376 million monthly active users in the three months that ended at the end of June.

But SimilarWeb said Facebook's losses over the past two years must be seen in context. While the main website may be shedding traffic, Facebook's network, including Instagram, WhatsApp, and Messenger, is actually growing. Use of the Facebook mobile app is also increasing.

"This transition reflects how Facebook is focused, not just on growth for their main site, but rather on expanding their entire ecosystem," SimilarWeb said. As Facebook noted in its earnings, 2.5 billion people — a third of the world's population — now use at least one of its products each month.

YouTube is now the primary destination for video

YouTube has established itself as the "primary entertainment/information source for the younger generation" and benefited from a "growing openness among consumers" to video, SimilarWeb said in the blog post.

Google remains comfortably the biggest website in the US, with 15.2 billion monthly visits. There's no danger of Facebook or YouTube knocking the search engine off its lofty perch anytime soon.

But another interesting trend SimilarWeb spotted was Amazon creeping ahead of Yahoo, in large part down to the success of Prime Day. "If current trends continue, Amazon will soon begin generating more traffic than Yahoo on a regular basis," the market-research company added.

SEE ALSO: Activist Facebook shareholder draws up a new proposal to fire Mark Zuckerberg as chairman

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: What people get wrong about superfoods


          Lối sống giản dị, tích cực của CEO công ty công nghệ 1.000 tỷ USD đầu tiên trên thế giới: dậy làm việc từ 3 giờ sáng, mua đồ lót giảm giá, tập gym hàng ngày      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   

CEO Apple, Tim Cook, hiện đã 57 tuổi và đang lãnh đạo công ty độc nhất trên thế giới có giá trị 1 nghìn tỷ USD. Apple cũng là công ty công nghệ đầu tiên trên thế giới đạt cột mốc này.

Thế nhưng, tài sản của Cook ít hơn nhiều so với CEO của các công ty khác có giá trị và doanh thu thấp hơn Apple. Cook hiện tại chỉ có trong tay khối tài sản 625 triệu USD, kém hơn rất nhiều so với mức hàng trăm, hàng chục tỷ của Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page...

Cook là con trai của một công nhân nhà máy đóng tàu và một dược sĩ. Ông tuyên bố rằng độc lực thúc đẩy ông làm việc không phải là tiền nong. Và những gì ông làm hay những nếp của ông đã chứng minh điều ấy.

Dưới đây là cách Tim Cook kiếm được số tiền hàng trăm triệu USD và cách ông ăn tiêu chúng:

Theo ước lượng năm 2017 của công ty Equilar, tài sản của Tim Cook rơi vào khoảng 625,37 triệu USD.

Lối sống giản dị, tích cực của CEO công ty công nghệ 1.000 tỷ USD đầu tiên trên thế giới: dậy làm việc từ 3 giờ sáng, mua đồ lót giảm giá, tập gym hàng ngày - Ảnh 1.

Số tài sản này chính yếu là cổ phiếu và cổ phần của Apple mà Cook nắm giữ, lên tới khoảng 622 triệu USD. ngoại giả, Cook còn có chân trong hội đồng quản trị của Nike, nơi ông nắm giữ số cổ phiếu trị giá khoảng 3,4 triệu USD.

Lối sống giản dị, tích cực của CEO công ty công nghệ 1.000 tỷ USD đầu tiên trên thế giới: dậy làm việc từ 3 giờ sáng, mua đồ lót giảm giá, tập gym hàng ngày - Ảnh 2.

Tài sản thực của Cook có thể cao hơn con số trên nhưng thông báo về bất động sản ông sở hữu, các khoản đầu tư ông thực hiện và tiền mặt ông có không được công khai.

Lối sống giản dị, tích cực của CEO công ty công nghệ 1.000 tỷ USD đầu tiên trên thế giới: dậy làm việc từ 3 giờ sáng, mua đồ lót giảm giá, tập gym hàng ngày - Ảnh 3.

Với 625 triệu USD, tài sản của Cook chẳng đáng gì so với các CEO công nghệ khác. Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg và Larry Page có trong tay khối tài sản hàng trăm, hàng chục tỷ USD.

Lối sống giản dị, tích cực của CEO công ty công nghệ 1.000 tỷ USD đầu tiên trên thế giới: dậy làm việc từ 3 giờ sáng, mua đồ lót giảm giá, tập gym hàng ngày - Ảnh 4.

Và dù rằng là công ty có giá trị lớn nhất thế giới hiện tại nhưng Apple chỉ tạo ra độc nhất một tỷ phú. Người đó chính là Laurene Powell Jobs, vợ của đồng sáng lập, CEO kí vãng Steve Jobs.

Lối sống giản dị, tích cực của CEO công ty công nghệ 1.000 tỷ USD đầu tiên trên thế giới: dậy làm việc từ 3 giờ sáng, mua đồ lót giảm giá, tập gym hàng ngày - Ảnh 5.

Trong năm 2017, Cook nhận lương 3 triệu USD từ Apple. Mức lương này cao hơn nhiều so với con số 900.000 USD mà ông nhận trong năm 2011, năm trước tiên nhận chức CEO.

Lối sống giản dị, tích cực của CEO công ty công nghệ 1.000 tỷ USD đầu tiên trên thế giới: dậy làm việc từ 3 giờ sáng, mua đồ lót giảm giá, tập gym hàng ngày - Ảnh 6.

Cook dìm mình là người đồng tính vào năm 2014 và không kết hôn, không có con. Ông sống một cuộc sống đơn thân, khép kín và đây là cách ông tiêu pha số tài sản triệu USD của mình.

Lối sống giản dị, tích cực của CEO công ty công nghệ 1.000 tỷ USD đầu tiên trên thế giới: dậy làm việc từ 3 giờ sáng, mua đồ lót giảm giá, tập gym hàng ngày - Ảnh 7.

Dù là triệu phú USD với hơn nửa tỷ USD trong tay nhưng Cook khá tằn tiện. Ông mua đồ lót trong đợt giảm giá hàng năm của Nordstrom.

Lối sống giản dị, tích cực của CEO công ty công nghệ 1.000 tỷ USD đầu tiên trên thế giới: dậy làm việc từ 3 giờ sáng, mua đồ lót giảm giá, tập gym hàng ngày - Ảnh 8.

"Tôi luôn muốn nhớ về khởi hành điểm của mình và sống trong môi trường khiêm tốn giúp tôi làm điều đó", Cook nói. "tiền bạc không phải là động lực của tôi".

Lối sống giản dị, tích cực của CEO công ty công nghệ 1.000 tỷ USD đầu tiên trên thế giới: dậy làm việc từ 3 giờ sáng, mua đồ lót giảm giá, tập gym hàng ngày - Ảnh 9.

Theo thông báo từ năm 2012, Cook sống trong căn biệt thự rộng hơn 220 mét vuông trị giá 1,9 triệu USD ở Palo Alto. Đây là một căn nhà tương đối khiêm tốn trong khu vực Bay Area với giá nhà trung bình hiện tại ở mức 3,3 triệu USD.

Lối sống giản dị, tích cực của CEO công ty công nghệ 1.000 tỷ USD đầu tiên trên thế giới: dậy làm việc từ 3 giờ sáng, mua đồ lót giảm giá, tập gym hàng ngày - Ảnh 10.

Cook ở văn phòng trong phần nhiều thời gian một ngày, ông thức dậy từ 3 giờ 45 sáng để đọc sách báo và đáp email.

Lối sống giản dị, tích cực của CEO công ty công nghệ 1.000 tỷ USD đầu tiên trên thế giới: dậy làm việc từ 3 giờ sáng, mua đồ lót giảm giá, tập gym hàng ngày - Ảnh 11.

Vì các lý do công việc, Cook chuyển di khá nhiều. Năm ngoái, riêng hoài phi cơ cá nhân của Tim Cook cũng đã lên tới 93.109 USD.

Lối sống giản dị, tích cực của CEO công ty công nghệ 1.000 tỷ USD đầu tiên trên thế giới: dậy làm việc từ 3 giờ sáng, mua đồ lót giảm giá, tập gym hàng ngày - Ảnh 12.

Với các chuyến du lịch cá nhân chủ nghĩa, Cook thường chọn những địa điểm trong nước như Công viên Quốc gia Yosemite.

Lối sống giản dị, tích cực của CEO công ty công nghệ 1.000 tỷ USD đầu tiên trên thế giới: dậy làm việc từ 3 giờ sáng, mua đồ lót giảm giá, tập gym hàng ngày - Ảnh 13.

Trong một chuyến du lịch năm 2016, Cook đã đưa cháu trai của mình thi bang lai moto a2 tới thăm trọng tâm Giao dịch Chứng khoán New York.

Lối sống giản dị, tích cực của CEO công ty công nghệ 1.000 tỷ USD đầu tiên trên thế giới: dậy làm việc từ 3 giờ sáng, mua đồ lót giảm giá, tập gym hàng ngày - Ảnh 14.

Cook cũng rất tích cực tập dượt, ông rất thích tập thể dục, leo núi và đạp xe đạp.

Lối sống giản dị, tích cực của CEO công ty công nghệ 1.000 tỷ USD đầu tiên trên thế giới: dậy làm việc từ 3 giờ sáng, mua đồ lót giảm giá, tập gym hàng ngày - Ảnh 15.

Cook tới phòng tập gym vào lúc 5 giờ mỗi sáng nhưng không phải phòng tập gym của Apple để đảm bảo sự tây riêng.

Lối sống giản dị, tích cực của CEO công ty công nghệ 1.000 tỷ USD đầu tiên trên thế giới: dậy làm việc từ 3 giờ sáng, mua đồ lót giảm giá, tập gym hàng ngày - Ảnh 16.

Ngoài số tiền cho cháu trai học xong đại học, Cook nguyện hiến sờ soạng tài sản của mình cho từ thiện khi ông chết thật.

Lối sống giản dị, tích cực của CEO công ty công nghệ 1.000 tỷ USD đầu tiên trên thế giới: dậy làm việc từ 3 giờ sáng, mua đồ lót giảm giá, tập gym hàng ngày - Ảnh 17.

          Donna Zuckerberg : Mark, l’Antiquité et les mâles blancs      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Specialiste de l’Antiquite, la soeur du fondateur de Facebook est en lutte contre les supremacistes blancs qui detournent l’heritage greco-romain. Interview.
          Quot Snl Quot Goes After Trump Zuckerberg      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
quot snl quot goes after trump zuckerberg
          Youtube en passe de détrôner Facebook sur le podium des sites les plus visités aux États-Unis      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
top-5-v-2-768x432

La chute vertigineuse du trafic de Facebook ces derniers mois pourrait causer un sérieux tort au réseau social. De deuxième site le plus visité aux États-Unis, Facebook pourrait laisser sa place à YouTube selon une étude de Market Intelligence Central. Tandis que la fréquentation de la plateforme de Mark Zuckerberg décline de 8,5 à 4,7 […]

The post Youtube en passe de détrôner Facebook sur le podium des sites les plus visités aux États-Unis appeared first on Blog du Modérateur.


          THE TROUBLE WITH A $5 COKE / THE CASEY REPORT      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   

The Trouble With a $5 Coke

By Nick Giambruno, editor, The Casey Report


Fight for $15!

This was the rallying cry of what eventually became the largest fast-food strike in US history.

It all started in late 2012, when over 100 New York City fast-food workers walked off their jobs, demanding higher wages.

Many made minimum wage. They were struggling to make ends meet as rent, utilities, medical care, and the overall cost of living continued to rise much faster than their wages.

The “Fight for $15” movement quickly spread across the country.

I think it’s a troubling sign of what lies ahead for US politics. And it has serious investment implications.


Minimum Wage, Maximum Stupidity

The economic stupidity of minimum wage laws should be easy to grasp. But, as American journalist H.L. Mencken once noted, “Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.”

In short, minimum wage laws are really a prohibition on voluntary employment. Employees sell labor. Employers buy it.

And in a free market, the price of labor would be the wage on which they voluntarily agree.

The price of labor is governed by the laws of supply and demand, just like any scarce factor of production.

But the US labor market is not a free market. Minimum wage laws are the chief reason why.

These laws are really a form of price control—in this case, on the price of labor. And price controls always create destructive distortions in the market. Here, that means unnecessary unemployment and artificially high prices passed on to consumers.

Even the Congressional Budget Office admits that 500,000 jobs would be lost if the US government raised the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10.

How many hundreds of thousands of jobs (or more) will be lost when the Fight for $15 movement eventually succeeds is anyone’s guess.



Protestors demand a $15 minimum wage

The Fallout Hurts Low-Skilled Workers

Minimum wage laws are no different than government-mandated prices on other input costs.

Take aluminum cans, for example. Suppose the government sets the price of an aluminum can at $5… far above its market price.

Coca-Cola would have to pass along that artificially high cost to its consumers to stay in business.

But how many people would spend over $5 for a can of Coke?

Few people would buy something so artificially expensive. That’s particularly true when there’s a ready alternative—like glass or plastic bottles—which Coca-Cola could sell at market prices.

The end result would be a glut of $5 Coke cans sitting on store shelves. Nobody would buy them.

In this scenario, the problem isn’t that people don’t want Coke. They do.

The problem is the artificially high price of aluminum cans… which leads to the artificially high price of Coke… that just sits on shelves, gathering dust, until eventually, Coca-Cola drastically cuts back production because of lack of demand.

A similar dynamic plays out when the government mandates the price of labor. But instead of Coke cans, potential employees sit on the shelves while employers eliminate jobs they otherwise wouldn’t, and are forced to pass on higher prices to consumers that they otherwise wouldn’t.

The plain truth is, not every job generates $15 an hour worth of output. And some workers would much rather accept jobs that pay less than $15 than have no job at all.

But federal, state, and local governments prohibit this voluntary arrangement to varying degrees with minimum wage laws. (The federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. At $12.50 an hour, Washington, DC currently has the country’s highest minimum wage.)

So employers don’t hire them. They’re no more likely to overpay for labor than you are to pay $5 for a Coke. And workers remain needlessly unemployed.

This is how minimum wage laws hurt the low-skilled people they’re supposedly designed to help.

It also leaves companies with no choice but to raise prices, hire fewer people for fewer hours of work, or find alternatives. Increasingly, that means turning to machine automation.

Take McDonald’s, for example. The company is implementing mobile ordering and digital kiosks to automate the ordering process. It’s on pace to replace human cashiers in 5,500 restaurants in the coming years, according to a recent study.

McDonald’s self-service kiosks


Meanwhile, Shake Shack recently announced its first “cashless shack” in New York. It will be the company’s first restaurant to exclusively use self-ordering kiosks.

The shift towards automation in the fast food industry is a direct response to the Fight for $15 movement. As the government forces companies to pay an increasingly higher price for labor, more will look to machines to stay competitive.

Perverse as it may be, this is the inevitable result of the higher minimum wage laws that Fight for $15 is pushing for. Yet, the movement is growing…

The Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which represents nearly two million workers in the United States and Canada, now supports it. Rising socialist Bernie Sanders and an increasing number of other politicians are also on board.

“Fight for $15” Is Just the Tip of the Iceberg

I think Fight for $15 is only one symptom of a much larger epidemic. It points to an increasingly radical political environment that will have serious financial consequences.

Polls suggest that a majority of millennials (people born between 1982 and 2004) now favor socialism. And a growing number favor outright communism—if it’s implemented “correctly.”

By next year, millennials are expected to surpass baby boomers as the nation’s largest living adult generation. This is one of the reasons Bernie Sanders and other socialists are growing in popularity.

The Chair of the Democratic Party recently declared a young, millennial socialist who won a New York City primary “the future of our party.”

There’s No Such Thing as Free Money

Bernie and his fellow socialists are not offering anything new. It’s just a heavier dose of the same bad medicine economic witch doctors have been prescribing for years.

One of their latest gimmicks, however, is beyond absurd. And the scariest part is that it’s gaining ground.

This dangerous gimmick is something called a “universal basic income”—or UBI, for short.

It’s where the government gives you money, just because. There’s no requirement to work or even display a willingness to work. You could sit at home all day, watch TV, and still get a check from the government.

Remember, even people living under communist regimes have to work. But with a universal basic income, the government simply hands out “free” money to everyone for doing absolutely nothing.

Let that sink in for a minute.

I think a universal basic income will become a pressing political issue in the near future. It’s becoming more popular in so-called academia. The political elite and Silicon Valley bigwigs are also embracing it.

Bernie Sanders and a number of prominent Democrats support a UBI. So does Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.

I expect more and more misguided Americans to accept a UBI as status-quo politicians, economists, and media talking heads support it… and as inflation pushes up the cost of living and more people feel the pinch.

The idea will be politically popular. Who would protest free money?

If the US adopts a UBI, it would be next to impossible to get rid of. Who would vote for a politician that stops the gravy train... or even one that slows it down?

The problem is… nothing in life is free. Expect more money-printing to pay for these policies.

That, in turn, will create more inflation.

I think anyone who’s serious about protecting their wealth in this dangerous environment should own some physical gold.
          Facebook Inc (FB) COB and CEO Mark Zuckerberg Sold $39.9 million of Shares      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Read more » »
Related Stocks: FB,
          Big Tech Shows "Net Neutrality" Battle Was About Power, Not an "Open Internet"      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   

The de-platforming of Alex Jones and InfoWars is a subject that has a number of layers to it, including the responsibilities social media companies have to free speech — particularly in a world where the lines between Big Tech and Big Government are increasingly blurred. While I’ll leave others to debate those particular subjects, these developments — and reactions to it — do help provide clarity to another heated tech-related debate: the hypocrisy of “net neutrality” advocates.

After all, there is a ton of overlap between those who advocated Title II regulation of the internet and those celebrating the deplatforming of Alex Jones. This is particularly true among the most powerful players in this debate, including legislators and leaders in the industry.

Consider, for example, the reaction from Big Tech to the FCC's repeal Title II regulation last December.

Facebook’s Sherryl Sansberg published a statement saying: “An open internet is critical for new ideas and economic opportunity. ... We're ready to work with members of Congress and others to help make the internet free and open for everyone.”

Google encouraged online activists to “take action,” in order to “protect the free flow of information and help make sure the Internet is available to everyone, everywhere.”

Apple went so far as to say:

An open internet ensures that hundreds of millions of consumers get the experience they want, over the broadband connections they choose, to use the devices they love, which have become an integral part of their lives.

What consumers do with those tools is up to them — not Apple, and not broadband providers.

Fast-forward eight months later and now those that demanded ISPs treat all content equally are the very same platforms actively deciding what content is or is not permissible for consumption.

This is hardly surprising to anyone who has paid attention to the debate. Google and Apple’s lip service to the importance of protecting tech startups has never jived well with their app stores serving as the greatest filters to what new products can be easily accessed by the consumer public. Tellingly, both have caved to government pressure whenever an app — no matter how popular — has frustrated legal authorities.

What is all the more repulsive about the tech giant’s contributions to the net neutrality debate is how potentially dangerous their disingenuous crusade was to the future of internet in America.

After all, largely overlooked in FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s willingness to stand up to Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page, and the other titans of tech is that it was a major victory for the future of online service: 5G.

As industry analysts like Peter Rysavy have explained:

"[N]etwork slicing, a key architecture for 5G, will allow an operator to provide different services with different performance characteristics to address specific use cases. It’s critical that quality of service management be employed in 5G because 5G is being designed for a wider range of use cases than prior technology generations and certain applications will need higher priority than other.”…

Even with access to new spectrum and peak throughputs that will exceed 1 Gbps, 5G networks will need to manage latency, reliability, massive numbers of connections and a mix of stationary and mobile users, Rysavy added. “The United States has assumed global leadership in 4G and enjoys deep LTE penetration, leading smartphone platforms, and a vibrant application ecosystem. But globally, countries and companies are investing in and concentrating on what will come next with 5G. Constraining 5G with rules that unnecessarily undermine its potential is economic folly,” he said.

Tellingly, the imposition of FDR-era-like regulation on internet service providers correlated with a significant decrease in telecom investment, stalling the development of American 5G at a time when America’s tech dominance is threatened by rivals like China.

This is not to say that private companies have an inherent responsibility to place “national interest” over their own bottom line, companies have the right to behave cynically. At the same time, those same companies deserved to be exposed for such behavior, and allow consumers to react accordingly.

Net neutrality was about control and regulatory capture, not online freedom. What tech giants are now counting on is that brand loyalty and market size will isolate them from the increased politicization of their content — something that may not be working out so well for Netflix.

At the end of the day, on the market it is consumers that are king. Will consumer apathy allow Silicon Valley to serve as America’s censor, or will we see a new brand of #WalkAway campaign?

That’s up to the American public to decide.  


          The “Swole” Edition      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   

Listen to the Waves by clicking the arrow on the audio player below:

Listen to the Waves via Apple Podcasts, Overcast, Spotify, Stitcher, or Google Play.

On this week’s episode of the Waves, Hanna, Noreen, and June discuss CBS CEO Les Moonves, who faces allegations of sexual misconduct following an exposé in the New Yorker. Nearly two weeks later, he’s still in charge of the network. What sets Moonves apart from the Harvey Weinsteins of the world, and what does it mean for #MeToo as a movement if he remains in power? Next, tech reporter Sarah Jeong’s appointment to the New York Times’ editorial board sparked controversy after far-right pundits dug up past tweets deriding white people. The hosts discuss the tenor of the tweets, the Times’ response, and where the discourse can go from here. Finally, Jeff Bezos and Tim Cook are ushering in a new era of swole tech execs, and both Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg have recently changed up their style. Are the new looks (and their reception) a reflection of changing values, or are the billionaires just succumbing to the same basic standards as the rest of us?

Slate Plus: Is it sexist to set out to find women to put on statues? And who would the hosts most want to see honored?

Other items discussed on the show:

Recommendations:

This podcast was produced by Veralyn Williams. Our production assistant is Alex Barasch.

The Waves plugs: Please remember to like our Facebook page. Send your emails to thewaves@slate.com. Tell us what we should cover in the next episode. Finally, our summer call-in show is coming up! If you have a question you’d like the hosts to answer, call (646) 907-9859 to leave us a voicemail.


          Donna Zuckerberg : Mark, l’Antiquité et les mâles blancs      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Specialiste de l’Antiquite, la soeur du fondateur de Facebook est en lutte contre les supremacistes blancs qui detournent l’heritage greco-romain. Interview.
          will we wake up in time?      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
tiny hayder


that's Isaiah's THE WORLD TODAY JUST NUTS "Tiny Hayder's Plea" and hayder's hoping the u.s. will save him and give him a 2nd term as prime minister after voters said no. 

we're all defrauded by our rulers.  glen ford ('black agenda report') notes:

A regime of permanent war and austerity -- the fate that both corporate parties plan for us -- requires the manufacture and perpetual maintenance of war hysteria, and the methodical suppression of popular demands for economic rescue of the affected classes. It demands Russiagate and the snuffing out of radical dissent. This is not about Hillary Clinton, although she was the presidential choice of the great bulk of the ruling class because she could be trusted to pursue permanent war and austerity. It’s about preserving and serving the oligarchy under capitalism in terminal decline.
“A regime of permanent war and austerity requires the manufacture and perpetual maintenance of war hysteria, and the methodical suppression of popular demands for economic rescue of the affected classes.”
A similar process is underway in Europe, where the welfare state is besieged by the ruling bankers and corporate chiefs. Some leftish pundits describe the corporate parties’ lashing out at “the left and the right” as an offensive of “the center” -- but that’s nonsense. In both the U.S. and Europe, the corporate governments are to the right of the public; they don’t represent some political “center” -- they represent only their corporate selves. The corporate leaders of the Democratic Party are positioned way to the right of Democratic voters, and also rightward of the general American pubic on most key economic issues. They are carrying out their corporate duties to preserve and maintain austerity and war.
This compels them to make a spectacle of Russiagate, and to ensure that the show never ends, but takes on new forms of hysteria. And it requires that internet-based dissent be brought to heal, as Hillary would say -- even at the cost of billions to one of the top oligarchs, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, who has been mercilessly bludgeoned by his fellow corporatists. Facebook’s political tampering with its algorithms to marginalize left-wing sites like BAR cannot help but suggest that the company also puts its fingers on the scales of the algorithms whose results are sold to advertisers. But Zuckerberg no doubt understands that the purge of “left and right” sites is in the best interest of his class, and has accepted to forgo some profits.

that's where they want to take it, to where we have no voice.  can we grasp that in time to stop it?  i don't know. 

let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'


Wednesday, August 8, 2018.

War, it brings big bucks to corporations.






In other stupidity . . .


People forget that the rate of tragic deaths in Iraq under Saddam was way higher than post war. They also forget that the biggest participation free elections ever in the country took place in 2007.
 
 



People forget?

People forget about national elections in Iraq in 2007?

Maybe because they didn't take place.  Parliamentary elections were at the end of 2005.  Provincial (or governorate) elections took place in January 2005.  Is he talking about either of those?  Iraq didn't have elections in 2007.

Guess he forgot that.

He also seems to have forgotten that Saddam Hussein has been labeled a War Criminal and that the Americans, the British, the Australians, et al, didn't go in promising 'we'll make it a little better,' they went in promising freedom.

He seems to forget a great deal -- and to remember even less.

On elections, let's go first to the KRG where parliamentary elections are supposed to take place in September.  This has been the plan.  But the US government isn't pleased so they once again insert Brett McGurk into the process.  He's been promising and more to try to stop these elections.

Remember in the spring of 2012?  Nouri al-Maliki refused to honor his promises in The Erbil Agreement (the 2010 agreement that the US negotiated to give Nouri a second term after the Iraqi voters said no).  He refused to form a power-sharing government (among other things).  As a result, the politicians spoke out.  Then they began a Constitutional effort to oust him.  This was Kurd Massoud Barzani, Shi'ite Ayad Allawi, Sunni Osama al-Nujaifi . . ..  It even included Shi'ite cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr.

Moqtada repeatedly said that they would drop the effort if Nouri would implement his side of the contract (The Erbil Agreement).  Nouri refused.  So they went forward.  The Constitution required that after the appropriate number of signatures were collected, the petition was turned over to the President of Iraq who had the purely ceremonial act of introducing it into Parliament.  The president was Jalal Talabani.  Under pressure from the US and offered bribes, Jalal refused to introduce the petition.  He then announced he needed emergency surgery and had to leave immediately for Germany.  (He had elective knee surgery.  Karma would bite him in his fat ass as the year closed out and he actually had a stroke and had to be taken to Germany.)

Where there's a dollar tossed, there's a Talabani.

Brett McGurk may not know much but he knows his way around a whore or two.

Which is how he got the Qubad Talabani to insist that the vote must be postponed.

Baxtiyar Goran (KURDISTAN 24) reports:


Qubad Talabani has no right to speak on behalf of all the political parties in the Kurdistan Region regarding the date of the upcoming parliamentary elections, a spokesperson for the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) said on Monday.
KDP spokesperson Mahmood Mohammed said in a statement that the party is against postponing the parliamentary elections, scheduled for Sep. 30, and that Talabani should not speak on behalf of other political parties.
Talabani, a senior member of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and Deputy Prime Minister of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), said all political parties are for postponing the elections.
Speaking at the opening of Sulaimani Airport’s new terminal on Monday, he claimed nobody had the courage to discuss postponing the elections publicly.
Talabani was assigned as head of the PUK electoral list for the upcoming parliamentary elections after the removal of Arsalan Baiz.
“[Talabani] should not have spoken on behalf of all the parties because every party has its own position that it is going to convey through its own institutions,” the KDP spokesperson said in the statement.


Maybe the PUK wouldn't do so poorly in the elections if one of the Talabanis had a spine?

As it is, they've destroyed the party.

And they lied to the entire country.

In 2012,  Iraqi President Jalal Talabani suffered a stroke.   The incident took place late on December 17, 2012 (see the December 18th snapshot) and resulted in Jalal being admitted to Baghdad's Medical Center Hospital.    Thursday, December 20, 2012, he was moved to Germany.  He remained there for a year and a half.  He was incapacitated.  But the Talabani family lied to everyone so that, as the Iraqi Constitution requires, Jalal wouldn't be removed from office.

They lied to the country.  They deceived the Iraqi people.  They propped him up and posed him for pictures -- leading Arabic media to mock it as WEEKEND AT BERNIE'S -- but they couldn't offer video because he couldn't speak.

He never spoke in public again.  Not even when he returned to Iraq 18 months after his stroke.

And yet a Talabani thinks they have a place to speak for the government today?

Iraq needed a president.  Yes, it's a ceremonial post.  But Iraq was in a very difficult position and it needed a president.  It's president was in a German sick bed and unable to speak or move.  Had the Iraqi people known that, they would have followed the Constitution and stripped him of his post.

This huge lie will not vanish.

Nor will the fact that Qubad is married to an American woman who, up until the marriage, worked for the US State Dept (far more controversial in Iraq is the fact that Sherri Kraham is Jewish).  Qubad already had the mark against him that he grew up in Europe, not the KRG, then he goes off and marries a foreigner and he's seen as even less representative of the Kurds.

Naturally, that's the one Brett would go after.


Will the KRG postpone their elections?  Hopefully not.  And the US government has done nothing for them.  It even attacked them for the non-binding referendum they held last September.



Hayder al-Abadi was a wee little man 
And a wee little man was he
He climbed up on the empire's coat tails
Cause his soul he wanted to sell 



Isaiah's THE WORLD TODAY JUST NUTS "Tiny Hayder's Plea" went up last night.

US puppet Hayder is in trouble -- as Tamer El-Ghobashy and Mustafa Salim's (WASHINGTON POST) reporting has made clear.

Then-US President Barack Obama installed him as prime minister in 2014.  He came into office with a lot of promises -- including that he'd end corruption.  Four years later, he's got nothing to show for it.

He announced last December that he'd defeated ISIS but ISIS has refused to play along with that claim.




May 12th, Iraq held national elections.  Ahead of the elections, there had been big hopes -- these hopes included a large turnout.   Ali Jawad (ANADOLU AGENCY) noted, "A total of 24 million Iraqis are eligible to cast their ballots to elect members of parliament, who will in turn elect the Iraqi president and prime minister."  RUDAW added, "Around 7,000 candidates have registered to stand in the May 12 poll, with 329 parliamentary seats up for grabs."  AFP explained that the nearly 7,000 candidates includes 2014 women.  THE SIASAT DAILY added, of the nearly 7,000 candidates, "According to the electoral commission, only 20 percent of the candidates are newcomers." Ali Abdul-Hassan and Sinan Salaheddin (AP) reported, "Iraqi women account for 57 percent of Iraq’s population of over 37 million, according to the U.N. Development Program, and despite government efforts to address gender inequality, the situation for Iraqi women has declined steadily since 2003.  According to the UNDP, one in every 10 Iraqi households is headed by a widow. In recent years, Iraqi women suffered further economic, social and political marginalization due to decades of wars, conflict, violence and sanctions." 


The other big hope?  For the US government, the biggest hope was that Hayder al-Abadi's bloc would come in first so that he would have a second term as prime minister.  It was not to be.  Mustapha Karkouti (GULF NEWS) identifies the key issues as follows, "Like in previous elections, the main concerns of ordinary Iraqis continue to be the lack of security and the rampant corruption."

As we noted the day of the election:

Corruption is a key issue and it was not a topic explored by candidates outside of Moqtada al-Sadr's coalition.  Empty lip service was offered.  Hayder al-Abadi, current prime minister, had been offering empty lip service for four years.  He did nothing.  Iraqis were supposed to think that, for example, Hayder's focus on ISIS in Mosul mattered.  All life was supposed to stop because of Mosul?  All expectations were to be ignored because of Mosul?

Arabic social media today and yesterday was full of comments about the lack of improvement in services.  It noted how the elections had not mattered before and, yes, how in 2010 the US government overturned the elections because they didn't like the outcome. 



So it was probably only surprising to the US government and their press hacks that Hayder wouldn't come in first.  But that was after the votes were counted.  On the day of the election, the big news was how so few were turning out to vote.  NPR reported, "With more than 90 percent of the votes in, Iraq's election commission announced voter turnout of 44.5 percent. The figure is down sharply from 60 percent of eligible voters who cast their ballots in the last elections in 2014." AP pointed out the obvious, "No election since 2003 saw turnout below 60 percent."  AFP broke it down even more clearly "More than half of the nearly 24.5 million voters did not show up at the ballot box in the parliamentary election, the highest abstention rate since the first multiparty elections in 2005 [. . .]."

Repeatedly in the months ahead of the election, the western press assured us Hayder would win re-election, he would lead, he was a shoe-in, he was . . .

A loser.

He didn't come in first.  He didn't come in second.  He came in third.

The sitting prime minister came in third.

That's a huge rejection.

And protests have been taking place since the start of last month because Iraqis are tired of the corruption, tired of the lack of jobs, tired of not having electricity or potable water.

Hayder's tried some for-show measures to end the protests.  They've not been successful.  He's tried using the military to intimidate and attack the protesters (and at least 14 protesters have been killed).

Hayder is a failure.

The US government wants their puppet to stay in place.  The Iraqi people do not want that.

In 2010, the US government went around the Iraqi people to give Nouri al-Maliki a second term.  Will they do that this year with Hayder?  It's really important to grasp that it is Nouri's second term that allowed the Islamic State to take hold in Iraq.

In other violence, Belkis Wille (Human Rights Watch) notes:


The horrific case of an Iraqi woman apparently murdered at home should prompt Iraq’s new parliament, once formed, to finally pass a draft domestic violence law which has been pending since 2015.
According to Iraqi media and BBC Arabic, one day last week a bridegroom returned his bride to her parents the day after their wedding, complaining that she was not a virgin. Media reports claim that upon hearing the accusation, a family member beat her to death. Media reports say that police have arrested a male relative.
While the man will likely now face trial for murder, it is possible that he may benefit from a reduced sentence under a provision in Iraq’s penal code allowing for shorter sentences for violent acts – including murder – for so-called “honorable motives.” But there is no “honor” in such brutal and needless killing. Moreover, the murdered bride would be just one of hundreds of women and children who suffer violence at the hands of their families in Iraq each year.
If passed, Iraq’s new domestic violence law would oblige the government to protect domestic violence survivors, including with restraining orders and penalties for breaching them, and the creation of a cross-ministerial committee to combat domestic violence. It would also require the government to provide shelters so women at risk of violence have a safe place to go if they are forced to flee their home.
The draft law is not perfect. It contains several flaws, including a preference for families to address violence through “reconciliation committees” rather than prosecution, and could be improved. Iraqi authorities should also set clear penalties for the crime of domestic violence, and close the loophole that lets abusers receive reduced punishments for so-called “honor” crimes, both not addressed in the draft law.

If improved, this draft law is the best chance Iraq’s new parliament has to tackle the scourge of violence in the home, fulfill its international legal obligations on domestic violence, and save the lives of countless Iraqi women and children.



Lastly, in the US, Peter Van Buren has been banned from Twitter for the crime of free speech.



Peter Van Buren: Twitter Suspends Me Forever
 
 
Scott Horton, Peter Van Buren, and Dan McAdams have been suspended from Twitter. If you go to their accounts, you will see their old tweets, but they are prohibited from making new tweets. They were reported by for criticizing his posts. Please complain to Twitter.
 
 
Dear please immediately restore the account of Peter Van Buren . He hasn't done anything wrong and hasn't broken any of Twitter's rules or Terms of Service.
 
 

The following community sites -- plus Jody Watley, BLACK AGENDA REPORT and PACIFICA EVENING NEWS -- updated:



  •           Journalists, scholars ask Facebook to review rules for research on the site      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
    Mark Zuckerberg has been requested this in a letter, to which he has asked to respond by 7 Sept.
              Platforms, Speech And Truth: Policy, Policing And Impossible Choices      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   

    Warning 1: I'm about to talk about an issue that has a lot of nuance in it and no clear "good" answers -- and it's also one that many people have already made up their minds on one way or the other, and both sides will probably not really like at least part of what I have to say. That's cool. You get to live your own life. But, at the very least, I hope people can acknowledge that sometimes issues are more complex than they appear and having a nuanced discussion can be helpful, and I hope people can appreciate that.

    Warning 2: This is a long post, so I'm going to provide a TLDR at the top (right under this, in fact), but as noted above, a part of the reason it's long is because it's a complex issue and there's a lot of nuance. So I strongly advise that if your initial response to my TLDR version is "fuck you, you're so wrong because..." maybe try reading the whole post first, and then when you go down to the comments to write out "fuck you, you're so wrong..." you can explain yourself clearly and thoroughly and address the actual points in the post. Thanks!

    TLDR: Internet sites have every right in the world to kick people off their platforms, and there's no legal or ethical problem with that. No one's free speech is being censored. That said, we should be at least a bit concerned about the idea that giant internet platforms get to be some sort of arbiter of what speech is okay and what speech is not, and how that can impact society more generally. But there are possible solutions to this, even if none are perfect and some may be difficult to implement, and we should explore those more thoroughly, rather than getting into screaming fights over who should or shouldn't be allowed to use various internet platforms.

    So, this post was originally going to be about the choices that Facebook and other internet platforms make concerning who is allowed on their platforms, specifically in response to an interview that Mark Zuckerberg gave back in July, in which he noted that he didn't think Facebook should remove Holocaust deniers from its platform, saying:

    I’m Jewish, and there’s a set of people who deny that the Holocaust happened.

    I find that deeply offensive. But at the end of the day, I don’t believe that our platform should take that down because I think there are things that different people get wrong. I don’t think that they’re intentionally getting it wrong, but I think... it’s hard to impugn intent and to understand the intent. I just think, as abhorrent as some of those examples are, I think the reality is also that I get things wrong when I speak publicly. I’m sure you do. I’m sure a lot of leaders and public figures we respect do too, and I just don’t think that it is the right thing to say, “We’re going to take someone off the platform if they get things wrong, even multiple times.”

    This created a huge furor of people talking about trolling, Holocaust denialism, Overton windows and a bunch of other things. But it's a complex, nuanced topic, and I was trying to write a complex nuanced post. And just as I was getting somewhere with it... this week, a bunch of platforms, including Apple, YouTube and Facebook, removed at least some of Alex Jones accounts or content. This created another furor in the other direction, with people talking about deplatforming, censorship, free speech, monopoly power, and policing truth. And then when Twitter chose not to follow the lead of those other platforms, we were right back to a big furor about keeping hateful wackjob conspiracy theory assholes on your platform, and whether or not you should want to do that.

    Chances are no matter what I say is going to piss off pretty much everyone, but let's do the stupid thing and try to address a complex and extremely nuanced topic on the internet, with unflagging optimism that maybe (just maybe) people on the internet will (for a moment at least) hold back their kneejerk reactions of "good" or "bad" and try to think through the issues.

    Let's start with a few basic principles: no matter what crazy legal analysis you may have heard before, internet sites have every right to remove users for nearly any reason (there may be a few limited exceptions, but none of them apply here). Whether you like it or not (and you should actually like it), corporations do get rights, and that includes their First Amendment rights to have their sites appear how they want, along with deciding who not to associate with. On top of that, again, despite what you may have heard online about Section 230 of the CDA, platforms not only have the right to moderate what's on their platform without legal liability, they are actually encouraged to do so by that law.

    Indeed, if anyone knows this, it's Alex Jones, since Infowars' own terms of service makes it clear that Infowars can boot anyone it wants:

    If you can't read that, there's a long list of rules and then it says:

    If you violate these rules, your posts and/or user name will be deleted. Remember: you are a guest here. It is not censorship if you violate the rules and your post is deleted. All civilizations have rules and if you violate them you can expect to be ostracized from the tribe.

    One of the rare cases where I can say that, hey, that Alex Jones guy is absolutely right about that (and we'll leave aside the hypocrisy about him now flipping out about other sites applying those same rules on him).

    A separate point that also is important, and gets regularly ignored, is that "banning" someone from these platforms often has the opposite impact of what was intended. Depending on the situation, it might not quite be a "Streisand Effect" situation, but it does create a martyr situation, which supporters will automatically use to double down on their belief that they're in the right position, and people are trying to "suppress the truth" or whatever. Also, sometimes it's useful to have "bad" speech out in the open, where people can track it, understand it... and maybe even counter it. Indeed, often hiding that bad speech not only lets it fester, but dulls our ability to counter it, respond to it and understand who is spreading such info (and how widely).

    So, really, the question comes down to whether or not these platforms should be removing these kinds of accounts. But, before we should even answer that question, there's a separate question: which is what options are there for platforms to deal with content that they disfavor? Unfortunately, many people assume that it's a binary choice. You either keep the content up, or you take it down. But that hardly gets at the long list of possible alternatives. You can encourage good behavior and discourage bad behavior (say, with prompts if the system senses you're doing something bad, or with reminders, or by a community calling you out for bad behavior or lots of other options). Depending on the platform, you can minimize the accessibility or findability of certain content. You can minimize the reach of certain content. You can append additional information or put a "warning flag" on content. You can "shadow ban" content. You can promote "good" content to go with any content you deem to be bad. Or you can do nothing. Or you can set things up so that your users are able to help promote or minimize good or bad content. Or you can create tools that allow your users to set their own preferences and thresholds. Or you can allow third parties to build tools that do the same thing. The list goes on and on and on.

    And, yet, so much of this debate seems to ignore much of this (other than shadowbanning, which some people pretend is somehow evil and unfair). And, indeed, what concerns me is that while various platforms have tried some combinations of all of these things, very few seem to have really committed to these ideas -- and just get bounced back and forth between extreme pressure on two sides: "ban all the assholes" v. "how dare you fucking censor my favorite idiot."

    So with the question of Alex Jones or holocaust deniers, internet platforms (again) have every right to kick them off their platforms. They don't want to be associated with assholes? Good for them. But, at the same time, it's more than a bit uncomfortable to think that anyone should want these giant internet platforms deciding who can use their platforms -- especially when having access to those platforms often feels close to necessary to take part in modern day life*. It's especially concerning when it reaches the level that basically online mobs can "demand" that someone be removed. And this is especially worrisome when many of the decisions are being made based on the claim of "hate speech," a term that not only has an amorphous and ever-changing definition, but one that has a long history of being abused against at risk groups or those the government simply dislikes (i.e., for those who advocate for rules against "hate speech" think about what happens when the person you trust the least gets to write the definition).

    * Quick aside to you if you're that guy rushing down to the comments to say something like "No one needs to use Facebook. I don't use Facebook." Shut up. Most people do use Facebook. And for many people it is important to their lives. In some cases, there are necessary services that require Facebook. And you should support that rather than getting all preachy about your own life choices, good or bad.

    On top of that, I think that most people literally cannot comprehend both the scale and complexity of the decision making here when platforms are tasked with making these decisions. Figuring out which pieces of content are "okay" and which are "bad" can work when you're looking at a couple dozen piece of content. But how about a million pieces of content every single day? Or more? Back in May, when we ran a live audience "game" in which we asked everyone at a Content Moderation Summit to judge just eight examples of content to moderate, what was striking was that out of this group of professionals in this space there was no agreement on how to handle any piece of content. Everyone had arguments for why each piece of content should stay up, be taken down, or have flag appended to it. So, not only do you have millions of pieces of content to judge, you have a very subjective standard, and a bunch of individuals who have to make those judgment calls -- often with little training and very little time to review or to get context.

    Antonio Garcia Martinez, who worked at Facebook for a while, and has been a fairly outspoken critic of his former employer (writing an entire book about it) has reasonably warned that we should be quite careful what we wish for when asking Facebook to cut off speech, noting that the rest of the world has struggled in every attempt to define the limits of hate speech, and it's an involved and troubling process -- and yet, many people are fine with handing that over to a group of people at a company they all seem to hate. Which... seems odd. Even more on point is an article in Fortune by CDT's Emma Llanso (who designed and co-ran much of that "game" we ran back at the content moderation summit), warning about the lack of transparency when platforms determine this kind of thing, rather than, say, the courts. As we've argued for years, the lack of transparency and the lack of due process is also a significant concern (though, when Mark Zuckerberg suggested an outside due process system, people completely freaked out, thinking he was arguing for a special Facebook court system).

    In the end, I think banning people should be the "very last option" on the table. And you could say that since these platforms left him on for so long while they had their internal debates about him that that's what happened. But I don't think that's accurate. Because there were alternative solutions that they could have tried. As Issie Lapowsky at Wired pointed out in noting that this is an unwinnable battle, the "do nothing, do nothing, do nothing... ban!" approach is unsatisfying to everyone:

    When Facebook and YouTube decided to take more responsibility for what does and doesn't belong on their platforms, they were never going to satisfy all sides. But their tortured deliberations over what to do with Jones left them with only two unenviable options: Leave him alone and tacitly defend his indefensible actions, or ban him from the world's most powerful platforms and turn him into the odious martyr he now is.

    Instead, we should be looking at stronger alternative ideas. Yair Rosenberg's suggestion in the Atlantic is for counterprogramming, which certainly is an appealing idea:

    Truly tackling the problem of hateful misinformation online requires rejecting the false choice between leaving it alone or censoring it outright. The real solution is one that has not been entertained by either Zuckerberg or his critics: counter-programming hateful or misleading speech with better speech.

    How would this work in practice?

    Take the Facebook page of the “Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust,” a long-standing Holocaust-denial front. For years, the page has operated without any objection from Facebook, just as Zuckerberg acknowledged in his interview. Now, imagine if instead of taking it down, Facebook appended a prominent disclaimer atop the page: “This page promotes the denial of the Holocaust, the systematic 20th-century attempt to exterminate the Jewish people which left 6 million of them dead, alongside millions of political dissidents, LGBT people, and others the Nazis considered undesirable. To learn more about this history and not be misled by propaganda, visit these links to our partners at the United State Holocaust Museum and Israel’s Yad Vashem.”

    Obviously, this intervention would not deter a hardened Holocaust denier, but it would prevent the vast majority of normal readers who might stumble across the page and its innocuous name from being taken in. A page meant to promote anti-Semitism and misinformation would be turned into an educational tool against both.

    Meanwhile, Tim Lee, over at Ars Technica, suggested another possible approach, recognizing that Facebook (in particular) serves multiple functions. It hosts content, but it also promotes certain content via its algorithm. The hosting could be more neutral, while the algorithm is already not neutral (it's designed to promote the "best" content which is inherently a subjective decision). So, let bad content stay on the platform, but decrease its "signal" power:

    It's helpful here to think of Facebook as being two separate products: a hosting product and a recommendation product (the Newsfeed). Facebook's basic approach is to apply different strategies for these different products.

    For hosting content, Facebook takes an inclusive approach, only taking down content that violates a set of clearly defined policies on issues like harassment and privacy.

    With the Newsfeed, by contrast, Facebook takes a more hands-on approach, downranking content it regards as low quality.

    This makes sense because the Newsfeed is fundamentally an editorial product. Facebook has an algorithm that decides which content people see first, using a wide variety of criteria. There's no reason why journalistic quality, as judged by Facebook, shouldn't be one of those criteria.

    Under Facebook's approach, publications with a long record of producing high-quality content can get bumped up toward the top of the news feed. Publications with a history of producing fake news can get bumped to the back of the line, where most Newsfeed users will never see it.

    Others, such as long-time free speech defender David French have suggested that platforms should ditch concepts like "hate speech" that are not in US law and simply stick to the legal definitions" of what's allowed:

    The good news is that tech companies don’t have to rely on vague, malleable and hotly contested definitions of hate speech to deal with conspiracy theorists like Mr. Jones. The far better option would be to prohibit libel or slander on their platforms.

    To be sure, this would tie their hands more: Unlike “hate speech,” libel and slander have legal meanings. There is a long history of using libel and slander laws to protect especially private figures from false claims. It’s properly more difficult to use those laws to punish allegations directed at public figures, but even then there are limits on intentionally false factual claims.

    It’s a high bar. But it’s a bar that respects the marketplace of ideas, avoids the politically charged battle over ever-shifting norms in language and culture and provides protection for aggrieved parties. Nor do tech companies have to wait for sometimes yearslong legal processes to work themselves out. They can use their greater degree of freedom to conduct their own investigations. Those investigations would rightly be based on concrete legal standards, not wholly subjective measures of offensiveness.

    That's certainly one way to go about it, but I actually think that would create all sorts of other problems as well. In short, determining what is and what is not defamation can often be a long, drawn out process involving lots and lots of lawyers advocating for each side. The idea that platforms could successfully "investigate" that on their own seems like a stretch. It would be fine for platforms to have a policy saying that if a court has adjudicated something to be defamatory, then they'll take it down (and, indeed, most platforms do have exactly that policy), but having them make their own determinations of what counts as defamation seems like a risky task, and what that would end up in a similar end state as where we are today with a lot of people angry at the "judgments from on high" with little transparency or right of appeal.

    As for me, I still go back to the solution I've been discussing for years: we need to move to a world of protocols instead of platforms, in which transparency rules and (importantly) control is passed down away from the centralized service to the end users. Facebook should open itself up so that end users can decide what content they can see for themselves, rather than making all the decisions in Menlo Park. Ideally, Facebook (and others) should open up so that third party tools can provide their own experiences -- and then each person could choose the service or filtering setup that they want. People who want to suck in the firehose, including all the garbage, could do so. Others could choose other filters or other experiences. Move the power down to the ends of the network, which is what the internet was supposed to be good at in the first place. If the giant platforms won't do that, then people should build more open competitors that will (hell, those should be built anyway).

    But, if they were to do that, it lets them get rid of this impossible to solve question of who gets to use their platforms, and moves the control and responsibility out to the end points. I expect that many users would quickly discover that the full firehose is unusable, and would seek alternatives that fit with how they wanted to use the platform. And, yes, that might mean some awful people create filter bubbles of nonsense and hatred, but average people could avoid those cesspools while at the same time those tasked with monitoring those kinds of idiots and their behavior could still do so.

    I should note that this is a different solution than the one that Twitter's Jack Dorsey appeared to ham-fistedly suggest this week on his own platform, in which he suggested that journalists need to do the work of debunking idiots on Twitter. He's not wrong, but what an awful way to put it. Lots of people read it to mean "we set up the problem that makes this giant mess, and we'll leave it to journalists to come along and sort things out for free."

    Instead, what I'm suggesting is that platforms have to get serious about moving real power out to the ends of their network so that anyone can set up systems for themselves -- or look to other third parties (or, even the original platforms themselves for a "default" or for a set of filter choices) for help. In the old days on Usenet there were killfiles. Email got swamped with spam, but there were a variety of anti-spam filters that you could plug-in to filter most of it out. There are ways to manage these complex situations that don't involve Jack Dorsey choosing who stays on the island and who gets removed this week.

    Of course, this would require a fundamental shift in how these platforms operated -- and especially in how much control they had. But, given how they keep getting slammed on all sides for the decisions they both do and don't make, perhaps we're finally at a point where they'll consider this alternative. And, hey, if anyone at these big platforms wants some help thinking through these issues, feel free to contact us. These are the kinds of projects we enjoy working on, as crazy and impossible as they may feel.



    Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

              Fake Aadhaar Including Biometric Data Being Traded on Closed Facebook Groups      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
    In his recent testimony in front of the US Congressional committee, Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg was questioned about the trade of illegal products on Facebook groups including firearms, controlled substances, and even animals. While Zuckerberg promised to take the necessary steps, he might not have imagined that Facebook groups could be even more dangerous and […]
              Comment on DML: My letter to Mark Zuckerberg by Laurie Matson      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
    A darn good spot on letter and I hope Zuckberberg has read it!!!
              Comment on DML: My letter to Mark Zuckerberg by Laurie Matson      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
    Please DML fans, please proof read your comments so that we understand what your trying to say. It gets so frustrating trying to make out what people are commenting and I really do want to read what your commenting!! 😊
              Comment on Tim Cook sends Mark Zuckerberg, YouTube, and Spotify scrambling over Infowars’ Alex Jones by Paul      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
    We are beginning to loose consensus on whether the earth is round or flat. And and there are pictures. So at some point it is OK to disengage. It can be fun for a bit and it can be a great mental clarifying activity but at some point you reach diminishing returns.
              Platforms, Speech And Truth: Policy, Policing And Impossible Choices      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   

    Warning 1: I'm about to talk about an issue that has a lot of nuance in it and no clear "good" answers -- and it's also one that many people have already made up their minds on one way or the other, and both sides will probably not really like at least part of what I have to say. That's cool. You get to live your own life. But, at the very least, I hope people can acknowledge that sometimes issues are more complex than they appear and having a nuanced discussion can be helpful, and I hope people can appreciate that.

    Warning 2: This is a long post, so I'm going to provide a TLDR at the top (right under this, in fact), but as noted above, a part of the reason it's long is because it's a complex issue and there's a lot of nuance. So I strongly advise that if your initial response to my TLDR version is "fuck you, you're so wrong because..." maybe try reading the whole post first, and then when you go down to the comments to write out "fuck you, you're so wrong..." you can explain yourself clearly and thoroughly and address the actual points in the post. Thanks!

    TLDR: Internet sites have every right in the world to kick people off their platforms, and there's no legal or ethical problem with that. No one's free speech is being censored. That said, we should be at least a bit concerned about the idea that giant internet platforms get to be some sort of arbiter of what speech is okay and what speech is not, and how that can impact society more generally. But there are possible solutions to this, even if none are perfect and some may be difficult to implement, and we should explore those more thoroughly, rather than getting into screaming fights over who should or shouldn't be allowed to use various internet platforms.

    So, this post was originally going to be about the choices that Facebook and other internet platforms make concerning who is allowed on their platforms, specifically in response to an interview that Mark Zuckerberg gave back in July, in which he noted that he didn't think Facebook should remove Holocaust deniers from its platform, saying:

    I’m Jewish, and there’s a set of people who deny that the Holocaust happened.

    I find that deeply offensive. But at the end of the day, I don’t believe that our platform should take that down because I think there are things that different people get wrong. I don’t think that they’re intentionally getting it wrong, but I think... it’s hard to impugn intent and to understand the intent. I just think, as abhorrent as some of those examples are, I think the reality is also that I get things wrong when I speak publicly. I’m sure you do. I’m sure a lot of leaders and public figures we respect do too, and I just don’t think that it is the right thing to say, “We’re going to take someone off the platform if they get things wrong, even multiple times.”

    This created a huge furor of people talking about trolling, Holocaust denialism, Overton windows and a bunch of other things. But it's a complex, nuanced topic, and I was trying to write a complex nuanced post. And just as I was getting somewhere with it... this week, a bunch of platforms, including Apple, YouTube and Facebook, removed at least some of Alex Jones accounts or content. This created another furor in the other direction, with people talking about deplatforming, censorship, free speech, monopoly power, and policing truth. And then when Twitter chose not to follow the lead of those other platforms, we were right back to a big furor about keeping hateful wackjob conspiracy theory assholes on your platform, and whether or not you should want to do that.

    Chances are no matter what I say is going to piss off pretty much everyone, but let's do the stupid thing and try to address a complex and extremely nuanced topic on the internet, with unflagging optimism that maybe (just maybe) people on the internet will (for a moment at least) hold back their kneejerk reactions of "good" or "bad" and try to think through the issues.

    Let's start with a few basic principles: no matter what crazy legal analysis you may have heard before, internet sites have every right to remove users for nearly any reason (there may be a few limited exceptions, but none of them apply here). Whether you like it or not (and you should actually like it), corporations do get rights, and that includes their First Amendment rights to have their sites appear how they want, along with deciding who not to associate with. On top of that, again, despite what you may have heard online about Section 230 of the CDA, platforms not only have the right to moderate what's on their platform without legal liability, they are actually encouraged to do so by that law.

    Indeed, if anyone knows this, it's Alex Jones, since Infowars' own terms of service makes it clear that Infowars can boot anyone it wants:

    If you can't read that, there's a long list of rules and then it says:

    If you violate these rules, your posts and/or user name will be deleted. Remember: you are a guest here. It is not censorship if you violate the rules and your post is deleted. All civilizations have rules and if you violate them you can expect to be ostracized from the tribe.

    One of the rare cases where I can say that, hey, that Alex Jones guy is absolutely right about that (and we'll leave aside the hypocrisy about him now flipping out about other sites applying those same rules on him).

    A separate point that also is important, and gets regularly ignored, is that "banning" someone from these platforms often has the opposite impact of what was intended. Depending on the situation, it might not quite be a "Streisand Effect" situation, but it does create a martyr situation, which supporters will automatically use to double down on their belief that they're in the right position, and people are trying to "suppress the truth" or whatever. Also, sometimes it's useful to have "bad" speech out in the open, where people can track it, understand it... and maybe even counter it. Indeed, often hiding that bad speech not only lets it fester, but dulls our ability to counter it, respond to it and understand who is spreading such info (and how widely).

    So, really, the question comes down to whether or not these platforms should be removing these kinds of accounts. But, before we should even answer that question, there's a separate question: which is what options are there for platforms to deal with content that they disfavor? Unfortunately, many people assume that it's a binary choice. You either keep the content up, or you take it down. But that hardly gets at the long list of possible alternatives. You can encourage good behavior and discourage bad behavior (say, with prompts if the system senses you're doing something bad, or with reminders, or by a community calling you out for bad behavior or lots of other options). Depending on the platform, you can minimize the accessibility or findability of certain content. You can minimize the reach of certain content. You can append additional information or put a "warning flag" on content. You can "shadow ban" content. You can promote "good" content to go with any content you deem to be bad. Or you can do nothing. Or you can set things up so that your users are able to help promote or minimize good or bad content. Or you can create tools that allow your users to set their own preferences and thresholds. Or you can allow third parties to build tools that do the same thing. The list goes on and on and on.

    And, yet, so much of this debate seems to ignore much of this (other than shadowbanning, which some people pretend is somehow evil and unfair). And, indeed, what concerns me is that while various platforms have tried some combinations of all of these things, very few seem to have really committed to these ideas -- and just get bounced back and forth between extreme pressure on two sides: "ban all the assholes" v. "how dare you fucking censor my favorite idiot."

    So with the question of Alex Jones or holocaust deniers, internet platforms (again) have every right to kick them off their platforms. They don't want to be associated with assholes? Good for them. But, at the same time, it's more than a bit uncomfortable to think that anyone should want these giant internet platforms deciding who can use their platforms -- especially when having access to those platforms often feels close to necessary to take part in modern day life*. It's especially concerning when it reaches the level that basically online mobs can "demand" that someone be removed. And this is especially worrisome when many of the decisions are being made based on the claim of "hate speech," a term that not only has an amorphous and ever-changing definition, but one that has a long history of being abused against at risk groups or those the government simply dislikes (i.e., for those who advocate for rules against "hate speech" think about what happens when the person you trust the least gets to write the definition).

    * Quick aside to you if you're that guy rushing down to the comments to say something like "No one needs to use Facebook. I don't use Facebook." Shut up. Most people do use Facebook. And for many people it is important to their lives. In some cases, there are necessary services that require Facebook. And you should support that rather than getting all preachy about your own life choices, good or bad.

    On top of that, I think that most people literally cannot comprehend both the scale and complexity of the decision making here when platforms are tasked with making these decisions. Figuring out which pieces of content are "okay" and which are "bad" can work when you're looking at a couple dozen piece of content. But how about a million pieces of content every single day? Or more? Back in May, when we ran a live audience "game" in which we asked everyone at a Content Moderation Summit to judge just eight examples of content to moderate, what was striking was that out of this group of professionals in this space there was no agreement on how to handle any piece of content. Everyone had arguments for why each piece of content should stay up, be taken down, or have flag appended to it. So, not only do you have millions of pieces of content to judge, you have a very subjective standard, and a bunch of individuals who have to make those judgment calls -- often with little training and very little time to review or to get context.

    Antonio Garcia Martinez, who worked at Facebook for a while, and has been a fairly outspoken critic of his former employer (writing an entire book about it) has reasonably warned that we should be quite careful what we wish for when asking Facebook to cut off speech, noting that the rest of the world has struggled in every attempt to define the limits of hate speech, and it's an involved and troubling process -- and yet, many people are fine with handing that over to a group of people at a company they all seem to hate. Which... seems odd. Even more on point is an article in Fortune by CDT's Emma Llanso (who designed and co-ran much of that "game" we ran back at the content moderation summit), warning about the lack of transparency when platforms determine this kind of thing, rather than, say, the courts. As we've argued for years, the lack of transparency and the lack of due process is also a significant concern (though, when Mark Zuckerberg suggested an outside due process system, people completely freaked out, thinking he was arguing for a special Facebook court system).

    In the end, I think banning people should be the "very last option" on the table. And you could say that since these platforms left him on for so long while they had their internal debates about him that that's what happened. But I don't think that's accurate. Because there were alternative solutions that they could have tried. As Issie Lapowsky at Wired pointed out in noting that this is an unwinnable battle, the "do nothing, do nothing, do nothing... ban!" approach is unsatisfying to everyone:

    When Facebook and YouTube decided to take more responsibility for what does and doesn't belong on their platforms, they were never going to satisfy all sides. But their tortured deliberations over what to do with Jones left them with only two unenviable options: Leave him alone and tacitly defend his indefensible actions, or ban him from the world's most powerful platforms and turn him into the odious martyr he now is.

    Instead, we should be looking at stronger alternative ideas. Yair Rosenberg's suggestion in the Atlantic is for counterprogramming, which certainly is an appealing idea:

    Truly tackling the problem of hateful misinformation online requires rejecting the false choice between leaving it alone or censoring it outright. The real solution is one that has not been entertained by either Zuckerberg or his critics: counter-programming hateful or misleading speech with better speech.

    How would this work in practice?

    Take the Facebook page of the “Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust,” a long-standing Holocaust-denial front. For years, the page has operated without any objection from Facebook, just as Zuckerberg acknowledged in his interview. Now, imagine if instead of taking it down, Facebook appended a prominent disclaimer atop the page: “This page promotes the denial of the Holocaust, the systematic 20th-century attempt to exterminate the Jewish people which left 6 million of them dead, alongside millions of political dissidents, LGBT people, and others the Nazis considered undesirable. To learn more about this history and not be misled by propaganda, visit these links to our partners at the United State Holocaust Museum and Israel’s Yad Vashem.”

    Obviously, this intervention would not deter a hardened Holocaust denier, but it would prevent the vast majority of normal readers who might stumble across the page and its innocuous name from being taken in. A page meant to promote anti-Semitism and misinformation would be turned into an educational tool against both.

    Meanwhile, Tim Lee, over at Ars Technica, suggested another possible approach, recognizing that Facebook (in particular) serves multiple functions. It hosts content, but it also promotes certain content via its algorithm. The hosting could be more neutral, while the algorithm is already not neutral (it's designed to promote the "best" content which is inherently a subjective decision). So, let bad content stay on the platform, but decrease its "signal" power:

    It's helpful here to think of Facebook as being two separate products: a hosting product and a recommendation product (the Newsfeed). Facebook's basic approach is to apply different strategies for these different products.

    For hosting content, Facebook takes an inclusive approach, only taking down content that violates a set of clearly defined policies on issues like harassment and privacy.

    With the Newsfeed, by contrast, Facebook takes a more hands-on approach, downranking content it regards as low quality.

    This makes sense because the Newsfeed is fundamentally an editorial product. Facebook has an algorithm that decides which content people see first, using a wide variety of criteria. There's no reason why journalistic quality, as judged by Facebook, shouldn't be one of those criteria.

    Under Facebook's approach, publications with a long record of producing high-quality content can get bumped up toward the top of the news feed. Publications with a history of producing fake news can get bumped to the back of the line, where most Newsfeed users will never see it.

    Others, such as long-time free speech defender David French have suggested that platforms should ditch concepts like "hate speech" that are not in US law and simply stick to the legal definitions" of what's allowed:

    The good news is that tech companies don’t have to rely on vague, malleable and hotly contested definitions of hate speech to deal with conspiracy theorists like Mr. Jones. The far better option would be to prohibit libel or slander on their platforms.

    To be sure, this would tie their hands more: Unlike “hate speech,” libel and slander have legal meanings. There is a long history of using libel and slander laws to protect especially private figures from false claims. It’s properly more difficult to use those laws to punish allegations directed at public figures, but even then there are limits on intentionally false factual claims.

    It’s a high bar. But it’s a bar that respects the marketplace of ideas, avoids the politically charged battle over ever-shifting norms in language and culture and provides protection for aggrieved parties. Nor do tech companies have to wait for sometimes yearslong legal processes to work themselves out. They can use their greater degree of freedom to conduct their own investigations. Those investigations would rightly be based on concrete legal standards, not wholly subjective measures of offensiveness.

    That's certainly one way to go about it, but I actually think that would create all sorts of other problems as well. In short, determining what is and what is not defamation can often be a long, drawn out process involving lots and lots of lawyers advocating for each side. The idea that platforms could successfully "investigate" that on their own seems like a stretch. It would be fine for platforms to have a policy saying that if a court has adjudicated something to be defamatory, then they'll take it down (and, indeed, most platforms do have exactly that policy), but having them make their own determinations of what counts as defamation seems like a risky task, and what that would end up in a similar end state as where we are today with a lot of people angry at the "judgments from on high" with little transparency or right of appeal.

    As for me, I still go back to the solution I've been discussing for years: we need to move to a world of protocols instead of platforms, in which transparency rules and (importantly) control is passed down away from the centralized service to the end users. Facebook should open itself up so that end users can decide what content they can see for themselves, rather than making all the decisions in Menlo Park. Ideally, Facebook (and others) should open up so that third party tools can provide their own experiences -- and then each person could choose the service or filtering setup that they want. People who want to suck in the firehose, including all the garbage, could do so. Others could choose other filters or other experiences. Move the power down to the ends of the network, which is what the internet was supposed to be good at in the first place. If the giant platforms won't do that, then people should build more open competitors that will (hell, those should be built anyway).

    But, if they were to do that, it lets them get rid of this impossible to solve question of who gets to use their platforms, and moves the control and responsibility out to the end points. I expect that many users would quickly discover that the full firehose is unusable, and would seek alternatives that fit with how they wanted to use the platform. And, yes, that might mean some awful people create filter bubbles of nonsense and hatred, but average people could avoid those cesspools while at the same time those tasked with monitoring those kinds of idiots and their behavior could still do so.

    I should note that this is a different solution than the one that Twitter's Jack Dorsey appeared to ham-fistedly suggest this week on his own platform, in which he suggested that journalists need to do the work of debunking idiots on Twitter. He's not wrong, but what an awful way to put it. Lots of people read it to mean "we set up the problem that makes this giant mess, and we'll leave it to journalists to come along and sort things out for free."

    Instead, what I'm suggesting is that platforms have to get serious about moving real power out to the ends of their network so that anyone can set up systems for themselves -- or look to other third parties (or, even the original platforms themselves for a "default" or for a set of filter choices) for help. In the old days on Usenet there were killfiles. Email got swamped with spam, but there were a variety of anti-spam filters that you could plug-in to filter most of it out. There are ways to manage these complex situations that don't involve Jack Dorsey choosing who stays on the island and who gets removed this week.

    Of course, this would require a fundamental shift in how these platforms operated -- and especially in how much control they had. But, given how they keep getting slammed on all sides for the decisions they both do and don't make, perhaps we're finally at a point where they'll consider this alternative. And, hey, if anyone at these big platforms wants some help thinking through these issues, feel free to contact us. These are the kinds of projects we enjoy working on, as crazy and impossible as they may feel.



    Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

              The Most Powerful Publishers in the World Don’t Give a Damn - The Atlantic      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
    @mathewi, @mims, @mhelft, @DavidClinchNews
              Comment on A NATO-Funded Team is Advising Facebook On Flagging “Propaganda” by A Four Person NATO-Funded Team Advises Facebook On Flagging “Propaganda” – The Greanville Post      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
    […] BE SURE TO PASS THESE ARTICLES TO FRIENDS AND KIN. A LOT DEPENDS ON THIS. DO YOUR PART.DEEP STATE PRESSURE ON SOCIAL MEDIA. Life-sized cutouts depicting Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg wearing “Fix Fakebook” T-shirts are displayed by advocacy group, Avaaz (a Soros tentacle) on the South East Lawn of the Capitol on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, April 10, 2018, ahead of Zuckerberg’s appearance before a Senate Judiciary and Commerce Committees joint hearing. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)by Tyler Durden, ZERO HEDGE / a crOsspost with mintpress news […]
              Good news: Facebook's web traffic has dropped by almost half in the last two years      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   

    A new study revealed that monthly page visits to the user-hostile social media site Facebook have dropped from 8.5 billion to 4.7 billion since 2016.

    From CNBC:

    "Although Facebook's app traffic has grown, it is not enough to make up for that loss, the study said. Facebook took a market tumble last month when it reported that the number of daily active users remained flat in North America in the second quarter, and declined in Europe."

    Meanwhile, traffic growth on YouTube is booming and will overtake Facebook as the second most popular website. The top spot is held by Google, which also owns YouTube.

    Image: Brian Solis/Wikimedia Commons. Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.



    Next Page: 10000

    Site Map 2018_01_14
    Site Map 2018_01_15
    Site Map 2018_01_16
    Site Map 2018_01_17
    Site Map 2018_01_18
    Site Map 2018_01_19
    Site Map 2018_01_20
    Site Map 2018_01_21
    Site Map 2018_01_22
    Site Map 2018_01_23
    Site Map 2018_01_24
    Site Map 2018_01_25
    Site Map 2018_01_26
    Site Map 2018_01_27
    Site Map 2018_01_28
    Site Map 2018_01_29
    Site Map 2018_01_30
    Site Map 2018_01_31
    Site Map 2018_02_01
    Site Map 2018_02_02
    Site Map 2018_02_03
    Site Map 2018_02_04
    Site Map 2018_02_05
    Site Map 2018_02_06
    Site Map 2018_02_07
    Site Map 2018_02_08
    Site Map 2018_02_09
    Site Map 2018_02_10
    Site Map 2018_02_11
    Site Map 2018_02_12
    Site Map 2018_02_13
    Site Map 2018_02_14
    Site Map 2018_02_15
    Site Map 2018_02_15
    Site Map 2018_02_16
    Site Map 2018_02_17
    Site Map 2018_02_18
    Site Map 2018_02_19
    Site Map 2018_02_20
    Site Map 2018_02_21
    Site Map 2018_02_22
    Site Map 2018_02_23
    Site Map 2018_02_24
    Site Map 2018_02_25
    Site Map 2018_02_26
    Site Map 2018_02_27
    Site Map 2018_02_28
    Site Map 2018_03_01
    Site Map 2018_03_02
    Site Map 2018_03_03
    Site Map 2018_03_04
    Site Map 2018_03_05
    Site Map 2018_03_06
    Site Map 2018_03_07
    Site Map 2018_03_08
    Site Map 2018_03_09
    Site Map 2018_03_10
    Site Map 2018_03_11
    Site Map 2018_03_12
    Site Map 2018_03_13
    Site Map 2018_03_14
    Site Map 2018_03_15
    Site Map 2018_03_16
    Site Map 2018_03_17
    Site Map 2018_03_18
    Site Map 2018_03_19
    Site Map 2018_03_20
    Site Map 2018_03_21
    Site Map 2018_03_22
    Site Map 2018_03_23
    Site Map 2018_03_24
    Site Map 2018_03_25
    Site Map 2018_03_26
    Site Map 2018_03_27
    Site Map 2018_03_28
    Site Map 2018_03_29
    Site Map 2018_03_30
    Site Map 2018_03_31
    Site Map 2018_04_01
    Site Map 2018_04_02
    Site Map 2018_04_03
    Site Map 2018_04_04
    Site Map 2018_04_05
    Site Map 2018_04_06
    Site Map 2018_04_07
    Site Map 2018_04_08
    Site Map 2018_04_09
    Site Map 2018_04_10
    Site Map 2018_04_11
    Site Map 2018_04_12
    Site Map 2018_04_13
    Site Map 2018_04_14
    Site Map 2018_04_15
    Site Map 2018_04_16
    Site Map 2018_04_17
    Site Map 2018_04_18
    Site Map 2018_04_19
    Site Map 2018_04_20
    Site Map 2018_04_21
    Site Map 2018_04_22
    Site Map 2018_04_23
    Site Map 2018_04_24
    Site Map 2018_04_25
    Site Map 2018_04_26
    Site Map 2018_04_27
    Site Map 2018_04_28
    Site Map 2018_04_29
    Site Map 2018_04_30
    Site Map 2018_05_01
    Site Map 2018_05_02
    Site Map 2018_05_03
    Site Map 2018_05_04
    Site Map 2018_05_05
    Site Map 2018_05_06
    Site Map 2018_05_07
    Site Map 2018_05_08
    Site Map 2018_05_09
    Site Map 2018_05_15
    Site Map 2018_05_16
    Site Map 2018_05_17
    Site Map 2018_05_18
    Site Map 2018_05_19
    Site Map 2018_05_20
    Site Map 2018_05_21
    Site Map 2018_05_22
    Site Map 2018_05_23
    Site Map 2018_05_24
    Site Map 2018_05_25
    Site Map 2018_05_26
    Site Map 2018_05_27
    Site Map 2018_05_28
    Site Map 2018_05_29
    Site Map 2018_05_30
    Site Map 2018_05_31
    Site Map 2018_06_01
    Site Map 2018_06_02
    Site Map 2018_06_03
    Site Map 2018_06_04
    Site Map 2018_06_05
    Site Map 2018_06_06
    Site Map 2018_06_07
    Site Map 2018_06_08
    Site Map 2018_06_09
    Site Map 2018_06_10
    Site Map 2018_06_11
    Site Map 2018_06_12
    Site Map 2018_06_13
    Site Map 2018_06_14
    Site Map 2018_06_15
    Site Map 2018_06_16
    Site Map 2018_06_17
    Site Map 2018_06_18
    Site Map 2018_06_19
    Site Map 2018_06_20
    Site Map 2018_06_21
    Site Map 2018_06_22
    Site Map 2018_06_23
    Site Map 2018_06_24
    Site Map 2018_06_25
    Site Map 2018_06_26
    Site Map 2018_06_27
    Site Map 2018_06_28
    Site Map 2018_06_29
    Site Map 2018_06_30
    Site Map 2018_07_01
    Site Map 2018_07_02
    Site Map 2018_07_03
    Site Map 2018_07_04
    Site Map 2018_07_05
    Site Map 2018_07_06
    Site Map 2018_07_07
    Site Map 2018_07_08
    Site Map 2018_07_09
    Site Map 2018_07_10
    Site Map 2018_07_11
    Site Map 2018_07_12
    Site Map 2018_07_13
    Site Map 2018_07_14
    Site Map 2018_07_15
    Site Map 2018_07_16
    Site Map 2018_07_17
    Site Map 2018_07_18
    Site Map 2018_07_19
    Site Map 2018_07_20
    Site Map 2018_07_21
    Site Map 2018_07_22
    Site Map 2018_07_23
    Site Map 2018_07_24
    Site Map 2018_07_25
    Site Map 2018_07_26
    Site Map 2018_07_27
    Site Map 2018_07_28
    Site Map 2018_07_29
    Site Map 2018_07_30
    Site Map 2018_07_31
    Site Map 2018_08_01
    Site Map 2018_08_02
    Site Map 2018_08_03
    Site Map 2018_08_04
    Site Map 2018_08_05
    Site Map 2018_08_06
    Site Map 2018_08_07
    Site Map 2018_08_08
    Site Map 2018_08_09