Author Topic: Goolag, FB, Youtube, Amazon, Twitter, Gov censorship/propaganda via Tech Octopus  (Read 178233 times)

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
Is it like FB?  Like Twitter? (every time I have gone to a Twitter post I have been rather baffled by what I see there)

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Is it like FB?  Like Twitter? (every time I have gone to a Twitter post I have been rather baffled by what I see there)

It's like a FaceHugger timeline.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19442
    • View Profile
I exchanged messages with our PP today.  They took Sparta Report down on Jan 6.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
What was Sparta Report?

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
What was Sparta Report?

Was "HotGas" as a response to "Hotair.com" going neverTrumper post-Michelle Malkin.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19442
    • View Profile
What was Sparta Report?


Pat was involved with a pro Trump website.

Tordislung

  • Frequent Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Jack Dorsey Twitter CEO - better to ask forgiveness than ask for permission.
« Reply #657 on: January 14, 2021, 09:10:03 AM »
Not unlike Nancy Pelosi's (set up) and Gavin Newsom's and London Breed's mea culpa, stating that they "have to do better," (Breed), after having been found to have violated their own mandates, Dorsey states that they "have to look at," several areas where they could do better.... Always after the fact.

Rules for thee, but not for me.

https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-business-jack-dorsey-843c3e5fb72c0cfb89c1fd1132a525d8

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19442
    • View Profile
Goolag, Facebook, Twitter, Orwellian Tech Octopus, Sink like a stone
« Reply #658 on: January 14, 2021, 09:53:03 AM »
It would be far better to rightsize thes monsters with market forces than with action from big government, that will a) never happen and b) make it worse, make the monopolies permanent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.theepochtimes.com/twitter-facebook-51-billion-combined-market-value-erased-since-trump-ban_3656442.html?utm_source=news&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2021-01-14-2

Twitter, Facebook: $51 Billion Combined Market Value Erased Since Trump Ban
BY ISABEL VAN BRUGEN January 14, 2021 Updated: January 14, 2021biggersmaller Print
Social media giants Facebook and Twitter have collectively seen $51.2 billion in combined market value wiped out over the last two trading sessions since they banned President Donald Trump from their platforms following the U.S. Capitol breach.

Tordislung

  • Frequent Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Re: Goolag, Facebook, Twitter, Orwellian Tech Octopus, Sink like a stone
« Reply #659 on: January 14, 2021, 10:06:20 AM »
It would be far better to rightsize thes monsters with market forces than with action from big government, that will a) never happen and b) make it worse, make the monopolies permanent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.theepochtimes.com/twitter-facebook-51-billion-combined-market-value-erased-since-trump-ban_3656442.html?utm_source=news&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2021-01-14-2

Twitter, Facebook: $51 Billion Combined Market Value Erased Since Trump Ban
BY ISABEL VAN BRUGEN January 14, 2021 Updated: January 14, 2021biggersmaller Print
Social media giants Facebook and Twitter have collectively seen $51.2 billion in combined market value wiped out over the last two trading sessions since they banned President Donald Trump from their platforms following the U.S. Capitol breach.

In the article I read regarding Twitter CEO....purported to be worth 15 billion. I wonder how much of that is in twitter stock.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19442
    • View Profile
Re: The Goolag, Google, , Facebook, Youtube, Orwellian Tech Octopus, Anti Trust
« Reply #662 on: January 18, 2021, 06:16:45 AM »
https://www.engadget.com/facebook-google-jedi-blue-ad-deal-165604926.html

Facebook and Google allegedly cut a deal that reduced ad competition
It hurts their chances of surviving antitrust cases.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: The Goolag, Google, , Facebook, Youtube, Orwellian Tech Octopus, Anti Trust
« Reply #663 on: January 18, 2021, 11:43:15 AM »
https://www.engadget.com/facebook-google-jedi-blue-ad-deal-165604926.html

Facebook and Google allegedly cut a deal that reduced ad competition
It hurts their chances of surviving antitrust cases.

Maybe they know that they'll be treated well by the DOJ.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
The Goolag and FB tell Australia to piss off
« Reply #665 on: January 22, 2021, 02:37:38 PM »
Australia’s Proposed Media Code Turns Up the Heat on Google and Facebook
4 MINS READ
Jan 22, 2021 | 22:03 GMT
 
 
 
Highlights

Australia’s pursuit of a media code that would force Facebook and Google to pay for sharing content from local media companies risks pushing the U.S. tech giants to pull some of their services from the country. During a Jan. 22 Australian Senate hearing, Google’s Managing Director for Australia and New Zealand Mel Silva said that if the country’s News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code is implemented in its current form, Google would have no choice but to remove Google Search from Australia. Later in the day, Facebook representatives echoed these remarks, threatening to pull Facebook News from Australia. In response to Google’s ultimatum, Prime Minister Morrison said that his country does not respond to threats....

Australia’s pursuit of a media code that would force Facebook and Google to pay for sharing content from local media companies risks pushing the U.S. tech giants to pull some of their services from the country. During a Jan. 22 Australian Senate hearing, Google’s Managing Director for Australia and New Zealand Mel Silva said that if the country’s News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code is implemented in its current form, Google would have no choice but to remove Google Search from Australia. Later in the day, Facebook representatives echoed these remarks, threatening to pull Facebook News from Australia. In response to Google’s ultimatum, Prime Minister Morrison said that his country does not respond to threats.

The new media code was formally introduced to parliament in December 2020, where it is now up for debate. The Australian Senate is expected to vote on the code sometime in the first quarter and it could be implemented by mid-2021.

The proposed code would force the two U.S.-based media giants to enter negotiations with Australian publishers over news content, requiring that an arbitrator decide the details of a contract if they cannot come to an agreement. Previously, Australia had argued that these new rules would only impact Google’s news platforms, but uncertainties around implementation raise potential risks for the company’s all-important search function.



Google and Facebook have argued that they are willing to enter agreements with publishers for content, highlighting deals struck in other countries. But both have also said Australia’s rules are far more expansive than other country’s requirements.
Both Google and Facebook have also criticized the proposed Australian code as being biased in publishers’ favor, giving them the upper hand in bargaining. Google has been quite concerned about the code’s requirements for paying for snippets and links, both of which are displayed in Google search results.

Australia’s tussle with Google and Facebook comes as large multinational technology firms face growing global pressure to share revenue with domestic media producers, exacerbated by the economic repercussions of COVID-19. Australia’s disputes with the two companies had been bubbling for some time, but the country’s pandemic-induced economic setbacks over the past year have brought those tensions to a boil.

Previously, Australia had been discussing rules around voluntary agreements. But in April 2020, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) said that voluntary agreements were unlikely to be reached.

The ACCC’s determination, along with the financial blow Australia’s media companies have suffered amid the COVID-19 pandemic, ultimately led Prime Minister Scott Morrison to direct the commission to draft a mandatory code, yielding the new rules now at the heart of the Facebook and Google dispute.

Google and Facebook have made good on similar threats elsewhere, and could very well do the same in Australia if Canberra proceeds with the media code as-is.

Google followed through with similar threats to remove Google News from Spain at the start of 2015 after the Spanish government imposed a so-called “snippet tax” for using excerpts of news taken from Spanish media outlets.


Broader EU-level requirements have also led Google to change the way that it displays results and the level of snippets shown for news articles and sites. In 2019, for example, Google removed snippets from French Google News searches unless content producers opted out of the right to receive compensation, which led French media outlets to enter talks over concerns about losing site traffic.

However, compared with other global examples, the removal of Google Search in Australia would have a particularly severe impact on Australian businesses well beyond the media sector. While other search engines are available, the pervasive nature and familiarity with Google Search have led Australian companies to optimize their websites with Google directly in mind. In December 2020, Google Search accounted for 94.4% of the Australian search market share. Many other industries are also directly dependent on Google Search as a tool to carry out daily business operations. Its removal would thus create more economic and social pressures in Australia at a time when the country’s economy is already struggling amid the COVID-19 pandemic. To avoid such a disruptive outcome, Canberra will likely try to ultimately quell some of Google and Facebook’s concerns by modifying either the current rules themselves or the arbitration process. Australian legislators, however, remain unlikely to scrap the new media code entirely.


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: FB gives personal comms of FB user who was at the Capitol Hill Riot
« Reply #667 on: January 23, 2021, 08:12:13 PM »
https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2021/01/21/facebook-gives-fbi-private-messages-of-users-discussing-capitol-hill-riot/?sh=2696aea261ed

I once obtained a search warrant for a FaceHugger account of a fugitive sex offender. I had to get a court order from the Judge ordering FaceHugger NOT to inform the fugitive that he had a search warrant served on his account, otherwise their practice was to do so.



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19442
    • View Profile
Re: The Goolag, De-Google, Brand name association
« Reply #670 on: January 30, 2021, 04:41:50 PM »
Looking for help with this.  Want additions, comments and corrections.
Google is evil.  Facebook, twitter, ditto.
Purely hypothetical, let's say I bump into someone who values my opinion.
They are using ____________ .  They should switch to: ____________ .

Gmail,  Protonmail
Chrome,  Brave
Google search,  DuckduckGo
Facebook,  MeWe?
Windows,  Linux
Microsoft Office,  Open Office
Youtube,  Vimeo?
Android,   _________
Google Maps,  Here WeGo?
Twitter,   _________
NY Times/Washington Post,   _________
What else?



G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19442
    • View Profile
Re: Antitrust suit against Goolag and FB
« Reply #674 on: January 31, 2021, 09:44:47 AM »
https://www.theepochtimes.com/media-company-files-antitrust-lawsuit-against-google-facebook_3678744.html?utm_source=morningbrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2021-01-31

Break them up.  Not for being big but for anti-competitive behavior.

"Google had unlawfully exercised monopoly power of the digital advertising market, which has prevented newspapers from competing in the market and losing their primary source of revenue."

    - Yes.

I'm sure the Biden campaign Finance Dept, AG, will be all over this.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19756
    • View Profile
Eric Schmidt the sexual harasser's Google
« Reply #676 on: February 02, 2021, 07:50:19 AM »
I know the dirtball is not there anymore

unless I go to yahoo  first I cannot get to populist.press main site on Google






ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19756
    • View Profile
CEO of Amazon Bezos steps down
« Reply #677 on: February 02, 2021, 02:07:53 PM »
new CEO:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Jassy

Another Jewish guy at the top of the biggest  tech firms

Hungarian Jewish - think Soros
Harvard grad - think major liberal / elitist

I could be wrong but I doubt he voted for Trump or any other Republican in his life


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19442
    • View Profile
Re: CEO of Amazon Bezos steps down
« Reply #678 on: February 02, 2021, 05:34:18 PM »
With more time on his hands I expect Bezos to become even more annoying.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
Someone smarter than me on Section 230
« Reply #679 on: February 03, 2021, 07:13:03 AM »
Section 230(b)

 

(b)Policy It is the policy of the United States—

(1)

to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media;

(2)

to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;

(3)

to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services;

(4)

to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children’s access to objectionable or inappropriate online material; and

(5)

to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.

 

Section 230 (c) (1)

 

(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

 

Section 230 (c) (2)

(2) Civil liability No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

(A)

any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

 

(B)

any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]

 

So, then, what is an interactive computer service as defined by the Communications Decency Act?

 

Section 230 (f) (2)

 

(2) Interactive computer service The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.

 

 

Are Twitter, Facebook and other social media platforms “interactive computer services” within the meaning of Section 230?  I would argue, “No.”  Because no social media platform provides access to the Internet.  A social media platform is part of the Internet.  A user of the social media platform does not need access software provided by the social media platform in order to connect to the Internet.

 

This law was written 25 years ago to protect AOL, Yahoo!, MSN Network and other aggregators of information into their closed gardens.  The AOL business model discouraged users from connecting to the actual Internet.  Yahoo! And MSN were copycats.

 

The disruption of Netscape that led to the browser war between it and Microsoft’s Internet Explorer changed the need for this law because it is the browser that now connects a user to multiple servers.  In fact, the very act of opening your email program or the browser of your choice connects you to the multiple servers of your Internet Service Provider which is most often a cable service operator, a wireless communications carrier, or a wired communications carrier.

 

You can see the intent of this law clearly from the fact that connection services offered by public libraries and other educational institutions are included in the definition of “interactive computer service.”  In the good old days of the mid 1990’s, public libraries had established their own network connection services so users could locate books or go out on the Internet and locate other information.

 

In fact, cloud computing makes inapplicable the definitions and need for Section 230 because the same information is stored on multiple servers.  When a user requests information from a cloud service provider, the data is retrieved from multiple servers and aggregated into flows of packets that contain bits and bytes from many different servers.  When you make a wireless call or use your wireless device to access information in app, you retrieve the information from multiple servers and through multiple ways – some radio or wireless signal and others through a landline.  Yes, the wireless backhaul systems of all nations use landlines to transmit and receive data to and from the cell towers.

 

The imminent widespread use of 5G communications also obviates the need for this law because 5G uses many short haul millimeter wave transmissions spots to move data more rapidly.  And, if virtual radio access networks gain acceptance and popularity, then the network itself will be stored on multiple servers.  This especially will become apparent once businesses begin deploying their 5G networks over CBRS spectrum.

 

Section 230 is so out of date relative to the actual Internet and how people access it and obtain their information.  But read the policies in that law that I delineated above and ask yourself if the law was written to enable the censorship of ideas and opinions deemed wrong or offensive by social media platforms that clearly do not meet the definition of an “interactive computer service.”

 

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19442
    • View Profile
Re: Someone smarter than me on Section 230
« Reply #680 on: February 03, 2021, 08:36:04 AM »
It's a great post.  Persuasively makes the case to repeal this now flawed and obsolete law or rewrite it to not include and protect companies that censor opposing opinions and give money and support to one side.  Let them live under the laws of the rest of us.

Author does not however make the case of how to repeal a law that unfairly favors and finances the people already in power, and keeps them in power.  It's not just issues and policies, these gatekeepers prevent people from exposing stolen elections - if that were ever to happen.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19442
    • View Profile
HOW TO STRIKE BACK AGAINST BIG TECH CENSORSHIP
« Reply #681 on: February 04, 2021, 07:34:06 AM »
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/02/how-to-strike-back-against-big-tech-censorship.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+powerlineblog%2Flivefeed+%28Power+Line%29

"prohibits internet service providers and social media companies from restricting users’ content on the basis of race, sex, religion or political orientation. The bill includes statutory damages of $100,000 per violation, along with recovery of attorneys’ fees."

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19442
    • View Profile
Government - Big Tech Revolving Door
« Reply #682 on: February 08, 2021, 07:43:03 AM »
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/06/facebook-oversight-board-member-decamps-for-biden-doj-466526

Facebook oversight board member decamps for Biden DOJ
----------------------------------------------------------------

Play tricks with words all you want, Facebook's "independent oversight board" members are Facebook employees.  Right?

Now she can oversee them from the DOJ.  Her fellow member board members offered her congratulations.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Karlan said in a statement that working with the board “to build a fairer and more effective approach to content moderation has been an honor.”   

 - Build a fairer and more effective approach to Facebook content moderation??  HOW DID THAT GO?

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19756
    • View Profile
Patricia Harlan
« Reply #683 on: February 08, 2021, 09:13:09 AM »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtHRKk8qYKw

she is massive SJW and liberal socialist
biden stuffing more RADICAL leftists into DOJ

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
You should watch the video, very ominous
« Reply #686 on: February 11, 2021, 07:46:10 PM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
Would love to have a summary before investing the time.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Would love to have a summary before investing the time.

Rob Braxman Tech
232K subscribers
This past week on Feb 2 - Feb 7, 2021 a massive attack was conducted on encrypted services, particular VPN's. VPN traffic was throttled to near unusability.

Basically in 2021, the Great Firewall of the USA was turned on. And then abrubtly turned off.

Purpose of the action was unknown. No party stepped up to acknowledge and aside from me, no one has stepped up to call any Internet Provider of their egregious action against privacy minded people.

Why did this attack happen?
Why did the attack stop?

Which company is responsible?
Is this because of a government mandate?
Why the concerted efforts with cable companies to throttle on the other side?

Was it because they had network congestion and were just trying to deal with that? But why the selective choice of throttling the people interested in privacy?

Since VPN's can cloak themselves, why even bother to do this since at best the effect is temporary?

Let's discuss all this.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
Boomer Tech Troglodyte me is confused.  I've been told I should have a VPN.  Is that still true.  I don't really understand , , ,

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Boomer Tech Troglodyte me is confused.  I've been told I should have a VPN.  Is that still true.  I don't really understand , , ,

A VPN is a good thing. The above information implies that a three letter agency may be testing a China-like control of the American public's internet access.
 

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19442
    • View Profile
VPN
« Reply #691 on: February 12, 2021, 09:53:48 AM »
Boomer Tech Troglodyte me is confused.  I've been told I should have a VPN.  Is that still true.  I don't really understand , , ,

A VPN is a good thing. The above information implies that a three letter agency may be testing a China-like control of the American public's internet access.

Yes.  I watched the video and the speaker has credibility with me.  Sounds like someone shut down certain things on the internet, at least where he is, VPNs appeared to be targeted.  I don't take from that the privacy and security inside the VPNs was breached, but that service was targeted and interrupted.

A virtual private network [VPN] as I understand it is like an envelope enclosing your data as it runs through the 'public' internet.  Looks like it needs to be replaced or supplemented with private, closed networks that do not travel through internet protocol.  How to do that?  I don't know.  Our all-knowing, all-powerful government requires access to our networks. 

In Communist China, the filtering and monitoring of every communication is a 24/7/365 operation. 

This shutdown, if intentional by an agency or predator, shows us we have the same vulnerabilities and maybe only slightly better governance.  Someone can shut down our most private communications.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2021, 02:32:04 PM by DougMacG »


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
Doug:

What can you tell us about Mercatus?

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19442
    • View Profile
Doug:

What can you tell us about Mercatus?
.

I was looking up economics writer Veronique de Rugy who I think has worked with Cato and Heritage.

"The Mercatus Center at George Mason University is the world's premier university source for market-oriented ideas—bridging the gap between academic research and public policy problems."
« Last Edit: February 13, 2021, 10:09:08 AM by DougMacG »




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72256
    • View Profile
What can I say?  I have good taste :-D :-D :-D