Facebook’s stonewalling has been revealing on its own, providing variations on the same theme: It has amassed so much data on so many billions of people and organized it so confusingly that full transparency is impossible on a technical level. In the March 2022 hearing, Zarashaw and Steven Elia, a software engineering manager, described Facebook as a data-processing apparatus so complex that it defies understanding from within. The hearing amounted to two high-ranking engineers at one of the most powerful and resource-flush engineering outfits in history describing their product as an unknowable machine.

The special master at times seemed in disbelief, as when he questioned the engineers over whether any documentation existed for a particular Facebook subsystem. “Someone must have a diagram that says this is where this data is stored,” he said, according to the transcript. Zarashaw responded: “We have a somewhat strange engineering culture compared to most where we don’t generate a lot of artifacts during the engineering process. Effectively the code is its own design document often.” He quickly added, “For what it’s worth, this is terrifying to me when I first joined as well.”

[…]

Facebook’s inability to comprehend its own functioning took the hearing up to the edge of the metaphysical. At one point, the court-appointed special master noted that the “Download Your Information” file provided to the suit’s plaintiffs must not have included everything the company had stored on those individuals because it appears to have no idea what it truly stores on anyone. Can it be that Facebook’s designated tool for comprehensively downloading your information might not actually download all your information? This, again, is outside the boundaries of knowledge.

“The solution to this is unfortunately exactly the work that was done to create the DYI file itself,” noted Zarashaw. “And the thing I struggle with here is in order to find gaps in what may not be in DYI file, you would by definition need to do even more work than was done to generate the DYI files in the first place.”

The systemic fogginess of Facebook’s data storage made answering even the most basic question futile. At another point, the special master asked how one could find out which systems actually contain user data that was created through machine inference.

“I don’t know,” answered Zarashaw. “It’s a rather difficult conundrum.”

In her YouTube video, titled “Reading Makes You Hot,” which has more than 3.8 million views, Chamberlain describes how reading alleviates her anxiety and depression. She explains, “Reading is harmless. Going on social media is not harmless. It makes you sad, it makes you compare yourself to other people, it makes you depressed.” //

Millions of teens and young adults can relate to Chamberlain’s experience, and research has found a definite causal relationship between social media and depression. A study conducted by the University of Arkansas found that young adults who spent more than 300 minutes a day on social media platforms were “2.8 times as likely to become depressed within six months” than those who spent 120 minutes or less on social media.

According to Nicholas Carr’s bestselling book, “The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains,” the exhaustion many users experience after engaging with social media stems from the fact that “our social standing is, in one way or another, always in play, always at risk. The resulting self-consciousness — even, at times, fear — magnifies the intensity of our involvement with the medium. That’s true for everyone, but it’s particularly true for the young.”

Thus, trying to relax through social media is a contradiction of terms. //

Reading, on the other hand, is a rather abnormal activity from an evolutionary standpoint. It requires “an unnatural process of thought, one that demand[s] sustained, unbroken attention to a single, static object,” as Carr continues.

Strict mental discipline is needed to “resist the urge to let [one’s] focus skip from one sensory cue to another.” But by detaching from the distractions of the outside world, the reader develops the ability to think and process deeply, to digest and internalize the information being read in a way that no amount of internet research can replace.

Although reading thus poses a relaxing alternative to TikTok or Instagram, the transition process is not without its challenges. When she first began reading for leisure, Chamberlain realized that she “actually had forgotten how to read. I would read a whole page, I’d flip to the next page, and then I’d realize, ‘Oh wait, I absorbed no knowledge or information from that page.’ Then I’d go back and read the page again.”

She is not alone in her struggle. Reading comprehension has been declining in America for years, and lockdowns only exacerbated the situation. But Carr reassures us that rewiring your brain is possible. With enough training, those skills of deep concentration and focus can be relearned, or developed for the first time.

Just make sure to hide your smartphone while you practice.

In earlier court filings, Meta/Facebook warned that it might have to pull out of Europe if officials and courts can’t agree on data transfer regulations, though Meta VP of Global Affairs and Communications Nick Clegg has previously denied that would happen, saying that such a move would imperil Europe’s small and medium-sized businesses because of their reliance on targeted ads.

But the new filing suggests that Meta's business may be in peril if European law forces the company to halt data transfers to the US. If the company were to pull Facebook and Instagram from the market, it would “materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations,” Meta said in the SEC filing.

“First, let’s stipulate to an undeniable truth of history,” writes talk host, Steve Deace in a series of Twitter messages about the media, “whoever has control over the flow of information in any society ultimately has control.” And it’s why Mark Zuckerberg and his cronies want to have a bigger stake in local news.

During the last couple of days, PJ Media has highlighted an effort by the Facebook (now Meta) founder and other moneyed interests and foundations to save local newspapers and local news sources. Their idea has been to spend millions of dollars to embed reporters, in a program called Report for America (RFA), in America’s newspapers and public radio stations. Their stated objective is to tell “under-covered” stories in those cities, hamlets, and burgs out of the goodness of their hearts. //

But Zuckerberg’s overtures via the Report for America program can’t help but remind us of what Journalist H.L. Mencken is credited with once saying. “The urge to save humanity,” he said, “is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it.” He continued in the lesser-known second part of his axiom saying, “Power is what all messiahs really seek: not the chance to serve.” And so it is here.

And they use the one thing from which all local news sources suffer: a lack of money.

Because the news outlets must come up with only 25% of the salary of the Report for America soldier at first, the bait goes down easily. But, if past is prologue, there’s a hook. As I’ve forecasted, there will be trade-offs like there were when Democrats allowed Zuckerberg’s “Zuck Bucks” to buy their way into local election offices before the 2020 elections. //

Their bias isn’t in favor of objectivity or what we used to know as media fairness; it goes only one way. Their goal is to achieve political objectives, which they frame as the only true “democracy.” The term is being redefined in real-time.

Washington Post columnist Perry Bacon, Jr. in a Washington Post piece called “The rise of pro-democracy media” claims that “America’s news media is increasingly covering the growing radicalism of the Republican Party and its democracy-eroding behavior.” [emphasis added]

Canadian lawyer and popular YouTuber David Freihart has a term for that. He calls it “confession through projection.”

Now, what is this “democracy-eroding behavior”?

Well, coincidentally, it turns out that “democracy” is what the Left wants! This appears to be the destruction of norms, voting sanctity, borders, traditions, institutions, faith, the individual, the Constitution, and objective truth. For the moment, it is, Bacon claims, the “questioning of election results, targeting of election officials and push to ban discussions of race relations in schools [critical race theory, DEI] … and support for voting restrictions as the dangers to democracy that they are.”

The “pro-democracy” news media, Bacon says, is therefore no longer wasting time doing “a problematic ‘both sides’ approach to covering politics.” He says that the media could dispense with that “after Donald Trump became president,” because he claimed, reporters “couldn’t avoid covering him very negatively.” //

I have no doubt that some good coverage will come from this program, but let’s not kid ourselves; don’t expect any reportage on the “under-covered” areas of any western faith, preserving private property rights, border security, the U.S. Constitution, how farmers use water to grow food for the world, heroism, or individual freedom.

The erosion of trust in the Fourth Estate has been coming for a while as the mainstream media adopted a change in the way it does business.

The documents do show that Facebook is trying to do away with whitelisting. They indicated the company sought to eliminate complete immunity for “high severity” violations of its rules in the first half of 2021. However, it appears that by March, the company was experiencing challenges in that regard.

The documents also indicated that there are no plans to just treat high-profile users the same as the rest of the unwashed masses. One of the memos noted that the company does not “have systems built out to do that extra diligence for all integrity actions that can occur for a VIP.” Facebook seems to be trying not to take steps that could anger influential individuals using its platform. //

There are two motivators here: Politics and profit.

In general, Facebook tends to favor content created for a left-leaning audience. Its fact-checkers are decidedly partisan and tend to focus primarily on squashing right-leaning posts. It suspended Trump for two years under the guise of trying to eliminate incitements to violence. But the reality is that the company engages in this censorious activity because they have an agenda to serve.

Additionally, Facebook doesn’t want to risk angering the rich and famous individuals using its platform because they could decide to use a different social media company. They don’t want to lose those clicks and advertising dollars. In essence, this wouldn’t be as big an issue if they were honest about it. But, that’s not the world we live in now, is it?

Virtual idols are the future of false religion. With 3 billion users and zero sense of sacred boundaries, Facebook is poised to lead this revolution. //

The Church of Facebook is set to capture the human soul in silicon. On July 25, the New York Times reported that since 2017 the social media giant has quietly cultivated exclusive partnerships with select religious communities. As always, money is involved.

While Facebook’s ultimate goals remain sealed behind non-disclosure agreements, the Times article does hint at things to come: “The company aims to become the virtual home for religious community, and wants churches, mosques, synagogues and others to embed their religious life into its platform, from hosting worship services and socializing more casually to soliciting money.”

“The partnerships reveal how Big Tech and religion are converging,” the Times continues. “Facebook is shaping the future of religious experience itself, as it has done for political and social life.”

In other words, ultra-mod spiritual centers will be blessed by mass data extraction, algorithmic polarization, and censorship of theological “misinformation.”

If Facebook’s history is any guide, every digital prayer will be scooped up and turned into a data point. Livestreamed preachers who deny the sanctity of LGBT lifestyles will be flagged and punished as “extremists.” Best of all, smartphone-addicted congregants can donate their last widow’s mite with the touch of a virtual button. Sounds like a little slice of heaven, doesn’t it?

Facebook has given no indication as to why they only have one side of the ideological spectrum on the “hate” flags.

What do you get when you cross the largest social media platform in the world with the most powerful, Communist regime in existence? Apparently, you get a match made in Marxist heaven. A recent report shows that Facebook has become quite protective over the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) propaganda reports on its site. Indeed, the social media giant appears to be treating the brutal regime far better than Americans who happen to be right-leaning.

The Media Research Center recently published a report detailing how the CCP is allowed to operate unimpeded on Facebook, which routinely censors conservative content. //

Forty accounts on Facebook, amassing over 751 million followers, are managed by Chinese state-controlled media outlets. For comparison, 751 million is over six times (6.39x) more followers than CNN, Fox News, The New York Times, ABC News, NBC News, The Washington Post and CBS News have combined (roughly 117,500,000) on Facebook.

Facebook has removed disinformation operations connected to Iranian state-controlled media and had targeted Russian state-controlled media, as well. However, the company has done very little to curb Chinese propaganda disseminated on the platform through its government-run media outlets. //

Thirty-seven of the 40 Facebook accounts identified by the Media Research Center as belonging to Chinese state-controlled media have corresponding accounts on Twitter. There they were labeled “state-affiliated” media. The MRC identified only 23 out of the 40 accounts that Facebook labeled state-affiliated accounts on its platform — a blatant violation of its policy on identifying accounts run by state-controlled media outlets. //

etbass
3 hours ago
It's all about the money. They censor the right and they lose what? 20 million accounts, maybe? 10 million? 5?

CCP has 751 million. Money, money, money. They do what they are told to get China's money.

Update on May 26, 2021 at 3:30PM PT:

In light of ongoing investigations into the origin of COVID-19 and in consultation with public health experts, we will no longer remove the claim that COVID-19 is man-made or manufactured from our apps. We’re continuing to work with health experts to keep pace with the evolving nature of the pandemic and regularly update our policies as new facts and trends emerge.

Facebook is pushing a mysterious and aggressive ‘privacy update’ on WhatsApp users. Here’s why

Fri 14 May 2021 06.14 EDT //

Facebook, for its part, has spent the months since the announcement downplaying the significance of these privacy updates by arguing that its latest changes will only affect communication with business accounts (WhatsApp Business was launched in January 2018). In truth, the changes will allow Facebook to collect payment and transaction data from WhatsApp users, meaning Facebook will be able to gather even more data and target users with ever more personalized ads. WhatsApp has also removed a passage in its privacy policy about opting out of sharing data with Facebook. Facebook argues that this simply reflects what’s been in place since 2016. That is exactly the problem.

Today’s WhatsApp shares a great deal of information with Facebook it promised it wouldn’t, including account information, phone numbers, how often and how long people use WhatsApp, information about how they interact with other users, IP addresses, browser details, language, time zone, etc. This latest incursion has highlighted just how much data sharing has been going on for years without most users’ knowledge.

On Friday afternoon, Facebook began attaching a ridiculous fact check to my top-read Federalist article of last week titled, “There’s No Way Americans Can Trust The Jury’s Chauvin Verdict.” Anyone who wanted to share the article on Facebook was forced to do so with the opinion-based “fact check” attached, which means Facebook also likely throttled the distribution of the article on its platform. //

This is not a “fact check.” It is a disagreement about what the facts indicate. It is also the naked suppression of ideas based on partisan ideology, using the monopoly power of Big Tech to control what people are allowed to say and discuss. This is a direct attack on Americans’ ability to have a self-governing society, which requires the free expression of ideas, not massive private entities deciding what people are allowed to say and share.

I said nothing illegal and called for no violence. I merely expressed my opinion about a current event of major public attention based on information the “fact checker” could not dispute as false.

Also, the “fact check” isn’t even about my specific article! Facebook attached a “fact check” that specifically argues with another person expressing a similar opinion — “Derek Chauvin did not get a fair trial” — then used it also to throttle my article that no “fact checker” publicly reviewed, all in the name of preventing “misinformation.” That’s ridiculous. It’s an utterly absurd and compromised process. Nobody could believe it is fair or reasonable except extreme partisans. //

Facebook started choking this opinion after more facts emerged that support it. On April 22, an alternate juror in the Chauvin trial, who was included in all the jury duties and treated like the other jurors except for not finally voting in the verdict, told a local news outlet, “I did not want to go through rioting and destruction again and I was concerned about people coming to my house if they were not happy with the verdict.”

She also noted that during the trial rioters came near her home and protesters blocked a local interstate she was driving on. This clearly reinforces the factual basis for the opinion I expressed about the Chauvin trial in the article Facebook choked: “Given the circumstances of the trial, however, it’s extremely hard to believe the jury was solely concerned with either truth or justice. It’s extremely hard, if not impossible, for any thinking person not to have a reasonable doubt about the outcome.”

This juror’s information came out the day before Facebook and USA Today colluded to suppress an opinion supported by these facts. They clearly did so not based on facts, but based on a competing opinion. //

The USA Today article’s entire argument is: “Three lawyers disagree with you, so you’re not allowed to express this opinion.” But the question is not whether “three legal experts” have some opinion. The question is why USA Today is privileging some people’s opinions over those of others, and why Facebook knowingly uses them to do so. Everyone knows the answer is controlling people by controlling their speech.

Everybody also knows that you can get three lawyers to say just about anything you want them to. Their entire profession is based on advocating specific viewpoints in exchange for money.

Ever since its launch in 2010, as reported by The New York Post, Instagram has forbidden any child under the age of 13 from using the app. But now, Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook, which bought the social media platform in 2012, is reportedly developing an Instagram 2.0 app that specifically targets kids under that age threshold. //

“But don’t worry, folks, the new Insta will be run by parents. Considering the average parent is exhausted and overworked, claiming they have just 32 minutes to themselves every day, the idea that this new app will be continuously monitored by moms and dads is laughable.

“Furthermore, underage children are already getting onto social media without their parents’ consent. Today, the majority of young children own a cellphone by the age of 7, and most children develop habits by the age of 9 — and the results are sometimes disastrous. //

Instagram has proved to be even worse when it comes to young kids, Ghlionn said, noting that “Insta” — as Instagram groupies like to call it — is the most popular site for child predators. The following is disgusting, gang. (emphasis, mine)

“Instagram’s plans to recruit a younger audience is especially worrying, considering it is one of the most popular sites for child predators. In 2019, an international group of human rights NGOs called Instagram a ‘predator’s paradise.’

“According to one report, members of the group ‘compiled an alarming dossier of grooming-style behaviors on the popular social media platform.’

“The researchers “discovered hundreds of predatory comments from men describing sexual acts they wanted to perform on underage girls, some as young as 7.” //

“When we think of evil, we tend to think of men in balaclavas, armed with weapons, moving quietly through the dead of night.

“However, some of the worst ideas are in plain sight, and some of the worst people are in positions of power. They lobby politicians and play major roles in drafting legislation.

“This is the banality of evil in its purest form, and Mark Zuckerberg is its poster boy.”

Abigail Marone
@abigailmarone
Why won’t Facebook & Instagram let users share this @nypost article about ‘BLM co-founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors’ million-dollar real estate buying binge’?

https://nypost.com/2021/04/10/ins

Abigail Shrier
@AbigailShrier
Facebook will not allow you to post this NY Post story or even to message it to another person. (I just tested it).

So Facebook is now effectively opening your mail and reading the contents for ideologically objectionable material.

Anyone worried?
Inside BLM co-founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors’ million-dollar real-estate buying binge
nypost.com

Both suits center on Facebook’s purchases of Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014 for $1 billion and $19 billion respectively, while also targeting smaller firms. The acquisitions, plaintiffs allege, illegally stifled online competition. The FTC is seeking to force Facebook sell Instagram and WhatsApp.

The New York Times reported on Tuesday that after Election Day, Facebook quickly changed its algorithm to prioritize establishment left-leaning news outlets over others.

From the Times:

“In response, the employees proposed an emergency change to the site’s news feed algorithm, which helps determine what more than two billion people see every day. It involved emphasizing the importance of what Facebook calls ‘news ecosystem quality’ scores, or N.E.Q., a secret internal ranking it assigns to news publishers based on signals about the quality of their journalism.”

The author explained that N.E.Q. scores play only “a minor role” in deciding what content shows up on users’ feeds. But after the election, Zuckerberg chose to “increase the weight that Facebook’s algorithm gave to N.E.Q. scores to make sure authoritative news appeared more prominently.”

What’s more dangerous about Facebook’s decision is that many of its employees are pushing for the change to become permanent, according to the Times.

As part of the Data Transfer Project, Facebook has built a tool that allows you to send a copy of your photos and videos to Google Photos. The feature is available worldwide for anyone with a Facebook and Google account to use. Here’s how it works.

Start by visiting Facebook’s desktop website from your Windows 10 PC or Mac. From there, click on the drop-down arrow found in the top-right corner of the window and then select “Settings & Privacy.”

Alternatively, you can head straight to Facebook’s photo and video transfer tool site and skip a couple of steps.

https://www.facebook.com/dtp