Facebook Is Breaking A Promise, And Now Conservatives Are Paying The Price

Daily Caller ^ | Apr 15, 2018 | Anders Hagstrom

[upchuck]

When Facebook makes promises, news outlets make bets, and dozens of outlets did just that when Facebook signaled an increase in traffic for video products in 2017.

Now, Facebook seems to be reneging on its promise. Vox fired 50 video producers due to lagging Facebook traffic in February, but conservative news outlets have been on unstable ground with Facebook since 2016. The IJR had a culling of its own, and RARE went out of business entirely. In January, Facebook changed policies and cut the amount of news users will see on the site in general and also made the decision to boost “trusted” news outlets while suppressing their competitors.

According to a report from The Outline, conservative and right wing outlets are hit the hardest, while the engagement numbers of most predominantly liberal publishers remain unaffected. Liberal or left-leaning outlets made up nine of the top ten performing publishers on Facebook in March 2018, with only Fox News representing conservatives.

When Texas Sen. Ted Cruz dug into Mark Zuckerberg on this exact topic this week, Zuckerberg floundered, insisting that the far left views of Silicon Valley don’t leak into how Facebook does business, but some former Facebook employees tell a different story. They say they “routinely” suppressed conservative news stories from the site’s “trending” news section.

“Facebook’s news section operates like a traditional newsroom, reflecting the biases of its workers and the institutional imperatives of the corporation,” Gizmodo writes.

What that translates to is every conservative outlet in the country has to get through a liberal newsroom before it gets to Facebook users.

[EVO X]

The Chicago Trib had an article a few weeks ago that said 70 percent of employers use social media to screen potential employees. Guess it keeps the PI overhead down..

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-data-privacy-facebook-cambridge-analytica20180319-story.html

[SamAdams76]

Well I should have qualified that statement. Any determined person, especially one with good internet searching skills, can deduce the real identities of most people who post on the internet with pseudonyms.

I've posted enough information on Free Republic alone under SamAdams76 to bring anybody right to my front door. Which is why I'm careful not to make too many enemies!

Now you seem to be more careful than most. I see you don't even list your state on your profile. But I can probably safely narrow you down to the NJ/PA area based on the posts I've seen from you. Close to the Philly metro area, I would guess. I have you pegged as a white male in your 60s (give or take half a decade either way) who is somewhat tech savvy. In fact, you probably had a career in the technology sector. You are definitely careful about how you browse the Internet. Most likely you use a non-standard browser like Pale Moon or Vivaldi. You may even do much of your searching through a non Google search engine (StartPage.com). You are a big fan of classic rock and country music - mostly older country music. You are reliably Republican but may have been a Democrat in your younger days. I'm thinking you maybe voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976. You are probably a practitioner of yoga. You follow George Webb (private investigative reporter) on the Web and likely have a presence on Twitter as well, though you probably have the account protected (where you must accept followers to see your profile). I'm guessing you follow Twitter accounts such as @VachelLindsay; @ThomasWictor and on of our FR favorite @LarrySweickart.

How'd I do?

[Liz]

Nebraska Republican Sen. Ben Sasse’s brilliant line of questioning exposed some of the problems with handing over these responsibilities to Zuckerburg..... “Can you define hate speech?” Sasse asked. Zuckerberg admitted that beyond calls for violence, he couldn’t come up with a definition of the sort of speech that should be banned by an algorithm.

Say what? Zuck can’t define hate speech? Bullhockey. Not for the cameras, he cant. Little lyin’ POS.

Let me help Zuck with that. Herewith is uber-liberal Facebook’s censorship up close....and its not very pretty.

REALITY CHECK: A Michigan House of Representatives and state lottery commissioner submitted his reelection announcement to Facebook........but the Facebook Nazis rejected his ad “because it doesn’t follow Facebook Advertising Policies. Facebook does not allow ads that contain shocking, disrespectful or sensational content, including ads that depict violence or threats of violence.”

So what was the reelections ad’s content that made Facebook go ballistic?

In its entirety: “I’m proud to announce my candidacy for State Senate. Lansing needs conservative, West Michigan values, and as our next State Senator, I will work to strengthen our economy, limit government, lower our auto insurance rates, balance the budget, stop sanctuary cities, pay down government debt and be a Pro-Life, Pro-Second Amendment leader for the people. Find out more at www.VoteNesbitt.com.”

(hat tip dailycaller.com)

[bankwalker]

hhhhmmmm .... no comment ... are you related to Columbo?

[SamAdams76]

How long ago did you cut your cable TV?

[bankwalker]

I have no idea what you’re talking about ;-)

[stellaluna]

I seen Facebook used for screening. It’s amazing. People say they are disabled in the interview and post photos of themselves rock climbing in the same week.

[Albion Wilde]

bump for later reading

[EVO X]

It’s amazing. People say they are disabled in the interview and post photos of themselves rock climbing in the same week.

The Brit tabloids really get into benefit scam reporting. Benefits cheats are fair game over there. Not so much on this side of the pond.

[Garth Tater]

There is NO anonymity on the internet.


Want to narrow a target's address down a little tighter?

1. Create 3 small little images of a period or a hyphen and put them up on one of your webservers.

2. Go your target's page that displays their in-forum postings and post replies to him from where he has posted on 3 different threads - include one of the 3 images you created in each of your replies.

The next time your target pulls up his page that lists the comments people have made to him your 3 images will be pulled from your webserver. Filter your webserver's log file to find the 3 images being accessed in quick succession - the IP address that pulled those images is your target's IP address.

3. Now go to an IP-to-Location services provider - IP Fingerprints or any of a thousand other ones (free services will get you to within a mile or so, paid services will get you to within a block.)

4. Search property records and compile a list of all the property owners (renters if necessary) in your target's neighborhood.

5. Hire a tech savvy licensed investigator local to that area and provide him with your list of names and ask him to identify your target from the IP number.

Between war driving, targeted emailing, and a door knock or two a name can be put to that IP address very quickly.

Note: if your investigator is legit you will need a "legit" reason for him to do the job for you. $500 should get the job done.

______________________________________________


       ALWAYS remember:

There is NO anonymity on the internet.

Don't ever post anything anonymously that you wouldn't also post with your name attached.

Need to know a few, less scrupulous ways to ID someone from their anonymous postings? Don't ask me 'cuz I won't tell you, but believe me there are people that will.

[bankwalker]

Thank you for the info Garth ...