PDA

View Full Version : Facebook Scandal -- Cambridge Analytica



ramus
24th March 2018, 17:48
I've been wondering why no discussion about Facebook and what did Zuckerburg do to have the rug pulled out from under him? The articles about Cambridge Analytica and the Trump election.

What are the Cambridge Analytica Files?

Working with a whistleblower who helped set up Cambridge Analytica, the Observer and Guardian have seen documents and gathered eyewitness reports that lift the lid on the data analytics firm that helped Donald Trump to victory. The company is currently being investigated on both sides of the Atlantic. It is a key subject in two inquiries in the UK - by the Electoral Commission, into the firm's possible role in the EU referendum and the Information Commissioner's Office, into data analytics for political purposes - and one in the US, as part of special counsel Robert Mueller's probe into Trump-Russia collusion.

A summary of the dust up is:

https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/23/leaked-cambridge-analyticas-blueprint-for-trump-victory (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/23/leaked-cambridge-analyticas-blueprint-for-trump-victory)

Leaked: Cambridge Analytica's blueprint for Trump victory

Exclusive: Former employee explains how presentation showed techniques used to target voters

The blueprint for how Cambridge Analytica (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/cambridge-analytica) claimed to have won the White House for Donald Trump by using Google, Snapchat, Twitter, Facebook and YouTube is revealed for the first time in an internal company document obtained by the Guardian.

The 27-page presentation was produced by the Cambridge Analytica officials who worked most closely on Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

A former employee explained to the Guardian how it details the techniques used by the Trump campaign to micro-target US voters with carefully tailored messages about the Republican nominee across digital channels.

Intensive survey research, data modelling and performance-optimising algorithms were used to target 10,000 different ads to different audiences in the months leading up to the election. The ads were viewed billions of times, according to the presentation.

The document was presented to Cambridge Analytica employees in London, New York and Washington DC weeks after Trump’s victory, providing an insight into how the controversial firm helped pull off one of the most dramatic political upsets in modern history.

“This is the debrief of the data-driven digital campaign that was employed for Mr Trump,” said Brittany Kaiser, 30, who was Cambridge Analytica’s business development director until two weeks ago, when she left over a contractual dispute.

She is the second former employee to come forward in less than a week, talking exclusively to the Guardian about the inner workings of the firm, including the work she said it conducted on the UK’s EU membership referendum.

She said she had access to a copy of the same document now obtained by the Guardian, and had used it to showcase the campaign’s secret methods to potential clients of Cambridge Analytica.

“There was a huge demand internally for people to see how we did it,” Kaiser said of the 2016 race. “Everyone wanted to know: past clients, future clients. The whole world wanted to see it. This is what we were allowed to confidentially show people if they signed a non-disclosure agreement.”

Kaiser claims to be committed to human rights, but many would argue her career at Cambridge Analytica tells a different story. She has worked extensively for the firm, pitching business to clients in countries that have a history of exploitation by western political mercenaries, including Lithuania, Benin, Ethiopia and Libya.

Cambridge Analytica has a reputation among political operatives for exaggerating its role in campaigns. A senior Trump campaign official who said they saw the document about a year ago claimed it took credit for some work that was done by the Republican national committee and Trump’s digital director, Brad Parscale.

Kaiser did not work on the campaign but said she gleaned information about how it was orchestrated during discussions with senior staff, including the now suspended chief executive, Alexander Nix.

None of the techniques described in the document are illegal. However, the scandal over Cambridge Analytica’s acquisition of data from more than 50 million Facebook users (https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/cambridge-analytica-facebook-influence-us-election) is lifting the lid on an industry that has learned how to closely track the online footprint and daily lives of US voters.

Despite the advances made in data-led political campaigning, these were techniques that, according to the presentation, Trump did not have access to when Cambridge Analytica joined his campaign in early June 2016.

The Republican nominee, who had just secured sufficient delegates to become the party’s candidate, still had “no speakable data infrastructure” and “no unifying data, digital and tech strategy”, the document states.Kaiser said Cambridge Analytica staff told her they were stunned when they arrived at Trump’s headquarters in Trump Tower, New York.

“There was no database of record. There were many disparate data sources that were not connected, matched or hygiened,” she said of the process of ordering, sorting and cleaning enormous data sets. “There was no data science programme, so they weren’t undertaking any modelling. There was no digital marketing team.”

One of the first things Cambridge Analytica did, she said, was work with data supplied by the party’s data trust and other data acquired through an initiative called Project Alamo.

The document contains very little information about how the campaign used Facebook data. One page, however, suggests Cambridge Analytica was able to constantly monitor the effectiveness of its messaging on different types of voters, giving the company and the campaign constant feedback about levels of engagement on platforms such as Twitter, Facebook and Snapchat (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/snapchat).

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/45b503443ab805a5a116451cfe33db1e2dcd7c19/0_0_1437_807/master/1437.jpg?w=620&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max& The feedback loop meant the algorithms could be constantly updated and improved to deliver thousands of different messages to voters depending on their profile.

The level of information the company could glean about voters – and the apparent appetite among Silicon Valley companies to cash in on the advertising bonanza – is illustrated on another page which shows how the Trump campaign used a prime piece of marketing real estate on election day: YouTube’s entire masthead.

Kaiser said Hillary Clinton’s campaign had reserved the space on Google’s video-hosting platform but was so confident of victory that it gave it up. “Google called us and said this ad space is now available, immediately,” Kaiser said. “That’s what I was told.”

The Trump campaign seized the opportunity, showing two different ads to different categories of voters according to the detailed geographical information of visitors to the YouTube home page.

Voters in areas where people were likely to be Trump supporters were shown a triumphant-looking image of the nominee, and help finding their nearest polling station.

Those whose geographical information suggested they were not fervent Trump supporters, such as swing voters, were shown photos of his high-profile supporters, including his daughter Ivanka Trump, a celebrity from the reality TV show Duck Dynasty, and Dana White, the president of the Ultimate Fighting Championship.

(https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/23/leaked-cambridge-analyticas-blueprint-for-trump-victory#img-5) One of the most effective ads, according to Kaiser, was a piece of native advertising on the political news website Politico (http://www.politico.com/sponsor-content/2016/08/inconvenient-truths-about-clinton-foundation), which was also profiled in the presentation. The interactive graphic, which looked like a piece of journalism and purported to list “10 inconvenient truths about the Clinton Foundation”, appeared for several weeks to people from a list of key swing states when they visited the site. It was produced by the in-house Politico team that creates sponsored content.

The Cambridge Analytica presentation dedicates an entire slide to the ad, which is described as having achieved “an average engagement time of four minutes”. Kaiser described the ad as “the most successful thing we pushed out”.

Politico said editorial journalists were not involved in the campaign, and similar ads were purchased by the Bernie Sanders and Clinton campaigns.

Advertisements on Facebook (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/facebook), Twitter, Google and the music-sharing app Pandora were used to help convince 35,000 supporters to install an app used by the most active supporters.

According to the presentation, Cambridge Analytica and the Trump campaign also used a new advertising technique offered by Twitter, launched at the start of the election year (https://blog.twitter.com/marketing/en_us/a/2016/introducing-conversational-ads.html), which enabled clients to kickstart viral tweets.

The “conversational ads” feature was used to encourage Trump’s followers to tweet using a set of pre-determined hashtags.

The campaign also took advantage of an ad opportunity provided by Snapchat, enabling users to swipe up and immediately see a preloaded web page (https://businesshelp.snapchat.com/en-US/a/specs-web-view). While not useful for securing donors, Cambridge Analytica deemed the tool useful for engaging potential voter “contacts”, according to the presentation.

One of the final slides explains how the company used paid-for Google (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/google) ads to implement “persuasion search advertising”, to push pro-Trump and anti-Clinton search results through the company’s main search facility.

(https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/23/leaked-cambridge-analyticas-blueprint-for-trump-victory#img-6) One slide showed how the company ensured that voters searching the words “Trump Iraq War” would encounter paid-for search results that were favourable to his campaign. “Control The First Impression,” the slide says, with an arrow pointing to a search result that states: “Hillary Voted for the Iraq War – Donald Trump (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/donaldtrump) opposed it.”

“That’s a Google manipulation thing,” Kaiser said, adding that while a “general person” probably did not know how easy it was to pay for ads to appear high in Google search results, it was considered “an old-school tactic” in her industry.

Ba-ba-Ra
24th March 2018, 17:56
Did he have the rug pulled out from under him. Before the scandal broke, he sold 660,000 shares of stock at a very good price. Clearly he had fore-knowledge.

And. . . he didn't weave the rug that he was standing on himself. . he was the chosen recipient. Unless he goes to jail, and all of his assets frozen or reclaimed (an unlikely scenario), I would say he's done very well.

Note: There has been some discussion about this on the QAnon thread.

ramus
24th March 2018, 18:28
He has in place an automatic sell regiment, the 660,000 shares pale in comparison of what he has .. 72.5 billion as or march 5 2018. the stock is down to $159.3 0 from $195.00. I doubt that he would wish this to happen, Shares started at $38.00, he owns 20% of facebook, the B shares of Facebook which have 10 votes per-share as compared to 1 vote for A shares. He has 29.3% of the A shares.

. In fact, Zuckerberg owns 29.8% of Facebook’s Class A shares, but only around 20% of the company as a whole. That makes this stake worth closer to $13.6 billion In addition to that, Zuckerberg owns other types of shares, harder to track. So his total stake is worth more than that.

Here is some of his sale and buy history: many pages if interested.

https://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/fb/insider-trades

ZUCKERBERG MARK Officer 03/20/2018 Acquisition (Non Open Market) indirect 108,750 0.0000 108,750
ZUCKERBERG MARK Officer 03/20/2018 Automatic Sell indirect 145,000 162.8070 9,036,757
ZUCKERBERG MARK Officer 03/19/2018 Acquisition (Non Open Market) indirect 116,270 0.0000 116,270
ZUCKERBERG MARK Officer 03/19/2018 Automatic Sell indirect 175,246 170.9167 9,073,007
ZUCKERBERG MARK Officer 03/16/2018 Acquisition (Non Open Market) indirect 127,500 0.0000 127,500
ZUCKERBERG MARK Officer 03/16/2018 Automatic Sell indirect 220,000 184.3106 9,131,983
SANDBERG SHERYL Officer 03/15/2018 Acquisition (Non Open Market) indirect 55,000 0.0000 1,527,803
SANDBERG SHERYL Officer 03/15/2018 Automatic Sell indirect 55,000 182.7890 1,472,803
ZUCKERBERG MARK Officer 03/15/2018 Acquisition (Non Open Market) indirect 127,500 0.0000 127,500
ZUCKERBERG MARK Officer 03/15/2018 Automatic Sell indirect 245,400 182.8076 16,100
ZUCKERBERG MARK Officer 03/14/2018 Acquisition (Non Open Market) indirect 127,500 0.0000 127,500
ZUCKERBERG MARK Officer 03/14/2018 Automatic Sell indirect 245,400 182.5204 9,342,383
SCHROEPFER MICHAEL TODD Officer 03/13/2018 Acquisition (Non Open Market) indirect 66,256 0.0000 458,254
SCHROEPFER MICHAEL TODD Officer 03/13/2018 Automatic Sell indirect 38,024 181.9002 480,472
ZUCKERBERG MARK

My premise is he crossed someone or something, he helped Trump get elected, that's all the liberals can see and now he will be punished.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status: Founder, CEO
Age: 27
Residence: Palo Alto, CA
Education: Two years at Harvard University
Facebook stake: 28.2%
Value: $24 billion

Accel Partners
Status: Venture Capital Investor
Founded: 1983
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Facebook stake: 10%
Value: $8.5 billion

Dustin Moskovitz
Status: Former Employee
Age: 27
Residence: San Francisco, CA
Education: Two years at Harvard University
Facebook stake: 7.6%
Value: $6.5 billion

Digital Sky Technologies
Status: Corporate Investor
Founded: 2005
Location: Moscow, London MOSCOW Russian connection, thus the election interference
Facebook stake: 5.4%
Value: $4.6 billion

http://whoownsfacebook.com/

many more if interested

ramus
25th March 2018, 17:44
There is much talk about #deletefacebook : here is an article on it, back to my premise Facebook has inadvertently awoken a lot of people, some because of privacy issues, others because social media can have a negative effect on users’ happiness and mental health. One study indicated that an increase in people’s Facebook use could significantly predict a decline in mental health outcomes. Now that is a step in the right direction. Thank you facebook without you this might have never have happened. With 2.2 billion users that's a lot of change.

Link to study:
http://stars.library.ucf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2683&context=honorstheses1990-2015

https://marketwatch.com/story/the-cult-of-facebook-2018-03-23

The cult of Facebook — just see what happens when you try to leave

#DeleteFacebook is trending, but will people actually do it? Even given the
recent brouhaha over Cambridge Analytica’s privacy violations affecting 50
million people, that’s unlikely.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-why-most-people-want-to-delete-faceboo
k-its-not-privacy-2018-03-23 (https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-why-most-people-want-to-delete-faceboo k-its-not-privacy-2018-03-23)

If you deactivate your account, or even just stop posting updates for a couple
of weeks, Facebook has a virtual army — your Facebook friends —
who will text, email and even find you on Twitter asking what’s
wrong and imploring you to come back. With some 2.2 billion users worldwide, it
would take a tectonic shift for people to delete their photos and walk away.

Here is more on the folly that's called Facebook;

This is not to say that the revelations that Cambridge Analytica may have
improperly gained access to and used up to 50 million users’ personal
information hasn’t affected peoples thinking. As of Thursday, there were three
times as many Google searches for “delete Facebook” than there were over the
weekend. Related search queries included “Cambridge Analytica” and “Brian
Acton,” the name of the Whatsapp co-founder who called for users to quit
Facebook.

Should antitrust laws be enforced against the tech giants' monopolies?

Still, much research has shown that social media can have a negative effect on
users’ happiness and mental health. One study indicated that an increase in
people’s Facebook use could significantly predict a decline in mental health
outcomes. However, Facebook might not necessarily be the worst offender — though
that social network can contribute to increased anxiety and depression,
Instagram and Snapchat were even worse in that regard.

“This is this culture’s version of watching television and talking to
friends on the phone. It has replaced so many other social activities.”
Nicholas Colas, co-founder of market insights firm Datatrek Research

Interestingly though, web searches about other social networking platforms,
including Twitter and Instagram, weren’t correlated strongly with
searches related to happiness, Datatrek found. This, Colas argued, is a
reflection of the important role Facebook now plays in people’s everyday lives.

“This is this culture’s version of watching television and talking to friends on
the phone,” he said. “It has replaced so many other social activities.”

There’s also a spike in “delete Facebook” searches every year in late December
and early January, according to Google Trends, suggesting that people are
considering giving up the network when they’re thinking about New Year’s
resolutions.

But even then, Colas said that privacy isn’t necessarily the main factor driving
users to consider deleting their Facebook accounts. Instead, it’s more a
reflection of their political considerations, similar to many consumers’
protests against companies that sell firearms in the wake of the school shooting
in Parkland, Fla.

Cambridge Analytica has ties to President Donald Trump’s 2016, and some Facebook
users fear their data was used to help Trump win. “People are thinking, ‘Do I
want to support a company that does things that not only doesn’t fit with where
my data should, but doesn’t fit with who I am as a person?” he said.

smat
25th March 2018, 17:47
Cambridge Analytica is connected to the deep state, Facebook was released back in 2006 as a data mining utility for the intelligence communities. Facebook was created by leader technologies and was stolen by the deep state who controlled the patent attorneys. It was then released with the goal to influence and control the western world through the new platform of social media. Dude Zuckerberg did not write facebook, he is just a figure head. You dark facebook profile can be downloaded by you which has all you personal information (including chat history) and also anyone can buy your personal information for $3

Donald Trump was elected president despite all the negative press (fake news) that was shared about him on both mainstream media and also social media. Facebook being used to get trump elected is disinformation given by the deep state, the truth is that he won the election in spite of the disinformation/misinformation.

One of the best resources to find out that is really going on in through American Intelligence Media. Search for the website, there is also an app on itunes and android with the same name. Also search on youtube the the channel. The youtube videos, documents and articles that they release are the very best and explain everything. They even talk to the owner of leader technologies (who wrote facebook and are currently in process of suing the US government for patent theft).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSvSqvFwfUk

https://aim4truth.org/2018/03/22/doj-ses-500-discovered-the-paymasters-of-the-deep-state/

https://aim4truth.org/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJRpeq0s9Ls

ramus
25th March 2018, 18:03
I think the way it was stated is that Hillary ignored Cambridge Analytica advise [Hillary Clinton’s campaign had reserved the space on Google’s video-hosting platform but was so confident of victory that it gave it up. “Google called us and said this ad space is now available, immediately,” Kaiser said. “That’s what I was told.”]
Read in post #1 The blueprint for how Cambridge Analytica claimed to have won the White House for Donald Trump by using Google, Snapchat, Twitter, Facebook and YouTube is revealed for the first time in an internal company document obtained by the Guardian.

The 27-page presentation was produced by the Cambridge Analytica officials who worked most closely on Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. There is a link above to the 27 page report. As i said, they tripped themselves up ,the word IRONY AND ARROGANCE comes to mind.

ramus
25th March 2018, 19:05
# SMAT here is the article on Zuckerburgs patient infringement

https://www.cnbc.com/id/46631326

Facebook Stole Our Invention: Tech Company Founder
Eamon Javers
Published 3:55 PM ET Mon, 5 March 2012 CNBC.com

The chairman of a company locked in a court battle with Facebook alleged Monday that as a young Harvard student Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg stole software technology that later formed the basis of the social networking behemoth’s platform.
Michael McKibben, founder of Ohio-based Leader Technologies, said that his son attended Harvard at the same time Zuckerberg was a student there. He alleges that Zuckerberg got access to a white paper dealing with certain technological advances that McKibben emailed to his son. “I believe when Zuckerberg hacked into servers at Harvard, he got a copy of the white paper,” McKibben told CNBC.

“Facebook stole our invention, and we’d like it back,” said McKibben. “As far as I’m concerned, our investors, who’ve been with us for a long time, deserve a payday.”

That payday could be significant – if the patent case is successful, millions of dollars in Facebook’s revenue could be at stake. Facebook has already settled the most famous case alleging Zuckerberg stole someone else’s idea: paying his fellow Harvard students Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss a reported $65 million in cash and stock. That prolonged fight was famously portrayed in the movie “The Social Network.”

Monday’s courtroom battle is much lower profile, but no less intense. A Facebook spokesman called McKibben’s hacking allegation “false and ridiculous” and noted that it is not at issue in the ongoing court battle between McKibben’s company and Facebook.

Indeed, lawyers for the two sides spent Monday arguing before a Federal appeals court over technical aspects of Leader Technologies’ case against Facebook, which asserts that Facebook had infringed on its software patent. A lower court jury ruled that Facebook had in fact infringed on the Leader Technologies patent, but that the patent itself was invalid because Leader Technologies had sought to sell the technology before filing a patent application.

The “on-sale” provision of patent law holds that a product cannot be patented if it is offered for sale more than a year before a patent application is filed.

Facebook declined to comment on the case itself. But in court, Facebook’s attorney Thomas G. Hungar argued that Leader Technologies had in fact offered to sell its technology ahead of the patent application, citing a December, 2002 email from McKibben detailing sales efforts.

Leader’s attorney Daryl Joseffer, however, suggested that the patented technology was something that Leader Technologies had been working on “for a while,” and that software offered for sale at earlier dates was not the same version as the patented product under dispute.

Both attorneys faced probing questions and repeated interruptions from the three-judge panel hearing the case. At one point, Judge Kimberly Moore told Joseffer, “you talk so fast … please slow down.” At another point, after Hungar said that Facebook had never seen a “pristine copy” of Leader’s software code, Moore interrupted to ask, “What does that mean, ‘pristine?’ Did it have a coffee stain on it?”

The judges have no set time frame for handing down a decision, said officials at the clerk’s office for the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

But after the hearing, McKibben said he was “encouraged” by the judges’ persistence on Monday. “They really focused on the law, and we’ve always said that the law is on our side.”

smat
25th March 2018, 19:27
Thanks for sharing ramus, Michael McKibben has shared a lot of information about this with Douglas on American Intelligence Media. I shared the above links as there is so much more information on there. Michael McKibben uncovered information on the deep state and the secret government and has also created a searchable timeline/crimeline exposing the SES members who have infultrated the US government. The Domino's are beggining to fall as this information comes to light.

ramus
25th March 2018, 20:10
Michael McKibben exposing the DOJ 500

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZKTWjORitI

The whole thing about SES is so scary 500 justice department lawyers controlling the purse strings for everybody in government . Thanks SMAT

ramus
25th March 2018, 20:28
Bill Ryan wrote about the mental health issues and Facebook on jan 17 2018

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?88051-The-Problems-with-Facebook/page8

The Problems with Facebook

From The New York Post, yesterday:1-17-2018

https://nypost.com/2018/01/16/too-much-time-on-facebook-is-ruining-your-mental-health/

ExomatrixTV
25th March 2018, 20:57
P5gLDNL3NjE

ExomatrixTV
25th March 2018, 23:14
3fS5A_hw2w8

Tintin
26th March 2018, 12:01
I'm interested here in putting some focus on the organisation that is behind Cambridge Analytica (SCL Group Limited: Bloomberg summary here - https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/relationship.asp?personId=84602505&privcapId=72454231&previousCapId=0&previousTitle=SCL%20Group%20Limited) and this interesting article that goes back to 2005 - yes, really, 2005.

This is the report on their presentation at a DSEi (Defense Systems & Equipment International, or DSEi, the United Kingdom's largest showcase for military technology) showcase, that year. This presentation has been alluded to in other articles circulating out there; it make's for an interesting read.

It starts with a 'fictional' scenario. (Tintin Q)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You Can't Handle the Truth -
Psy-ops propaganda goes mainstream.
SEPT. 19 2005 6:31 AM
Writer: Sharon Weinberger

Link to original article on Slate, here: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/dispatches/2005/09/you_cant_handle_the_truth.html


"Then again, it's hard to know exactly what else to call it. (Company literature describes SCL's niche specialties as "psychological warfare," "public diplomacy," and "influence operations.") The smallpox scenario plays out in excruciating detail how reporters would be tapped to receive disinformation, with TV and radio stations dedicated to around-the-clock coverage. Even the eventual disclosure is carefully scripted."

LONDON—Over the past 24 hours, seven people have checked into hospitals here with telltale symptoms. Rashes, vomiting, high temperature, and cramps: the classic signs of smallpox. Once thought wiped out, the disease is back and threatening a pandemic of epic proportions.

The government faces a dilemma: It needs people to stay home, but if the news breaks, mass panic might ensue as people flee the city, carrying the virus with them.

A shadowy media firm steps in to help orchestrate a sophisticated campaign of mass deception. Rather than alert the public to the smallpox threat, the company sets up a high-tech "ops center" to convince the public that an accident at a chemical plant threatens London. As the fictitious toxic cloud approaches the city, TV news outlets are provided graphic visuals charting the path of the invisible toxins. Londoners stay indoors, glued to the telly, convinced that even a short walk into the streets could be fatal.

This scenario may sound like a rejected plot twist from a mediocre Bond flick, but one company is dead set on making this fantasy come to life.

Strategic Communication Laboratories, a small U.K. firm specializing in "influence operations" made a very public debut this week with a glitzy exhibit occupying prime real estate at Defense Systems & Equipment International, or DSEi, the United Kingdom's largest showcase for military technology. The main attraction was a full-scale mock-up of its ops center, running simulations ranging from natural disasters to political coups.

Just to the right of the ops center, a dark-suited man with a wireless microphone paces like a carnival barker, narrating the scenarios. Above him a screen flashes among scenes of disaster, while to his right, behind thick glass, workers sit attentively before banks of computer screens, busily scrolling through data. The play actors pause only to look up at a big board that flashes ominously between "hot spots" like North Korea and Congo.

While Londoners fret over fictitious toxins, the government works to contain the smallpox outbreak. The final result, according to SCL's calculations, is that only thousands perish, rather than the 10 million originally projected. Another success.
Of course, the idea of deluding an entire city seems, well, a bit like propaganda.

"If your definition of propaganda is framing communications to do something that's going to save lives, that's fine," says Mark Broughton, SCL's public affairs director. "That's not a word I would use for that."

Then again, it's hard to know exactly what else to call it. (Company literature describes SCL's niche specialties as "psychological warfare," "public diplomacy," and "influence operations.") The smallpox scenario plays out in excruciating detail how reporters would be tapped to receive disinformation, with TV and radio stations dedicated to around-the-clock coverage. Even the eventual disclosure is carefully scripted.

In another doomsday scenario, the company assists a newly democratic country in South Asia as it struggles with corrupt politicians and a rising insurgency that threatens to bubble over into bloody revolution. SCL steps in to assist the benevolent king of "Manpurea" to temporarily seize power.

Oh, wait, that sounds a lot like Nepal, where the monarchy earlier this year ousted a corrupt government to stave off a rising Maoist movement. The problem is, the SCL scenario also sounds a lot like using a private company to help overthrow a democratically elected government. Another problem, at least in Nepal, is that the king now shows few signs of returning to democracy.

The company, which describes itself as the first private-sector provider of psychological operations, has been around since 1993. But its previous work was limited to civil operations, and it now wants to expand to military customers.
If SCL weren't so earnest, it might actually seem to be mocking itself, or perhaps George Orwell.

As the end of the smallpox scenario, dramatic music fades out to a taped message urging people to "embrace" strategic communications, which it describes as "the most powerful weapon in the world." And the company Web page offers some decidedly creepy asides. "The [ops center] can override all national radio and TV broadcasts in time of crisis," it says, alluding to work the company has done in an unspecified Asian country.

The government's use of deception in the service of national security is not new. During World War II, for example, Allied forces conducted a massive misinformation campaign, called Operation Fortitude, designed to hide plans for the Normandy invasion. More recent efforts have met with controversy, however. In 2002, the Pentagon shuttered its brand new Office of Strategic Influence after public outcry over its purported plans to spread deceptive information to the foreign press.

Tintin
26th March 2018, 12:33
Cambridge Analytica is connected to the deep state, Facebook was released back in 2006 as a data mining utility for the intelligence communities. Facebook was created by leader technologies and was stolen by the deep state who controlled the patent attorneys.

Donald Trump was elected president despite all the negative press (fake news) that was shared about him on both mainstream media and also social media. Facebook being used to get trump elected is disinformation given by the deep state, the truth is that he won the election in spite of the disinformation/misinformation.

smat: absolutely, yes. :thumbsup:

This article by Liam O'Hare was cited by Searcher on the 'Skripal poisoning' thread but I'm including it here as well, as there is some cross-pollination with these events.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"International deception and meddling is the name of the game for SCL. We finally have the most concrete evidence yet of shadowy actors using dirty tricks in order to rig elections. But these characters aren’t operating from Moscow intelligence bunkers."

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2018/03/20/scl-a-very-british-coup/

Liam O Hare on the deep connections between Cambridge Analytica’s parent company Strategic Communication Laboratories (SCL Group) and the Conservative Party and military establishment, ‘Board members include an array of Lords, Tory donors, ex-British army officers and defense contractors. This is scandal that cuts to the heart of the British establishment.’

Article date: March 20th 2018

The scandal around mass data harvesting by Cambridge Analytica took a new twist on Monday. (March 19th)

A Channel 4 news undercover investigation revealed that the company’s Eton-educated CEO Alexander Nix offered to use dirty tricks – including the use of bribery and sex workers – to entrap politicians and subvert elections.

Much of the media spotlight is now on Cambridge Analytica and their shadowy antics in elections worldwide, including that of Donald Trump.

However, Cambridge Analytica is a mere offshoot of Strategic Communication Laboratories (SCL Group) – an organisation with its roots deeply embedded within the British political, military and royal establishment. Indeed, as the Observer article which broke the scandal said “For all intents and purposes, SCL/Cambridge Analytica are one and the same.” Like Cambridge Analytica, SCL group is a behavioural research and strategic communication company.

In 2005, SCL went public with a glitzy exhibit at the DSEI conference, the UK’s largest showcase for military technology.

It’s ‘hard sell’ was a demonstration of how the UK government could use a sophisticated media campaign of mass deception to fool the British people into the thinking an accident at a chemical plant had occurred and threatened central London. Genuinely.

Board members include an array of Lords, Tory donors, ex-British army officers and defence contractors. This is scandal that cuts to the heart of the British establishment. SCL Group says on its website that it provides “data, analytics and strategy to governments and military organizations worldwide.”

The organisation boasts that it has conducted “behavioral change programs” in over 60 countries and its clients have included the British Ministry of Defence, the US State Department and NATO.
A freedom of information request from August 2016, shows that the MOD has twice bought services from Strategic Communication Laboratories in recent years.

In 2010/11, the MOD paid £40,000 to SCL for the “provision of external training”. Meanwhile, in 2014/2015, it paid SCL £150,000 for the “procurement of target audience analysis”.

In addition, SCL also carries a secret clearance as a ‘list X’ contractor for the MOD. A List X site is a commercial site on British soil that is approved to hold UK government information marked as ‘confidential’ and above. Essentially, SCL got the green light to hold British government secrets on its premises. Meanwhile, the US State Department has a contract for $500,000 with SLC. According to an official, this was to provide “research and analytical support in connection with our mission to counter terrorist propaganda and disinformation overseas.” This was not the only work that SCL has been contracted for with the US government, the source added.

In May 2015, SCL Defense, another subsidiary of the umbrella organisation, received $1 million (CAD) to support NATO operations in Eastern Europe targeting Russia. The company delivered a three-month course in Riga which taught “advanced counter-propaganda techniques designed to help member states assess and counter Russia’s propaganda in Eastern Europe”.

The NATO website said the “revolutionary” training would “help Ukrainians better defend themselves against the Russian threat”.

What is clear is that all of SCL’s activities were inextricably linked to its Cambridge Analytica arm. As recently as July 2017, the website for Cambridge Analytica said its methods has been approved by the “UK Ministry of Defence, the US State Department, Sandia and NATO” and carried their logos on its website. Mark Turnbull, who joined Alexander Nix at the secretly filmed meetings, heads up SCL Elections as well as Cambridge Analytica Political Global.

His profile at the University of Exeter Strategy and Security Institute boasts of his record in achieving “campaign success via measurable behavioural change” in “over 100 campaigns in Europe, North and South America, Asia, Africa and the Caribbean”.

Turnbull previously spent 18 years at Bell Pottinger, heading up the Pentagon funded PR drive in occupied Iraq which included the production of fake al-Qaeda videos. Turnbull’s involvement is just one sign of the sweeping links the company has with powerful Anglo-American political and military interests.

The firm is headed up by Nigel Oakes, another old Etonian, who, according to the website PowerBase has links to the British royals and was once rumoured to be an Mi5 spy.

In 1992, Oakes described his work in a trade journal as using the “same techniques as Aristotle and Hitler. … We appeal to people on an emotional level to get them to agree on a functional level.”

The President of SCL is Sir Geoffrey Pattie, a former Conservative MP and the Defence Minister in Margaret Thatcher’s government. Pattie also co-founded Terrington Management which lists BAE Systems and Lockheed Martin among its clients.

One of the company’s directors’ is wine millionaire and former British special forces officer in Borneo and Kenya, Roger Gabb, who in 2006 donated £500,000 to the Conservative party.

Gabb was also fined by the Electoral Commission for failing to include his name on an advert in a number of local newspapers arguing for a Leave vote in the Brexit referendum.

SCL’s links to the Conservative party continues through the company’s chairman and venture capitalist Julian Wheatland. He also happens to be chairman of Oxfordshire Conservatives Association.

The organisation has also been funded by Jonathan Marland who is the former Conservative Party Treasurer, a trade envoy under David Cameron, and a close friend of Tory election strategist Lynton Crosby.

Property tycoon and Conservative party donor Vincent Tchenguiz was also the single largest SCL shareholder for a decade.

Meanwhile, another director is Gavin McNicoll, founder of counter-terrorism Eden Intelligence firm who ran a G8 Plus meeting on Financial Intelligence Cooperation at the behest of the British government.

Previous board members include Sir James Allen Mitchell, the former Prime Minister of the previous British colony St. Vincent and the Grenadines. Mitchell has been a privy counselor on the Queen’s advisory board since 1985.

The British military and royal establishment links to SCL are further highlighted through another director Rear Admiral John Tolhurst, a former assistant director of naval warfare in the Ministry of Defence and aide de camp to the Queen.

The Queen’s third cousin, Lord Ivar Mountbatten, was also sitting on SCL’s advisory board but it’s unclear if he still holds that role.

The above examples barely scrape the surface of just how deep the ties go between the UK defence establishment and Strategic Communication Laboratories.

Indeed, it seems evident that the organisation is a product of murky alliances formed between venture capitalists and former British military and intelligence officers. Unsurprisingly, they also happen to be closely tied to the higher echelons of the Conservative party.

International deception and meddling is the name of the game for SCL. We finally have the most concrete evidence yet of shadowy actors using dirty tricks in order to rig elections. But these characters aren’t operating from Moscow intelligence bunkers.

Instead, they are British, Eton educated, headquartered in the city of London and have close ties to Her Majesty’s government.

ramus
26th March 2018, 18:27
Here is another out-cropping of the Facebook scandal. You know they would use scandal to create a tighter net around our rights:

https://cointelegraph.com/news/us-cloud-act-passes-giving-govts-easier-access-to-private-data-stored-by-us-tech-companies

US CLOUD Act Passes, Giving Gov’ts Easier Access To Private Data Stored By US Tech Companies
News
The bill is 2,232-pages how many read that before they voted, just like the bill passed after 911 nobody read, just a knee-jerk reaction.

The CLOUD Act (Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act) -- a contentious last minute addition to the $1.3 trln federal spending bill that will allow the US government more access to Americans’ data for law enforcement purposes, as well as foreign governments access to US companies for data on their own citizens -- has been signed into law by President Donald Trump, GeekWire reports March 23.

The bill had been opposed by privacy advocates like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which had written after the bill’s passing that “this final, tacked-on piece of legislation will erode privacy protections around the globe.”

The Cloud Act was added to the omnibus spending bill on Wednesday night, ahead of the voting on the 2,232-page bill that took place on Thursday. The bill passed 256-167 in the House, and 65-23 in the Senate.

Republic Senator Rand Paul had tweeted March 22, the day of the vote, that “Congress should reject the CLOUD Act because it fails to protect human rights or Americans’ privacy...gives up their constitutional role, and gives far too much power to the attorney general, the secretary of state, the president and foreign governments,” but adding the following caveat:

The bill had met previous opposition from several different US organizations, who saw the late addition as a lack of due process and the content of the bill itself as a backdoor to the Fourth Amendment.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) had posted a “Coalition Letter on Cloud Act” on March 12, writing that the bill, in their opinion, “undermines privacy and other human rights, as well as important democratic safeguards,” due to its bypassing Congress and the existing stored information request procedure and “[placing] authority in the hands of the executive branch.”

The content of the act allows for the US to make deals with foreign governments -- the EFF adds that the governments with human rights abuses are not excluded -- that would allow the governments to directly contact US companies for data requests, which “removes a layer of judicial review,” writes GeekWire.

On the other side of the argument for the bill, Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Oath had written a joint letter on Feb. 6 supporting the Cloud Act, writing about the need for customer protection that the act would give:

“Our companies have long advocated for international agreements and global solutions to protect our customers and Internet users around the world. We have always stressed that dialogue and legislation - not litigation - is the best approach. If enacted, the CLOUD Act would be notable progress to protect consumers’ rights and would reduce conflicts of law.”

Microsoft again posted a letter supporting the bill on March 21, stating that the Cloud Act

“Creates a modern legal framework for how law enforcement agencies can access data across borders. It’s a strong statute and a good compromise that reflects recent bipartisan support in both chambers of Congress, as well as support from the Department of Justice, the White House, the National Association of Attorneys General and a broad cross section of technology companies [...] it gives tech companies like Microsoft the ability to stand up for the privacy rights of our customers around the world. The bill also includes a strong statement about the importance of preventing governments from using the new law to require that U.S. companies create backdoors around encryption, an important additional privacy safeguard.”

Bitcoin (BTC) advocate Andreas M. Antonopoulos posted on twitter after the Cloud Act passed that the public must now “go dark:”

Privacy of personal data has been a key point of the founding ideas of cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin. However, earlier this week NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden said that he believed that Bitcoin’s public ledger was “devastatingly public.”

smat
26th March 2018, 21:40
Q Exposed as Psyop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbSWZV3muVg&feature=share

Wow, truth bomb. American intelligence media is the mothership of alternative media truthful discerned information. The topics shared will help you discern all other alternative media sites. Look for who is covering the SES. The Q phenomenon is finished, it was took over sometime in November by the deep state, I’ve learnt a lot from Q , lots of good people have been fooled by Q2 and Q squared, original Q was legit. That original group were white hats in the NSA pointing people in the right direction for uncovering truth

Alternative Media Wars Are Raging
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsGRRjTZRgU&feature=share

Facebook Sells YOU to Make Money
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8AcvVZsU2w&feature=share


Important, look up SES (keystone)
(Senior Executive Service), this is the exposed face of the shadow government. It is the biggest story ever, the Shadow Government/Deep state are collapsing, they are finished, shine light upon them... freedom is coming to the whole world, this is the great awakening!

ramus
7th April 2018, 17:31
The more one digs into Facebook the more slimy it looks,these people have no conscious or any respect for people. And he has a Hospital named after him for a donation of $75 million now that's hypocrisy , what a crock for sh.t.

Facebook Sent "Top Secret" Doctor To Hospitals For Patient Data Collection
Scheme



https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-05/facebook-sent-top-secret-doctor-hospitals-patient-data-collection-scheme

Profile picture for user Tyler Durden
by Tyler Durden
Thu, 04/05/2018 - 17:16


Facebook sent a cardiologist to several major U.S. hospitals to pitch a scheme
that would combine a patient's medical file with user data collected by the
beleaguered social media giant, in order to "figure out which patients might
need special care or treatment," reports CNBC.

The program, which "never progressed passed the planning phase" according to
Facebook, was put on pause after the Cambridge Analytica data harvesting scandal
raised concerns over the company's policies governing data collection and use.

Facebook's pitch, according to two people who heard it and one who is
familiar with the project, was to combine what a health system knows about its
patients (such as: person has heart disease, is age 50, takes 2 medications and
made 3 trips to the hospital this year) with what Facebook knows (such as: user
is age 50, married with 3 kids, English isn't a primary language, actively
engages with the community by sending a lot of messages). -CNBC


Even the best investors can benefit from financial advice. Get matched with the
right advisor for you in under 5 minutes, and run your strategy by someone you
can trust.

Recently as last month, however, Facebook was discussing the program with
several health organizations - including Stanford Medical School and American
College of Cardiology.

The company says that the shared data would have personally identifiable
information obscured - such as a patient's name, and that they were thinking of
using a technique known as "hashing" to match an individual's medical data to
their social media information.

Facebook said on Wednesday that as many as 87 million users were affected by the
Cambridge Analytica scandal, and that "most" of their 2.2 billion users were
exposed to potential data scraping by "malicious actors."

Building 8

The project to share medical-related data was led by Freddy Abnousi, an
interventional cardiologist whose role is described on LinkedIn as "leading
top-secret projects." The program operated out of Facebook's "Building 8," an
experimental projects group headed by Regina Dugan prior to her October 2017
departure.

The collaboration between Facebook and Hospitals would figure out if a user's
combined information could improve patient care - for example, if an elderly
patient doesn't have nearby close friends or much community support, the
Facebook program might decide to send a nurse over to check in after a medical
procedure.

Of course, no word on whether this data would be then sold - perhaps to
insurance companies, or whether Facebook would use patient data to better
"microtarget" patients with relevant advertisements for pharmaceuticals used to
treat various conditions.

Cathleen Gates, interim CEO of the American College of Cardiology, explained the
benefits of the plan in a quote provided by Facebook:

"For the first time in history, people are sharing information about
themselves online in ways that may help determine how to improve their health.
As part of its mission to transform cardiovascular care and improve heart
health, the American College of Cardiology has been engaged in discussions with
Facebook around the use of anonymized Facebook data, coupled with anonymized ACC
data, to further scientific research on the ways social media can aid in the
prevention and treatment of heart disease—the #1 cause of death in the world.
This partnership is in the very early phases as we work on both sides to ensure
privacy, transparency and scientific rigor. No data has been shared between any
parties."

Due to state and federal patient privacy laws such as the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), health systems are
notoriously cautious about sharing patient health information.

The "hashing" technique Facebook reportedly proposed is a common cryptographic
technique which could be used to match patient data to social media information
- allowing the program to operate while obscuring personally identifiable
information.

That said, the issue of patient consent didn't come up in any of the early
discussions of the program, reports an individual familiar with the program via
CNBC - and Facebook has notoriously done research on users without their
permission.

Notably, in 2014, Facebook manipulated hundreds of thousands of people's
news feeds to study whether certain types of content made people happier or
sadder. Facebook later apologized for the study.

Health policy experts say that this health initiative would be problematic
if Facebook did not think through the privacy implications. -CNBC

"Consumers wouldn't have assumed their data would be used in this way," said
Aneesh Chopra, president of a health software company specializing in patient
data called CareJourney and the former White House chief technology officer.

"If Facebook moves ahead (with its plans), I would be wary of efforts that
repurpose user data without explicit consent."

Facebook told CNBC the following about the program:

"The medical industry has long understood that there are general health benefits
to having a close-knit circle of family and friends. But deeper research into
this link is needed to help medical professionals develop specific treatment and
intervention plans that take social connection into account."

"With this in mind, last year Facebook began discussions with leading medical
institutions, including the American College of Cardiology and the Stanford
University School of Medicine, to explore whether scientific research using
anonymized Facebook data could help the medical community advance our
understanding in this area. This work has not progressed past the planning
phase, and we have not received, shared, or analyzed anyone's data."

"Last month we decided that we should pause these discussions so we can focus on
other important work, including doing a better job of protecting people's data
and being clearer with them about how that data is used in our products and
services."

No word on whether Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital has been involved
in the program following the Facebook CEO's $75 million donation.

Michelle Marie
7th April 2018, 20:47
Cambridge Analytica is connected to the deep state, Facebook was released back in 2006 as a data mining utility for the intelligence communities. Facebook was created by leader technologies and was stolen by the deep state who controlled the patent attorneys. It was then released with the goal to influence and control the western world through the new platform of social media. Dude Zuckerberg did not write facebook, he is just a figure head. You dark facebook profile can be downloaded by you which has all you personal information (including chat history) and also anyone can buy your personal information for $3

Donald Trump was elected president despite all the negative press (fake news) that was shared about him on both mainstream media and also social media. Facebook being used to get trump elected is disinformation given by the deep state, the truth is that he won the election in spite of the disinformation/misinformation.

One of the best resources to find out that is really going on in through American Intelligence Media. Search for the website, there is also an app on itunes and android with the same name. Also search on youtube the the channel. The youtube videos, documents and articles that they release are the very best and explain everything. They even talk to the owner of leader technologies (who wrote facebook and are currently in process of suing the US government for patent theft).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSvSqvFwfUk

https://aim4truth.org/2018/03/22/doj-ses-500-discovered-the-paymasters-of-the-deep-state/

https://aim4truth.org/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJRpeq0s9Ls

This sounds more like the truth to me. Somewhere along the line, I read that Hillary had 7 contracts with Facebook. Another source said that she was tied to Google [Facebook] by the CFR. I've seen the aim4truth information, too. She was part of the patent theft, from what they report. All indications lead to Hillary having the [deceptive] upper hand, and Trump winning despite all of that.

Besides all of that, there was a trend of hate speech toward Trump on Facebook. I know people who got off Facebook because of the negative energy and all the drama.

People are digging for and sharing the truth now more than ever. The spotlight is on them [the nefarious ones who work with greedy and selfish motives]. There's no going back.

I've been talking to people about the SES, sharing links, and asking friends and family to become aware of them. We have names, dates, connections, and motives/intentions and nefarious activities that paint a picture as to the real truth.

It's all coming to light. :sun:

Many are fleeing because of the light of awareness. They can no longer operate their trade in the darkness of secrecy and lies.

The Q team still leads to some truth that has yet to come to light. Anyone who realizes that cooperation is the energy of the day, will not get caught up in dualistic ego competitions. That can be ignored while the cooperative team effort prevails to shed light on the truth. I avoid people who create conflicts and focus on the information. I've seen these come up and quickly turn my attention away from the drama. Divide and conquer strategies do not serve the highest good in the search for truth.

#RunDeepStateRun

:blackwidow:
MM

KiwiElf
8th April 2018, 01:05
Q Exposed as Psyop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbSWZV3muVg&feature=share

Wow, truth bomb. American intelligence media is the mothership of alternative media truthful discerned information. The topics shared will help you discern all other alternative media sites. Look for who is covering the SES. The Q phenomenon is finished, it was took over sometime in November by the deep state, I’ve learnt a lot from Q , lots of good people have been fooled by Q2 and Q squared, original Q was legit. That original group were white hats in the NSA pointing people in the right direction for uncovering truth


Actually,.. it was AIM that was exposed as the psy op and complete fraud. This video is "fake news" (no offense to you, smat) - Please refer to the Q thread for verification from posts #3388 - 3409 (AIM exposed in 3409). Trump was later specifically asked by the Anons (via "Q"), to verify by using the term, "tip-top", which he did in his Easter speech.

"Q" is far from finished; they're just getting started with the really "juicy" info. If anyone's finished, it's "Betsy & Thomas" (read the comments under their video). ;)

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?100318-The-Qanon-posts-and-a---Very-Bad-Day---Scenario-for-some-elite-swamp-critters--Nov-2017-and-beyond-&p=1216953#post1216953

"Q's" Post 513:

513
Jan 8 2018 23:29:38 (EST) Q !UW.yye1fxo 4
IMPORTANT:
NO private comms past/present/future.
NO comms made outside of this platform.
Any claims that contradict the above should be considered FAKE NEWS and disregarded immediately.
WHERE WE GO ONE, WE GO ALL.
PATRIOTS.
Q

:focus:

Tintin
11th April 2018, 14:06
Some more from Jon Rappoport here fairly hot off the press from his blog.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day. . . . I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors." (Thomas Jefferson, June 11, 1807)

Facebook censorship: the grotesque solution
By Jon Rappoport

The problem with Facebook started a long time ago. They used their money to promote their social media operations, and tons of users jumped on board, believing that conventional rules of free speech applied.

That was a mistake.

The mistake was on the level of believing the military-industrial complex is only interested in legitimate defence of the nation; or believing the pharmaceutical industry is only interested in alleviating existing illness with safe drugs.

Some lawyers and scholars are trying to "correct" Facebook. But beware: most of them are arguing that, since the Internet is a new platform, far beyond the ability of the Founding Fathers to have anticipated, we now have to change the meaning of the 1st Amendment, in order to make social media "more responsible" about the content they permit. In other words, Facebook should eliminate "more fake news."

This is the road to disaster, as any sane person can see.


Who decides what is fake? Government appointed fact checkers? The CIA? Either of the two major political parties? A biased hate speech organization?

These scholars and attorneys want social media to be defined as "public square, town hall, news media"---but not so public that all political views are allowed through the door. No. They only want "reasonable" content, to protect "robust debate in a democracy." This is pure baloney.

We're also seeing increasing calls for government regulation of social media. This means more censorship. We're witnessing that in California, where State Senator Richard Pan has introduced a bill (SB 1424), designed to force all Internet activity based in California to use designated fact checkers and issue warnings about fake news.

It may seem like a good move to redefine social media giants as "more than private companies," but that direction is dangerous. In the main, it's not being shaped by true free-speech advocates, it's controlled by mainstream operatives who want their news to dominate the scene.

A 10/11/17 Wired article contains this stunning piece:

"'You cannot run a democratic system unless you have a well-informed public, or a public prepared to defer to well-informed elites,' says Larry Kramer, president of the Hewlett Foundation and an expert in constitutional law.

'And we are now rapidly heading toward neither. Without one or the other, our constitutional system and our liberal democracy will end, perhaps not imminently, but over time'."

Defer to well-informed elites? Really? This is the mainstream argument right out in the open:

The vaunted traditional news outlets speak the truth and we must listen to them. We must censor all the extraneous "noise" on the Internet. The NY Times and the Washington Post and CNN and CBS would never lie. They vet their stories and fact check them. They are objective. They light the lamp of truth and point the way.

They protect democracy.

To mainstream scholars, improving social media means destroying the 1st Amendment under the guise of "adjusting and updating it."

Eliminating hate speech includes censoring material that contradicts the "progressive culture" on issues like immigration, open borders, gun control, vaccination, and gender identity.

"Free speech" is replaced by "better speech."

"I don't like what you say" is replaced by "you have no right to say it."

The very popular pro-Trump Diamond and Silk duo recently reacted to Facebook censorship:

"...giving us the run around, Facebook gave us another bogus reason why Millions of people who have liked and/or followed our page no longer receives notification and why our page, post and video reach was reduced by a very large percentage. Here is the reply from Facebook. Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 3:40 PM: 'The Policy team has come to the conclusion that your content and your brand has been determined unsafe to the community'."

I guess Diamond and Silk are part of the dangerous noise that distracts the American people from "responsible journalism" so necessary to maintaining a robust democracy.

Yes, that must be it.

As far as I can tell, the following quote about the news was written before the Internet and Facebook existed, and therefore---heaven forbid---was actually aimed at mainstream sources:

"Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day. . . . I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors." (Thomas Jefferson, June 11, 1807)

Censor Jefferson! He's contributing to doubt and disbelief in our most trusted streams of information. Ban him from Facebook! He's unsafe to the community. He's a corrosive influence. He's obstructing democracy. He's a conspiracy lunatic. The new and improved 1st Amendment doesn't protect him. How can we conduct intelligent and proper debate on serious matters in the face of such blanket condemnations which he spews?

Yes, ban him, so we can be safe again.

Tintin
11th April 2018, 15:52
Zephyr Teachout writing in today's Guardian newspaper is shining a bright light on the lack of time that senators had to quiz Mark Zuckerberg in any great depth, and his slippery decoying in responses.

It is to be expected of course from someone who has already pretty much shown their hand as a de facto employee of an alphabet agency, and really more of a 'show trial' than a meaningful exercise in transparent accountability. (Tintin Q)

• Zephyr Teachout is an American academic, political activist and former political candidate

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"...It was designed to fail. It was a show designed to get Zuckerberg off the hook after only a few hours in Washington DC. It was a show that gave the pretense of a hearing without a real hearing. It was designed to deflect and confuse."

Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was an utter sham

Article linked here: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/11/mark-zuckerbergs-facebook-hearing-sham

On Tuesday, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg was in the hot seat. Cameras surrounded him. The energy in the room – and on Twitter – was electric. At last, the reluctant CEO is made to answer some questions!

Except it failed. It was designed to fail. It was a show designed to get Zuckerberg off the hook after only a few hours in Washington DC. It was a show that gave the pretense of a hearing without a real hearing. It was designed to deflect and confuse.

Each senator was given less than five minutes for questions.

That meant that there was no room for follow-ups, no chance for big discoveries and many frustratingly half-developed ideas. Compare that to Bill Gates’ hearing on Microsoft, where he faced lawyers and staff for several days, or the Kefauver hearings, which were over a year.

By design, you can’t do a hearing of this magnitude in just a couple of hours.

The worst moments of the hearing for us, as citizens, were when senators asked if Zuckerberg would support legislation that would regulate Facebook. I don’t care whether Zuckerberg supports Honest Ads or privacy laws or GDPR. By asking him if he would support legislation, the senators elevated him to a kind of co-equal philosopher king whose view on Facebook regulation carried special weight. It shouldn’t.

Facebook is a known behemoth corporate monopoly. It has exposed at least 87 million people’s data, enabled foreign propaganda and perpetuated discrimination. We shouldn’t be begging for Facebook’s endorsement of laws, or for Mark Zuckerberg’s promises of self-regulation. We should treat him as a danger to democracy and demand our senators get a real hearing.

The best senators understood this was a show, and used it as such.

“Your user agreement sucks,” said Senator John Kennedy.

“Are you a monopoly?” asked Senator Lindsey Graham. (Zuckerberg comically responded that he didn’t “feel” like it.)

Senator Richard Blumenthal said we needed laws, not promises or apologies.

Because each senator was limited to under five minutes, Zuckerberg tried to run the clock by talking about mission, philosophy or what he believed in. There were some good questions, but there was little chance for follow up. You could almost see him, well-trained to count the minutes, playing for time when things got a little hot.

Senators Mazie Hirono and Cory Booker, for instance, both pointed out the damning reporting by Julia Angwin at ProProblica (https://www.propublica.org/people/julia-angwin), which showed that employers and landlords were using Facebook for discriminatory ads (https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-advertising-discrimination-housing-race-sex-national-origin). Zuckerberg defended the company by saying they were hard to flag, and that they depend on community flagging to stop them.

The tools Facebook provides make discrimination easy. Facebook has monopoly profit margins, so it could easily provide real staffing to protect against discrimination, if it wanted to.

It doesn’t want to.

Hirono and Booker could have shown that, but, like the rest of the senators, they each had only a few minutes for a line of questioning. Zuckerberg replied with vague answers about how their comments were “important” or “interesting” or “an important conversation to have”.

Some of the hearing seemed designed to figure out whether Zuckerberg is a good or bad man, or whether he has a good or bad – or bizarre – political philosophy. Zuckerberg strikes me as reliably self-serving. That doesn’t make him that interesting as the CEO of a corporate monopoly; it makes him a run-of-the-mill robber baron.

Asking Zuckerberg philosophical questions, such as how he thinks we should deal with questions of hate speech, treats him as a thought leader. Accepting his failures to catch discriminatory housing ads, for instance, treats him as a good-hearted actor with limited resources, instead of someone who is making monopoly margins and billions in profits.

In my view, we need to break up Facebook from Instagram and the other potential competitors that Facebook bought up. We need to – at a minimum – move towards opt-in, we need to hold Facebook responsible for enabling discrimination, and we need to require interoperability.

But that’s not enough.

There is so much we don’t know about Facebook.

We know we have a corporate monopoly that has repeated serious violations that are threatening our democracy. We don’t know how their algorithm treats news organizations or content producers, how Facebook uses its own information about Facebook users or how tracking across platforms works, to just give a few examples.

Now that the initial show trial is done, we need the real deal, one where no senator gets cut off after a few minutes.

The real hearing would allow for unlimited questions from each of our senators, who represent millions of people. If it takes two months of sitting in Washington DC, let it take two months. This is our democracy.

ramus
20th May 2018, 13:54
Cambridge Analytica files for Chapter 7 bankruptcy

By Ken MartinPublished May 18, 2018PoliticsFOXBusiness


The nameplate of political consultancy, Cambridge Analytica, is seen in central London, Britain March 21, 2018. REUTERS/Henry Nicholls


https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/cambridge-analytica-files-for-chapter-7-bankruptcy

Cambridge Analytica, the firm at the center of Facebook privacy scandal, filed for voluntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy in a New York court late on Thursday.

Cambridge Analytica listed assets in the range of $100,001 to $500,000 and liabilities in the range of $1 million to $10 million, according to Reuters.

In a Chapter 7 filing, a company goes into liquidation mode, essentially going out of business. It sells property and distributes the proceeds to creditors.

Cambridge Analytica and its British parent SCL Elections said earlier this month that they would shut down immediately and begin bankruptcy proceedings after suffering a sharp drop in business.
ow.



Facebook disclosed in March that consultancy Cambridge Analytica had harvested data belonging to millions of users.

The Cambridge Analytica scandal, affecting up to 87 million users and prompting several apologies from Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg, generated calls for regulation and for users to leave the social network.

Cambridge Analytica marketed itself as a provider of consumer research, targeted advertising and other data-related services to both political and corporate clients and was hired by President Donald Trump's 2016 U.S. election campaign.

What wasn't stated is Hillary and Obama both used Cambridge in there campaigns, long before Trump. Cambridge and Facebook were both blamed for Trumps victory.

ramus
4th June 2018, 19:58
IT JUST KEEPS GETTING WORSE :


Facebook made deals with 60 device makers that gave them access to users’ data

Published: June 4, 2018 3:29 p.m. ET

By
Ciara
Linnane
Corporate news editor

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/facebook-made-deals-with-60-device-makers-that-gave-them-access-to-users-data-2018-06-04

Facebook Inc. made agreements with at least 60 makers of phones and other devices that gave them access to the personal information of users’ friends without their consent, the New York Times reported Monday, citing company officials.

The companies involved include Apple Inc. AAPL, +0.87% BlackBerry Ltd. BB, +2.32% Microsoft Corp. MSFT, +0.86% and Amazon.com Inc. AMZN, +1.35% the paper reported. The agreements allowed Facebook to expand its reach and let device makers offer customers features, such as messaging, “like” buttons and address books.

The scope of the partnerships has not been reported before and raises concerns about the company’s privacy protections, as well as compliance with a 2011 consent decree with the Federal Trade Commission.

Most of the agreements are still in place, though Facebook FB, -0.30% began to wind them down in April, after coming under scrutiny from lawmakers and regulators over data used by Cambridge Analytica, which has declared bankruptcy.

Read now: The sad truth about how much your Facebook data is worth on the dark web

Facebook has said that the access granted to Cambrdige Analytica, a political consultancy, in 2014 was cut off by 2015, when the company explicitly banned developers from collecting data on users’ friend. But it did not disclose that the makers of phones and tablets were excluded from the ban.


Read now: Facebook reveals the 87 million accounts affected by privacy violation — what to do if you’re one of them

Related: Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak says he’s quitting Facebook: ‘You are the product’

Facebook said Monday in a blog post that it “controlled [APIs] tightly from the get-go” and that the device makers it partnered with “signed agreements that prevented people’s Facebook information from being used for any other purpose than to recreate Facebook-like experiences.”

Facebook also said that its team had to approve these new “experiences” and that device partners like Apple Iand Amazon could not “integrate the user’s Facebook features with their devices without the user’s permission.”

See: What Facebook and other tech leaders must do now to win back our trust
Mark Zuckerberg’s Face-Off With European Parliament: The Highlights

Facebook said that the private APIs in question were “very different from the public APIs used by third-party developers, like Aleksandr Kogan” of Cambridge Analytica.

The New York Times said that one of its reporters, Michael LaForgia, used the Hub app on a blackberry Z10 to log into Facebook and found the app was able to retrieve detailed data on 556 of his friends. The data included relationship status, religious and political leanings and events they planned to attend.

Twitter was predictably unhappy about the news.

Shares of Facebook were down 1% in early trade, but are up 26% over the past 12 months, while the S&P 500 index SPX, +0.44% has gained 12% and the Dow Jones Industrial Average DJIA, +0.74% has added 17%.

ramus
8th June 2018, 21:13
Facebook Gave Some Companies Access to Additional Data About Users’ Friends


Special deals gave a small number of companies access to data after shutting off access for other developers

https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-gave-some-companies-access-to-additional-data-about-users-friends-1528490406?mod=breakingnews

By Deepa Seetharaman and
Kirsten Grind
June 8, 2018 4:40 p.m. ET
13 COMMENTS

Facebook Inc. FB 0.49% struck customized data-sharing deals with a select group of companies, some of which had special access to user records well after the point in 2015 that the social-media giant has said it cut off all developers from that information, according to court documents, company officials and people familiar with the matter.

The unreported agreements, known internally as “whitelists,” also allowed certain companies to access additional information about a user’s Facebook friends, the people familiar with the matter said. That included information like phone numbers and a metric called “friend link” that measured the degree of closeness between users and others in their network, the people said.

Many of these customized deals were separate from Facebook’s data-sharing partnerships with at least 60 device makers, which it disclosed this week. Several lawmakers and regulators have subsequently said those device-maker arrangements merit further investigation.

The whitelist deals, with companies including RBC Capital Markets and Nissan Motor Co. , were struck with advertisers or Facebook partners that were valuable for other reasons, according to some of the people familiar with the matter. They show that Facebook gave special data access to a broader universe of companies than was previously known. They also raise further questions about who has access to the data of billions of Facebook users and why they had access, at a time when Congress is demanding the company be held accountable for the flow of that data.

Data-Security Concerns Threaten Trust in Tech Companies
Tech-company executives at The Wall Street Journal's D.Live conference in Hong Kong responded to concerns over data security in the wake of Facebook's privacy scandal.

Facebook officials said the company struck a small number of deals with developers largely to improve the user experience, test new features and allow certain partners to wind down previously existing data-sharing projects. The company said it allowed a “small number” of partners to access data about a user’s friends after the data was shut off to developers in 2015. Many of the extensions lasted weeks and months, Facebook said. It isn’t clear when all of the deals ultimately expired or how many companies got extensions.

The vast majority of developers who plugged into Facebook’s platform weren’t aware that the company offered this preferred access or extensions to certain partners, according to the people familiar with the matter.

Privacy experts said Facebook users also likely didn’t know how their data was being shared. “I don’t think anyone would have a reasonable understanding of how widespread this was,” said David Vladeck, director of the Federal Trade Commission’s Consumer Protection Bureau from 2009 until 2013 and now a professor at Georgetown Law.

Mr. Vladeck said any deals made after 2012 could draw scrutiny about whether Facebook was in violation of its settlement that year with the FTC, under which the firm is required to give the social network’s users clear and prominent notice and obtaining their express consent before sharing their information beyond their privacy settings. Facebook said Friday it hasn’t violated the settlement.

The revelations come as Facebook is dealing with the fallout in March related to the use of personal data by Cambridge Analytica, a political analytics firm that aided President Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and purchased data on 87 million users from another developer. The crisis sparked questions about Facebook’s lax oversight of its platform, an FTC investigation into whether the company violated the 2012 settlement and two congressional appearances by Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg in April.

More to come