Posted on 08/12/2018 6:12:59 AM PDT by Enlightened1
Your welcome.
Not trying to “slide” this thread, but thought the above might interest some in their research.
DARPA’s LifeLog possible connection to FB I learned about from “Q”. The implication could be taxpayer dollars funneled through quiet backdoor (think CIA) channels to FB and others. Wholly private sector? Maybe not. Why?
The Dore YT video are some quirky progressives burning the MSM and Dems during the Trump/Cambridge Analytica blow up a while back. That lead me to Carol Davidson:
‘They were on our side’: Obama campaign director reveals Facebook ALLOWED them to mine American users’ profiles in 2012 because they were supportive of the Democrats
“Carol Davidsen, who worked as the media director at Obama for America, claimed Obama campaign mined millions of people’s information from Facebook”
Facebook Turned Blind Eye to Data Mining Practices of Obama Campaign (under 4mins - a good summary)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0bV2b4WMmQ
The video cuts of Davidson speaking in the above OAN YT link came from her Ted Talk, should you choose to chase that rabbit.
Old FReepers yelling at clouds completely fail to comprehend the power of modern social media and its importance at spreading conservative messages.
I agree
These gatekeepers are all little western Christian loathing tyrants
The only one at thst table who is occasionally reasonable is Ellison
Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one.
FB and Google are under no more legal or ethical obligation to host or direct people to speech the owners/stockholders/board don’t like than Free Republic is.
Don’t like it? Don’t use ‘em, anything else is pitious whining.
I totally agree.
These monopolies must be busted and now.
As a society, we are slowly being conditioned to accept being financially and/or occupationally destroyed as a consequence for "inappropriate" online behavior (as defined by liberals).
It started a few years back with people losing their jobs or getting kicked out of college for overt racist internet activity. As the conditioning becomes developed, the definition of "inappropriate", "offensive", and "hate speech" is being expanded.
Just a couple weeks ago a Sheriff's Deputy was fired over wearing a Proud Boys sweatshirt. The Proud Boys are not a white supremacist group. Or at least they weren't up until the point the SPLC without any evidence said they were and that's all it took. "SPLC says these guys are a hate group. You're supporting them. You're fired."
I used to have a little Pepe the Frog sticker on the rear window of my pickup. I thought it was a cool way to show my solidarity with a segment of Trump's more enthusiastic supporters. But I wussed out and removed it. The ADL said it was a white supremacist symbol. Pepe the Frog. I have a leadership position at work. I have a wife and four kids to support. That wasn't the hill I wanted to die on.
These people are getting way too powerful.
We don't build our own social networking programs. We assert our right to participate on the ones that already exist.
And here's some constructive criticism: When you have a glaring typo in your thread title, ask the mods to fix it. They will. I've done it.
A lot of people see the typo and won't even bother clicking on the thread.
In response to a question about JimRob selling a part of FR to investors:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3677917/posts?page=185#185
JomRob could offer any percent to invitation-only investors in a ***private equity*** arrangement. BUT if JimRob’s business is publicly traded, he must allow Alex Jones to set up and operate a website or in the case of FR, a separate chapter.
An analogy would be a public restaurant that rents out private rooms to parties. As long as the private parties abstain from disrupting, interfering with other private rooms such as walking in and telling other private parties to leave, they are allowed to carry on any activity that is legal. Other patrons and customers are unaffected as long as they stay out of the private rooms.
Each person that enters Alex Jones website or YouTube channel or similar is doing so on their own volition. No one is forcing them to listen to Alex Jones or to buy his products.
If a customer has an inclination to access the Alex Jones party in the Infowars private room, the public restaurant can do nothing to impede that.
However, if the public restaurant is or goes private, as in a private club, then the club can set any policy for its members, as long as it’s legal.
Facebook, Google/Youtube, Twitter, and any other publicly traded corporation must allow law-abiding customers, patrons, members EQUAL ACCESS to what the these publicly traded corporations are offering unless there are premium offerings for which customers must pay a premium. But even in the context of premium offerings, a publicly traded corporation is not allowed to deny access to premium services and products to any law-abiding customer that has the means to purchase them.
Facebook, Google/Youtube, Twitter are NOT privately owned businesses, they are owned by the public. For example, Zuckerberg as Founder and CEO of Facebook does not own private shares of Facebook. He owns public shares, common or preferred, in Facebook. Derivatives are not ownership instruments, shares are. Zuckerberg owns public shares and as CEO his shareholdings must be made public.
As long as an activity of a patron or customer is legal, these publicly owned corporations cannot alter, abridge, or suppress rights. These publicly traded entities have TOS = Terms of Service that all members agree to abide by, but the TOS is not law and can be challenged. If Alex Jones is banned because a publicly traded entity declares he has violated their TOS, they better be able to back it up else he can sue for all the damages and lost business suffered as a result.
Both anti-trust and First Amendment (despite these companies not being governmental, they form the current "public square").
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3677759/posts?page=17#17
I am not so obsessed with these social media platforms censoring, suspending, shadow banning and so on for political purposes. I don’t like it but I force myself to think like an engineer, like an analyst to understand the bigger picture and to possibly see where there may be agreements that make sense.
What I object to is the funding that allowed these platforms to grow so large, where it originated from, how it’s unfair to competitors.
Wall St. controls the markets by owning the controlling shares of markets. Any entrepreneur that gets big to compete against Wall St. is bought out and neutralized.
Any product, any popular brand is bought and controlled. Every corporate retail chain and a good portion of its suppliers are bought and controlled using Wall St. financial power.
And what is Wall St. and where does it get its money? It’s actually not real money, it’s electronic currency power, specifically, it is an electronic creation of something that acts like money. I’ll call it funny money. It’s not backed by anything. There are no laws on its supply. There are guidelines but no laws. Money supply measures have been ‘retired’ or hidden so that Wall St. has maximum power to channel and flow its funny money to purposes borne of its decision makers.
Wall St. is a conglomerate of banks, insurance companies, exchanges, fund managers, wealth and asset managers. The key players at the top are mostly known to each other. But the real core of Wall St. is the member banks of the NY Fed. These are Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Bank of NY Mellon, US Bancorp, Morgan Stanley, and dozens more.
More than half of The S&P is driven by the biggest banks.
And where do these mega financial entities get their financial power?
From the relationships they have with the NY Fed which for all intents and purposes is the Fed. They are funded by Fed funny money often dubbed as ‘liquidity facilities’ and by many such names as to appear esoteric to the public.
How does this tie to the mega social media platforms? The money behind these social platforms came ultimately from the Fed through a hierarchy and network of relationships that act like a private club. In order to dominate the markets, Wall St. movers and shakers give the public ‘sugar’ as in sign up for free. The people creating free accounts for themselves become the ‘product’, their information and habits, mindsets, politics, are sold to marketing groups and to intel communities.
I have a grievance against mega social media platforms created as part of a club grown by funny money. Entrepreneurs who are not part of the club are denied access to capital to grow in the same space at the same rate.
Consider Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, he’s worth about $70,000,000,000 in Wall St. funny money. He never earned it. He is a total fabrication by decision makers in the Wall St. ruling class. He is an insult to hardworking Americans everywhere.
But it’s not the funny money wrapper that Zuckerberg is carried in that is repugnant. We’re not jealous. He can have all the funny money he desires. If he sits back in an easy chair for the rest of his days and smokes his funny money, great! No one should care.
What is grating is he is directed to control the social media space and to play nice with other members of the club like Dorsey and to do all this to control us, to control our thinking, to control out boundaries, to control out consumer choices, to control the market which is us. And all of that control is made possible by Wall St. funny money.
This is what is so objectionable. There are millions of programmers more talented than Zuckerberg that could do what he does. He’s nothing special. He’s a made member, that is all. Made by doing what he’s told. Those who made him have access to creating funny money out of nothing. All the rest of us are denied that access. Wall St. individuals are nothing special. They have memberships to a private club that controls creation of funny money. They have no special talents. They simply are next to the computers that create funny money out of nothing and they make damn sure the door to those computers is slammed in our faces.
Our recourse is to be aware of how the game works and act as referees to throw Wall St. out for penalties, break them up with the Sherman Antitrust Act, to cause capitalization to reach competitors who will not form an oligarchy of colluding interests.
Imagine there was a social media competitor as large as Facebook that was willing to allow Alex Jones to create a business account, to monetize itself. “Hey Alex, you’re welcome to come over here and sell your vitamins and do your shows”. Why not? Why doesn’t this exist? Well, it does exist but it’s so small it doesn’t much matter. And if it ever started to get big, well it would be bought out. This is anti-competitive behavior. There are laws against this sort of thing.
Because certain Wall St. persons are next to funny money structure, they have an unfair advantage. They have no title, no authorization to create a funny money club for themselves. They are using financial power that was set in motion by a public law, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Because it’s a public law that they grabbed for themselves to make themselves powerful, we the public have the right to break them up because their behavior is not in step with the principles of the American founding. We want, require, demand, and deserve competition meaning equal footing when it comes to accessing financial power without having to join a union of oligarchs manifesting as a private wealth club.
The next step is to break up the social media monopolies and establish a competitive environment so that there will always be someplace else for consumers and business participants to go in case there are disagreements, political, personal, or otherwise.
Exactly right. They are not strictly private companies, they are not privately held.
When they decided to go public, they lost control of their private commercial power. They ceded power by becoming subject to public laws that govern publicly owned entities.
As an intelligence tool, Facebook's allowing people to post and tag photos, allows them to track the connections of people who do not even have a FB account. If some agency, with access to all FB photos, decides they are "interested" in you, gets a pic of you (for example, your driver's license photo) and then does a facial-recognition search for you on Facebook, what might they find out about you from what OTHERS post of you?
However, it's both; taking them down from the outside AND the inside as you suggest.
In any case, our Social Media companies have gone to the dark side. Hence, as a practical matter, we must send loads pain and destruction their way by any means necessary.
They MUST go down some notches, or perhaps just smashed altogether.
That and when they became bigger than all of the banks, railroads and tech companies combined - ALL of whom have fell under anti-trust laws. They have more members than CHRISTIANITY and more money than Venezuela... and they hate us.
Those arguing that we "shouldn't" anti-trust these companies would normally have a point. Those arguing that we "can't" anti-trust them are simply wrong on the facts and the law.
Van, I only pinged you because I couldn't get back to our previous discussion. Ultimately, I think you have to realize that a bunch of conservatives walking away from social media will accomplish little to nothing.
CONSPIRACY THEORIST
A) Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist??
- OR -
B) Republican Rino & Democrat Party
are Conspiracy Theorists believing in Russia Bigfoot collusion with Russian E.T. aliens??
Choose.
Which should be banned?
If you want to argue we shouldn't go after the tech goons as a matter of principle, you'd sound smarter. Wrong, but smarter. However, you're trying to argue that we *can't* as a matter of LAW, hence you sound stupid. FB is not "the press" and it is not comparable to Free Republic in any respect.
FB is publicly traded company with more members than Christianity. Open a history or law book (or Google) and note how many American companies - which were far smaller - fell under anti-trust. FB absolutely CAN be anti-trusted.
The only question is whether we want to or not.
Absolutely right.......
So they are operating under false pretenses
......b/c they did not disclose this to users.....and to investors.
CONTACT: enforcement@SEC.gov.
This suppression of conservative thought and action is another legacy of the Halfrican.
He made it official policy to target anyone who stood in his way to power.
Its why Hillary had the godawful nerve to call Trump supporters “deplorables”.....
The Halfrican and his hate-filled crew figured they’d be in power forever.
Facebook Turned Blind Eye to Data Mining Practices of Obama Campaign (under 4mins - a good summary)
SOURCE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0bV2b4WMmQ
Great finds---thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.