FBI colluded with Facebook to rig the 2020 electdion

FBI blasted after Zuckerberg revealed their warning ahead of the Hunter Biden laptop story: ‘Collusion' https://t.co/6OSz31Ar8P

— Fox News (@FoxNews) August 26, 2022

Facebook is a conversation between friends

A commenter in the Wall Street Journal recently made this remark about Facebook:

 There's something that's been bothering me about all these social media kerfuffles.   Why do so many people on both sides think that people are so credulous as to believe anything they read on Facebook?  

You'd have to be a severe combination of ignorant and gullible , and I just don't think there are that many childlike people around.

This is a common  misconception about Facebook.  It's not an alternative version of CNN, ABC, the New York Times, or any part of what's referred to as "The Media."  Facebook is fundamentally different by its nature.

Here's my reply.

The answer to your question is that Facebook - for most people - is a conversation with friends.  It's not some potato on CNN spouting communist propaganda.  

Now, your friend may be wrong or have an idea with which you disagree. But because they are your friends, they probably agree with you.  Along with cat videos , pictures of the food they are eating, pictures of their kids and grandkids, their vacations, etc., they share ideas they find interesting, 

That's what Facebook is for most people.  It's a conversation with people you know but who are not in the same room or sitting at your dinner table.

So when Zuckerberg's minions try to silence your friends and you from the free discussion of ideas, when they label your beliefs and expressions as "wrong," or "misinformation,"  or remove you from their platform altogether, that's right up there with The Stasi - the secret police - coming for you because of a private conversation you are having.

‘Disgrace’: Twitter, Facebook censor Hunter Biden story

BIG TECH IS EVIL

 You might think the most powerful man in the world is the President of the United States. But you would be wrong.

Because as this past week has shown, the Big Tech companies have power over even him. No one in human history has had the kind of reach and influence now wielded by a small group of men on the west coast of America....

Despite Google’s famous early slogan, what they and other Big Tech companies have done throughout their history really is distinctly, deeply, evil.

Twitter, for instance, has become one of the most powerful companies in the world – accumulating vast sums of money for a tiny number of people.

The business model is simple. Every time some great controversy occurs, it enriches Twitter, which makes money from advertising, data harvesting and much more. (Yet it relies on others – you, me, people across the planet – to point out errors and correct what it publishes for free.)...

And as they have come to dominate, the way they have used their power has become increasingly outrageous. Before the November election in the US, a major corruption scandal emerged about the family of Joe Biden. The story was broken over successive days by the New York Post – America’s oldest and most venerable paper.

How did the tech platforms react? In the most egregious way imaginable. They censored the story.

Facebook and Twitter suspended the New York Post’s social media accounts. What is more, they prevented any and all other users from ‘sharing’ this story. So ahead of an election they decided what the American people could or could not know about one of their candidates. They did it because they wanted Joe Biden to win....

YouTube has a long history of simply lying about its own behaviour. Because it will get away with it. Because Big Tech always does.

But this week the companies made their biggest move yet, with Facebook and Twitter banning Trump. Twitter also suspended his National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and former Federal Prosecutor Sidney Powell, both Trump loyalists.

Blaming, or pointing fingers are Twitter, Facebook, Google and Apple is wrong.  A company is a curtain behind which actual people act.  In this case, actual people with actual names are committing unimaginable evil acts.  

The Curtain must be raised and these people exposed for the global criminals they are.

The Ministry of Truth

Earlier today there was an interesting discussion between Senator Dianne Feinstein and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. Feinstein used the example of a “Stop The Steal” group to initiate a conversation about a new U.S. program similar to “The Ministry of Truth”.

The Tech Titans

 

Facebook auto-generating pages for Islamic State, al-Qaida

Facebook does evil.

Google can and will swing millions of votes by the way it modifies its searches and prompts releases to Google customers.

The home run statement of Dr. Epstein, who admitted he was a Democrat, is that the rock bottom lowest effect of Google in a US election is 2.5 million votes if it uses its available tools to influence users in voter choices, with the upper effect in a range of more than 10 million votes.

Then it got very interesting as Senator Cruz questioned a Google rep on the company’s assertion that it is fair and impartial and would not attempt to influence political activities. Of course, that is a joke; everybody knows it is a joke and that Google execs are hair-on-fire leftists who would never consider voting for a Republican, and that’s just the beginning.

When confronted with Project Veritas tapes of Google exec commitment to the Democrat party success and willingness to organize an effort to make sure Trump was not re-elected, the Google representative was just short of speechless, claiming the position she took in the beginning of the examination, that she represented a company that was not in the business of influencing and manipulating the public.

Time to ban the collusion conspiracy theorists

Just when you thought the media’s credibility was hanging by a thread, along comes special counsel Robert Mueller’s final report — finding no Russia collusion with Trump’s 2016 campaign, shredding all the conspiracy theories and false accusations to smithereens.

After all, it was the left-wing media and countless Democrats, including chief conspiracy theorist Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), among others, who relentlessly trafficked Russian collusion propaganda the past few years to derail the Trump administration in an attempt to remove a duly elected president from office. But now, after multiple congressional investigations and the latest 22-month Mueller probe, all of which found no evidence of collusion, the verdict is in — #RussiaGate was a hoax.

A five-alarm disinformation campaign waged by complicit Hate-Trump media, corrupt deep state officials and hysterical Democrats that misled the American people by telling us day in and day out the president, his family and former campaign associates were in cahoots with Putin to steal the 2016 election from Hillary Clinton.

None of which turned out to be true, evidenced by Mueller’s report submitted on Friday to the attorney general that, after an exhaustive investigation led by an adversarial and aggressive prosecutor, didn’t recommend charging a single person in Trump’s orbit with collusion. Why? Because there was none — blowing an irreparable hole in the media’s credibility.

On Sunday a vindicated president tweeted “No Collusion, No Obstruction, Complete and Total EXONERATION. KEEP AMERICA GREAT!”

So now what?

For starters, Twitter, Facebook, Google and other Silicon Valley tech companies should remove all Russian collusion conspiracy theorists from their platforms.

After all, social media networks didn’t hesitate to ban Alex Jones of Infowars and others for spreading misinformation and/or conspiracy theories, so why not ban House Majority Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Hillary Clinton, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Schiff, Eric Swalwell, John Brennan, Beto O’ Rourke and scores of media hacks who’ve all done the same?

And what about Google? Will it continue to allow search results that yield now-debunked conspiracy theories surrounding Russian collusion and the Trump campaign? Or will they do the right thing and scrub misinformation and lies to stop the hoax from perpetuating?

Democratic Operatives Used Misleading Facebook Pages To Suppress GOP Turnout In Midterms

Putin and Liberal billionaire Reid Hoffman working together to undermine elections.

Despite overhelming evidence, the MSM insists that Facebook, Google and Twitter are not biased

Evergreen line from my story last week: “With his tweet...Trump has signaled that he and his Republican allies would continue to paint tech giants like Facebook and Twitter as villains in a longstanding culture war used to excite the conservative base.” https://t.co/iAKwBt2tdd https://t.co/1QKeFKNPRJ

— Oliver Darcy (@oliverdarcy) August 28, 2018

CNN's Oliver Darcy was responding to this tweet in his article attacking Trump for painting "tech giants like Facebook and Twitter as villains in a longstanding culture war used to excite the conservative base." Tellingly, his article did not once mention Facebook silencing conservative articles based on the premise they "look like spam," which took place the day before Trump's tweet.

CNN rushed to "debunk" the claims of Google's bias against conservatives, without mentioning the many lawsuits against Google! James Damore, the former senior software engineer who was fired after spreading a document asking questions about the tech gender gap, is suing Google for discrimination against conservatives. Prager University is suing Google and YouTube for discrimination against conservative content. YouTube continues to restrict access to PragerU videos.

Facebook recently "shadow banned" PragerU, preventing at least nine PragerU Facebook posts from reaching any of their 3 million followers. For good measure, Facebook also deleted some of their videos.

A survey early this year found that conservative employees in Silicon Valley tech companies live in fear that their political beliefs would be found out. James Damore said conservatives at Google are "in the closet" and that Google executives are digging through a secret mailing list in order to out them.

Tech companies like Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Twitter have relied on the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a far-left smear factory that brands conservative and Christian organizations "hate groups," listing them along with the Ku Klux Klan. In June, the SPLC had to pay $3.375 million to settle a defamation lawsuit against a Muslim reformer. About 60 organizations are considering separate defamation lawsuits against the group.

Amazon.com has excluded SPLC-designated "hate groups" from its charity program, Amazon Smile. The company exiled D. James Kennedy Ministries and Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a Christian legal nonprofit that has won 9 Supreme Court cases in seven years. D. James Kennedy Ministries is suing Amazon and the SPLC over this action.

More recently, the SPLC-designated "hate group" Jihad Watch and its founder Robert Spencer were de-platformed by Patreon, and then the crowdfunding site GoFundMe effectively stole thousands from Spencer.

Oftentimes, social media companies like Facebook and Twitter will temporarily ban conservatives for "hate speech," when the posts in question did not violate their safety standards. Christian scholar Robert Gagnon has been repeatedly suspended on Facebook, and in April the social media platform suspended a German history professor for saying that "Islam is not a part of German history."

Like the SPLC's "hate group" labels, these "hate speech" bans target conservatives, not liberals. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey has "fully" admitted that "our bias is more left-leaning." Is it really that much of a conspiracy theory — considering the lawsuits, the partnership with the SPLC, and the many isolated instances of conservatives finding themselves singled out — to suggest that tech companies have systematically targeted conservatives?

All this context and more gives important weight to Trump's claims that Google is biased against conservatives. Rather than address the mainstream conservatives attacked in these isolated incidents, however, mainstream media reporters continue to cite the bans on InfoWars as if they were the main issue.

Cunningly, Darcy ignored the de-platforming of Jihad Watch and the silencing of conservative articles as "spam." He wrote, "It was unclear what precisely the President's Friday tweet was referencing, but it came just weeks after Facebook, YouTube, and Apple removed content from far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and his fringe media organization InfoWars from their platforms."

Neither Trump's tweet last week nor his tweets Tuesday morning were about InfoWars. By mentioning InfoWars, however, Darcy associated the "conspiracy theory" of tech anti-conservative bias with a truly conspiratorial website.

PragerU, James Damore, Salena Zito, Jihad Watch, D. James Kennedy Ministries, and Alliance Defending Freedom are not InfoWars. Their experiences are real, and pending litigation against Google cannot be ignored in the discussion of whether or not Trump's tweets support a "conspiracy theory."

530 Sure Looks Like Facebook’s Lead Attorney Colin Stretch Lied to Congress While Under Oath

Facebook’s general counsel Colin Stretch may have not been completely truthful while under oath when taking questions in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on October 31, 2017.

Stretch was being grilled by Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) about the extent of Facebook’s ability to profile users on the social media website. Stretch told Kennedy that Facebook had done away with the ability of employees to compile or access profiles on individual users. Here’s a transcript of their relevant remarks:

Sen. Kennedy: Do you have a profile on me?

Stretch: Senator, if you’re a Facebook user, we would permit you to be targeted with an advertisement based on your characteristics and your likes along with other people who share similar characteristics and your likes along with other people who share–

Sen. Kennedy: Well, let’s do another one. Let’s suppose your CEO came to you, or not you, somebody who could do it in your company, maybe you could, and said, “I want to know everything we can know about Senator Graham. I want to know the movies he likes. I want to know the bars he goes to. I want to know who his friends are. I want to know what schools he went to.” You could do that, couldn’t you?

Stretch: So, I want to be—it is a very good question—the answer is absolutely not. We have limitations in place on our ability to review the person’s—

Sen. Kennedy: I’m not asking about your rules. I’m saying, you have the ability to do that, don’t you?

Stretch: Again, Senator, the answer is no. We’re not able—

Sen. Kennedy: You can’t put a name to a face to a piece of data? You’re telling me that?

Stretch: So we have designed our systems to prevent exactly that, to protect the privacy of our users.

Sen. Kennedy: I understand, but you can get around that to find that identity, can’t you?

Stretch: No senator, I cannot.

Sen. Kennedy: That’s your testimony under oath?

Stretch: Yes, it is.

Here's why his testimony is a lie (from the WSJ):

A small group of Facebook Inc. FB 1.49% employees have permission to access users’ profiles without the users finding out.

Yet any time a Facebook employee accesses a colleague’s personal profile, the colleague is notified through what is often referred to within the company as a Sauron alert—a reference to the all-seeing eye in the The Lord of the Rings trilogy, people familiar with the matter say.

Similar protections don’t exist for the two billion-plus Facebook users who don’t work for the company, the people said.

The dual standard for employees versus regular users is a window on Facebook’s struggle over how much to disclose to users about how their data is handled—an issue Facebook has recently tried to address with a raft of changes to the platform.

Kennedy specifically asked about the ablity to access user data, not the rules governing it.

Oh: FaceBook is Collecting Data on People Who Never Even Signed Up for FaceBook

Fascistbook is the biggest spy agency in the world.

Here Are All the Reasons It’s a Bad Idea to Let a Few Tech Companies Monopolize Our Data.

From Glenn  Reynolds:

That influence comes in part from data. Facebook, Google, Amazon, and similar companies are “data-opolies.” By that I mean companies that control a key platform which, like a coral reef, attracts to its ecosystem users, sellers, advertisers, software developers, apps, and accessory makers. Apple and Google, for example, each control a popular mobile phone operating system platform (and key apps on that platform), Amazon controls the largest online merchant platform, and Facebook controls the largest social network platform. Through their leading platforms, a significant volume and variety of personal data flows. The velocity in acquiring and exploiting this personal data can help these companies obtain significant market power.

Is it OK for a few firms to possess so much data and thereby wield so much power? In the U.S., at least, antitrust officials so far seem ambivalent about these data-opolies. They’re free, the thinking goes, so what’s the harm? But that reasoning is misguided. Data-opolies pose tremendous risks, for consumers, workers, competition, and the overall health of our democracy. Here’s why.

And from the article, this is the issue that is the most concern:

Economic power often translates into political power. Unlike earlier monopolies, data-opolies, given how they interact with individuals, possess a more powerful tool: namely, the ability to affect the public debate and our perception of right and wrong.

Many people now receive their news from social media platforms. But the news isn’t just passively transmitted. Data-opolies can affect how we feel and think. Facebook, for example, in an “emotional contagion” study, manipulated 689,003 users’ emotions by altering their news feed. Other risks of this sort include:

Bias. In filtering the information we receive based on our preferences, data-opolies can reduce the viewpoints we receive, thereby leading to “echo chambers” and “filter bubbles.”
Censorship. Data-opolies, through their platform, can control or block content that users receive, and enforce governmental censorship of political or religious information.
Manipulation. Data-opolies can promote stories that further their particular business or political interests, instead of their relevance or quality.

Playboy Latest to Delete Facebook Amid Data Handling Fallout

The beginning of the death spiral of data mining by the tech giants.  The problem is that their entire business model is based on data mining.

Trump hates Amazon, not Facebook

When you take one side in the culture war, expect to get hit.  Facebook is getting the headlines but Google and Amazon are also in the data mining business.

You're not Facebook's customer. You're Facebook's product.

From Ed Morrissey in The Week

But should anyone really be surprised that Facebook allowed access to the personal data of 50 million people to outside firms? After all, Facebook has been selling such access to advertisers for many years — and no one forces users to provide the data in the first place. Of all Cambridge Analytica's alleged sins, the data grabbing may be the least of all.

Facebook remains one of the most valuable companies in the world. Where, we might ask, is that value derived? After all, its 1.4 billion daily active users pay nothing for access to the platform, no matter how much they use it. It's free from top to bottom. The money comes from ads. And Facebook's entire advantage in selling ads is that because its user base is so big, it can promise advertisers the ability to target virtually any demographic group it wishes. (Want millennial homeowners in Kansas? Facebook surely has them. Retirees in Japan? It has them, too.)

Facebook sells ads based on what it knows about you. That's its core business. To think otherwise is foolish.

Facebook’s sole reason for being is to gather the most intimate data on its users and sell it to people who want out influence you. It’s their reason for being. And if you didn’t understand that you self-identify as an idiot.

Facebook Bans Bestselling Author over 'The Scandalous Presidency of Barack Obama'

Bestselling conservative author Matt Margolis has a new book coming out that is already banned on Facebook. Margolis's first book, The Worst President in History, which detailed the failures of the Obama administration, was an instant hit last fall. Margolis used social media to market his presidential biography to #1 on Amazon. When he tried to market his latest, The Scandalous Presidency of Barack Obama, he was banned from Facebook groups for six days with no explanation. This is the ad Margolis created and posted.

"I hate to think I'm being censored, and hope that's not the case," Margolis told PJM, "but Facebook's reputation makes that possibility hard to ignore. We're seeing companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Google actively censoring conservative ideas on their platforms. It is hardly far-fetched that big-tech censorship wouldn't include a book that doesn't fit the narrative they support."

The Slippery Slope of Internet Blacklisting

Margolis's book details the many scandals of Barack Obama's presidency, including the illegal gun running with the cartel dubbed "Fast and Furious" and the treacherous abandonment of Americans in Benghazi that led to many deaths. Contrary to Democratic claims that the Obama administration was "scandal-free," the truth could (and did) fill a book with the many outrages that occurred over the last eight years.

Margolis believes that there is a concerted effort to silence conservative points of view. "I fear this is only the beginning. Far -left trolls often posted bogus reviews of my last book on Amazon, calling it racist," revealed Margolis. "Companies like Facebook/Twitter/Google are certainly likely to take bogus accusations of racism to justify their censorship."

Facebook inflates its ad reach by millions, analyst claims

Facebook claims to reach more people than actually exist.  Perhaps they're counting the dead, like the Democrats do in election voting.

Facebook inflates the number of people who can see the advertisements on its platform, a Pivotal Research Group analyst said in a note.

Facebook's Ads Manager claims a potential reach of 41 million 18- to 24-year olds and 60 million 25- to 34-year olds in the United States, whereas U.S. census data shows that last year there were a total of 31 million people between the ages of 18 and 24, and 45 million in the 25-34 age group, the analyst said.

Fake news and the Washington Post

Facebook's Zuckerberg is trying to eradicate "fake news" from his product.  The problem is deciding what news if "fake."

For example is this fake or real: "Trump has no idea what’s going on in Syria." No idea? Doesn't know that there's a war going on?

It just happens that this headline is on the Washington Post website just below the story about fake news on Facebook.

Forget about Facebook which is devoted to cat pictures, how can we protect the American public from the fake news in the Washington Post?