look how far we've come & ""CONGRESS MAN, YES" & several of the reasons why USURER'S LOGIC makes FACEBOOK the future press darlings of 2018", scott richard image and painting from 2012 (original photo from 2010)
i love you, i know
an essay that cites TONS of quotes and incidents from the recent congressional meeting regarding FACEBOOK taking over the world and why you should have invested when i told you to invest... i did. just so proof would equal pudding.
(FYI the stock went up to 208 from 164 two weeks after this essay was written. it's back down to what it was at that time again. facebook is spreading its profits into subsids now, so it's not on my BUY NOW list. but if you can smell out the little geniuses facebook intends to buy, you might be able to find some juicy investments. i still believe that tesla will produce some kind of design innovation that will be purchasable for worldwide distribution...)
"CONGRESS MAN, YES" & several of the reasons why USURER'S LOGIC makes FACEBOOK the future press darlings of 2018 and beyond based on the CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS + transcript notes and observations by scott richard
usury sucks for everyone. even those who profit.
and we don't FIGHT USURY.
we fk it until it destroys everything around us.
FB means fk buddy, literally, not facebook...
anyway, i know from great and long experience that americans graft their identity concepts from the products and services they use and abuse.
you can't go broke betting on the fall.
to not buy FACEBOOK stock would be like turning down a 50% off willy wonka chocolate bar that ALSO comes with a free golden ticket to the chocolate factory.
so while i listened and periodically watched the 5 hours of boring and often JUVENILE hearings, i couldn't help thinking how clever deception really is. FACEBOOK does soooo many things that you have no idea about.
where did you think all that FAKE money was going?
and it was sooooo touching when a couple of the congress people dared to ask when mark would stop selling OPIOID DRUGS off FACEBOOK. he conveniently said, never.
but don't worry, the u.s. sent it's least qualified people to talk to FACEBOOK about this, lol.
i mean, the vast majority of these congresspeople were like children who have no clue about adult concepts.
for example, not one congressperson asked if those "privacy settings" weren't hackable -- as in something so FKING SIMPLE like "well, a hacker can hack past those infantile settings." instead, they gave zuckerberg the legal opportunity to talk-stall his way out of their four minutes. it was EMBARRASSING to see how stupid most of these congresspeople really are and how unlearned about important tech philosophy. most of them had no idea even what "privacy settings" were, so many spent their four minutes being "schooled". fking waste. that's like sending me to the olympics for weightlifting...
so the first problem is that congresspeople don't really know a lot about anything. in general, they are "OUT OF THE GD LOOP" when it comes to understanding worldwide things like the fking INTERNET!!??! they know a little about a lot.
anyway, each congressperson was given four minutes to ask zuckerberg questions about what happened.
the LARGE majority wasted these minutes with grandstanding. only a handful seemed to have an inkling of what the real reach and danger and anti-American stance that FACEBOOK has against the united states.
so instead of gathering relevant testimony and commitment from FACEBOOK on super important legal issues regarding citizenship protection and unethical information exchange, they paraded themselves for THEIR fake american constituent's votes. it was DISGUSTING. how fking shallow bipartisan azzhoes really are.
instead of REPRESENTING AMERICA, they represented their own careers.
and honestly, every single person on MEDZ or overeating or over drinking these days is acting like an ANTI-AMERICAN. supremacy is also a form of ANTI-AMERICANISM.
we've reached a point where our daily choices are becoming ANTI-AMERICAN and in violation of other citizens' rights to be free. but i guess we don't see it clearly, mostly.
in the city, it is much more obvious. especially a FAKE SANCTUARY city like san francisco, the sanctuary is REALLY being given to the monied and the foreign investors, not the locals. it's a FAKE moniker for investors, not a representation of anything more. but most people are like these congresspeople -- out to get more votes from their base. but that's not AMERICAN. that's just regional self-interest.
thankfully, there were a few exceptions and those ones were AWESOME to hear. they were incredibly revealing. and it is clear that their voices are being thrown out. so that's a drag, but you can't really stop FACEBOOK. they are not a social platform. they are the world's largest company and they fund TONS of stuff around the globe.
for example, FACEBOOK is going to have the largest WORLDWIDE "counterterrorism" team. already there team is competitive with world powers. soon, they will be larger than any nation's.
now, those of us who are in the know, well, we KNOW that the COUNTERTERRORISTS are the real terrorists.
if you listen to the 9/11 commission report you would know this, too. or, if you listened to anything the islamic world is saying you'd know this, too. but i already know you don't listen to those people.
doesn't change the truth -- the COUNTERRERRORISTS are the real terrorists.
so now FACEBOOK will be the leading force in this deception.
already they have over 200 people working full time in 30 different languages in counterterrorism.
if you don't get what this means, you should go read my facebook farewell that i wrote about two years ago when i stopped contributing to the largest surveillance system ever built and used against humanity.
i had written a similar program concept in the 90s. it was called CYBERBUDDY.
the idea was you would input your info into a program (we call them apps now) that tracked your emotional and physical world by remembering everything you input and being able to remind you of things -- how you felt about others, what had happened and what others had done to you.
and, as all the social media programs do, it would have a backside that was constantly selling your information to buyers.
but the user never knew this.
anyway, that's exactly what FACEBOOK did. and let's be honest, FACEBOOK was CHOSEN.
it's not that great.
there were way better platform possibilities. but the world cartels needed something legit, so they chose the HARVARD-based platform. and it worked. they inserted the most deviant and self-revealing and WORSE betraying platform known to humans.
this congressperson is holding up a chart. it shows FACEBOOK's profits.
they are escalating exponentially. from 1 billion in 2006 to 26 billion in 2016 and then WATCH THE FKING LEAP!!!!
40 BILLION dollars in 2017.
buy now. you won't be crying later.
anyway, zuckerberg intends to have more than 20,000 people working on counterterrorism within a year or so. they are also building an endless array of surveillance and algorithmic tools that will affect ALL world trade. they are also deeply involved in ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE development.
basically, if you wanted an anti christ of jewish origins, you are looking at the rise of the kingship. but if you're not scared and don't go that way right away, dip into OVERHEAD STUDIES to see just how amazingly controlling all of this is when you also have KILL DRONES and security enforcement.
already OVERHEAD STUDIES are being used against the u.s. population to imprison us.
anyway, for most people this will seem crazy and like a new gibberish. so be it.
i started to take notes about a third of the way into process when i started to get a feel for how the "hearings" work. it was new for me, but i'll post the transcript of my notes which are a lot of actual transcriptting.
the republicans are all for it and that's why you should bet on FACEBOOK. especially since the majority of FACEBOOK's users are and will be NOT from america. so our "opinion" of this is just that.
FACEBOOK is bigger than the u.s. government and for the record, the whole counterterrorism surveillance team works from outside the u.s.
where there are different laws...
okay, so here's the transcript which i LAUGHINGLY call:
CONGRESS MAN, YES
because this is the tactic zuckerberg and his lawyers realized was the WINNING COMBO.
who knew congresspeople were so fking stupid? especially from the stupid states. geez.
no wonder so many extra-foreigners are making a bid at stealing so much of the united states' property.
it must be fking easy with so many dum fks.
and to those congress people who used this momentous occasion to further their careers instead of protecting the american public, FKU!!!!!
figures on a beach
the partial notes:
i would love to be a congressperson, but to be one, i would have to not understand any of this. so why are they “representing” us??!?!?!
agree with the person.
deflect away from the topic by using their weakness and lack of knowledge.
obscure the truth. pretend you’re not a MASSIVE CONGLOMERATE but a calendar site for connecting people’s lives HALLMARK.
once zuckerberg figures out how to run the clock down, he takes over everytime.
some senators (usually republican) have long winded and meaningless monologues followed by easy to answer questions of no importance except to wind the four minute clock down.
20K employees for content control.
some senators (usually democratic) try to get him to answer YES OR NO questions. his tactic for stalling in this case is deflect back to their misunderstanding of the precise language or meaning. it makes them look dumb (a lot of the are and don’t understand why FACEBOOK is such a walking/talking front for a secret information and collection agency as well as worldwide product mouthpiece)
the best questions take all four minutes and then zuckerberg can deflect easily. fk that!!!
NOT A SINGLE CONGRESS PERSON (well, maybe one, but he petered out oddly) got through their questions. most had MANY left and were forced to “submit” them for consideration. BULLSHIT!!!!
SMASHFACE his “prank” site.
"we’re getting ready to overreact”
we do nothing or we overreact!
you need to save your ship?
diamond and silk. african american women.
what is unsafe about two women supporting donald trump?
mr. schrader from oregon.
do you delete and save.
yes.. all things saved.
document retention policy.
testified that you don’t sell information.
but others do. aren’t you complicit?
"complaint only” enforcement.
wasted the whole time trying to explain himself.
“i’m sorry, i don’t understand your question.”
targeting options are shared likes. shared by facebook.
ad ranking. meta data. behaviors. newsfeed. relevancy vs. GIVING to advertisers.
how do people then “own” their own data?
then gets lost in the process and time runs out.
part of the rub
second you focus the individual instead of societal impact… you’re out of time.
but news and media. blah blah blah
mr flores. texas
large oil company monopoly 1800s 1900s
telecom company monopoly in the70s
thanks for being good.
wasted the whole time with a bizarre lecture.
conservatives are mad about BIAS.
they can’t see past their stupidity.
ideological agnosticism regarding their users public facing activities
finally, some questions. do you believe FACEBOOK SHOULD BE IDEOLOGICALLY NEUTRAL?
i agree we should be a platform for all ideas. [cuts him off and moves to next question. bam! yeah!!
with respect to privacy we need a baseline when we talk about a virtual person, name address websites visited, picture, etc. ownership issue is the individual’s creation.
they own it.
do you agree.
use of data issue and full disclosure for unlimited time.
runs out of time.
biggest business model and totally unregulated.
shows shareholder revenues table
2009 net revenue less than a billion dollars
26 billion for 2016
40 billion dollars for 2017
CEO of cambridge analytica stepped down during the meeting.
does that solve the issue around the controversy.
no, two issues. how were they able to buy data from a developer that people chose to share it with? but some of the info originated on facebook.
people had it on facebook and CHOSE to share their AND their friend’s information…
buy information to add or augment to build around them their profile.
we just recently announced that we’ve stopped working with data brokers as part of the ad system.
yes, standard practice.
you did engage in it.
yes. until we announced we were shutting it did.
facebook threatened to sue the guardian if it revelaed the cambridge analytica story.
hey maybe you don’t want to do that.
“there may have been an specific factual inaccuracy.”
however they did go through with it regardless.
then ONLY then did facebook apologize for 89 million users info ending up in other people’s hands.
it’s time that you FACEBOOK want to be a leader and american you can be a leader.
are you committed to being a leader. you can in fact do right by users of facebook.
time’s out. two second answer?
"i am definitely committed to taking a broader review of our responsibility. not so that we don’t just give people tools but so they are used for good.”
first five or ten minute , ten minute recess.
TWENTY FUCKING MINUTES LATER…
mre. brooks indiana
platform of facebook and other platforms help keep us safe from terrorists and recruitment of women and children to join terrorist organizations.
facebook didn’t exist before 9/11
isis and al acaida use these platforms.
now terrorists use social media.
then you talked about dangerous or objectionable content needing to be reported but what if they don’t? what if people just assume that someone else is reporting.
what is the leadership role of facebook, our role in stopping recruitment.
thank you for the question. there is no place for that in our network.
we’ve developed a number of tools so that 99% of isis and al acaida is flagged before we even see it.
we’re proud of it as a model for removing "harmful content".
as of march 29th there were ISIS videos, executions,
april 9th five pages of hezbollah content
what is the mechanism?
is it AI
what are you using.
this is just within a week.
counter terrorism team at facebook with 200 people.
other content reviewers not in the 200.
NCTC produces analysis, maintains the authoritative database of known and suspected terrorists, shares information, and conducts strategic operational planning. NCTC is staffed by more than 1,000 personnel from across the IC, the Federal government, and Federal contractors. NCTC’s workforce represents approximately 20 different departments and agencies—a tribute to the recognition by the intelligence, homeland security, and law enforcement communities of NCTC’s role in protecting the Nation against terrorist threats.
just focused on counter terrorism.
AI tools in development
proactively flag content and sources
owns wassap? .
how are they helping the to stop the recruiting.
WOW BACK TO THE ORIGINAL POINTS : WHAT THE FUCK IS FACEBOOK?!?!?
cue WILD WILD COUNTRY
correction plea: whether web blogs would be able to download your info. they are not we only store them temporarily. we convert them into ad interests. which can be controlled.
“i’m also taking a ‘broad’ view…”
what went wrong here and what can be better to protect users?
why did facebook NOT notify the FTC in 2015 when you first discovered this happened and did your legal company say you were under no responsibility?
didn’t believe it was a legal obligation.
does facebook need the trust of its users.
is this a weakness that you are not required to report a violation.
broader view of responsibilities of responsibility.
what about other CEOs.
two days of head the fTc doesn’t have the correct tools and we can’t rely on companies.
would it be helpful if there is an entity to oversee?
details matter. agency or law
we’re realizing there’s a lot of holes in the system.
no one can monitor.
both look forward to following up.
mr. mullin oklahoma
i prefer you use the term congress man or woman.
commend zuckerberg for seeing things through its growth period.
and hiring the right people who “get the job done”.
isn’t it the consumer’s responsibility to control the content they release.
i agree with what you’re saying.
do the device settings really protect the information?
as a user of facebook how can someone control content in a realm without it being collected.
you collect info for that purpose
yes we do that so the “ad experience” can be more useful the advertisers and the users.
but if i’m a customer how do i keep that from happening.
yes there is a setting.
you can turn that off and we won’t do it.
we offer a lot of settings in every way from content to interests to search results, sign ins to alternate apps.
we try to make the controls easy.. it’s a broad service.
so they can contersfigure it the way they want.
technology has outpaced the law.
iwant to take you at your word that you value personal privacy.
know that pirvacy protection is not a bottom line issue.
shareholders. it doesn’t drive profits and it may interfere with profits.
would it not be appropriate when we define this duty to assess financial penalties to the company.
it’s something we could consider, but i’d push back on the idea that their’s a conflict between what people want and business interests.
i think a lot of these hard decisions come down to different people with different interests. people want to bring their AND friends info. others want it locked down. it’s not a business question it’s which interests do you weigh more.
what did the europeans get right about regulations?
they’re a lot of things the europeans do.
the gdpr is a positive step for the internet and codifies many things.
making them visible and affirmative consent is good and more should be done.
what did they get wrong.
i need to thank about that more.
submit it in writing.
might have actually finished his questions before 4 minutes. either way, he doesn’t appear to pursue his time until its end.
mr. hudson north carolina
thanks for dropping by.
men are prohibited from having social media profiles.
we learned each one was hacked.
almost asking to be hacked.
are you aware of the security concerns that creates.
i’m not specifically aware of that threat.
there are many issues we focus on and try to take a broad view of that.
collusion with the intelligence community would be good.
i’d love to follow up on that.
you say facebook is a platform for all ideas.
but it doesn’t seem like christian beliefs and conservative beliefs.
diamond and silk come up again.
this is a very serious concern.
i asked my constituents on facebook today and they all wanted to know about personal privacy. i think there is an issue you need to deal with and you recognize this based on your testimony today.
what is the standard that facebook uses to determine what is offensive or controversial
a couple of standards.
strongest one is physical harm or threats are first.
but then there is a broader form of hate speech or broadly uncomfortable speech.
isn’t that difficult to define? what standards does facebook use to try to determine what is hate speech vs. speech you may just disagree with?
time runs out.
mister collins R
thank you coming.
you don’t know what you know until you know it.
facebook doesn’t sell data.
now we all know you don’t sell data.
we’re all here because a third party app developer broke the rules.
it’s hard to anticipate a bad actor.
clearly you took actions after 2014.
what did change?
before the change someone could share info about their friends.
then we said you can’t.
who is going to protect us from facebook?
i thought it was an out of bounds kind of comment.
you’re doing good and i sincerely know in my heart you believe in keeping things equal.
you have 27K employees.
operating under a consent decree.
so when someone said do we need more legislation.
i said no.
he’s doing the best he can with 27K people.
i think it was beneficial.
we don’t need legislation.
we now know things we didn’t know beforehand.
thank you mister zuckerberg.
listened to both sides of the aisle.
three starter questions.
who were the bad actors?
i don’t remember the specifics of early on.
we saw app developers who asked for permission to see stuff.
we should review these apps and they should only have a reason to access it.
stopped bringing friends’ info.
secondly, can facebook insure that every single app is not misusing their data?
it would be difficult to ever guaranty to say there are no bad actors.
every problem around security is an arms’ race where people abuse systems.
our responsibility is to make that as hard as possible for a company of our scale and it is growing with our scale.
that’s a good answer. it’s honest. LOL FKING LOUD you stoopid fk. your brain is childish. how can you be a congress person?!?!?
thirdly, can you assure me that ads and content are not being denied based on particular views.
congressman yes, politically.
i hear political speech.
we certainly won’t be advertising terrorists.
screeengrab of an ad that contained shocking or distasteful + violence.
it was an “algorithm” problem.
it was pro-life.
that causes us some concerns.
light touch in regulation.
misuse of consumer data and what controls users have over their info.
you have indicated they have granular control over their own content.
she asks the most basic question.
it’s a time waster. she doesn’t understand the app.
but sadly, she’s so serious. so dum.
her second question doesn’t even seem like a question of relevance. she says that california has been heralded by many on this committee for its privacy initiatives and yet given that you and tech companies are in california and we’re still experiencing privacy issues how do you square the two?
i think privacy is not something that you can ever...
it’s it’s our understanding of the issues and people as the interact online only grows over time and we’ll adjust to social norms or we’ll put rules into place…
married to the king o twitter.
some striking things.
you didn’t know key facts for a CEO
you didn’t know about major court cases regarding your privacy policies against your company.
you didn’t know that the FTC doesn’t have fining authority and that facebook couldn’t have recieved fines for the 2011 consent order .
you didn’t know what a shadow profile was.
you didn’t know how many apps you need to audit.
you didn’t know how many firms had been sold data by dr. culgan other than cambridge analytica.
and yes we were all paying attention yesterday.
you don’t even know all the information facebook is collecting from its users.
you have trackers all over the world.
on most of the sites we see the facebook like and share buttons.
and with the facebook pixel people may not even see the logo.
it doesn’t matter if you have those tools facebook is able to collect info from all of us.
so i want to ask you:
how many facebook buttons are on non-facebook pages?
congresswoman i don’t know the answer off the top of my head but we’ll get back to you.
is the number over one hundred million?
i believe we have served the like button on more pages than that. but i don’t know the number that have the like buttons on actively.
how many chunks of non pixel code are there on non-facebook pages?
congress woman you are asking for specific stats that i don’t have off the top of my head but we can follow up.
could we get that back in 72 hours.
do you know now whether there were fourth parties involved?
are you hiding the truth that has taken three years to appear.
i am convinced there are others out there.
we are going to try to find the fourth parties.
we will ban them from the platform and take action that they delete the data.
and you will make it public.
like water and air we need clear rules.
echoes the idiot’s comments — dumshit collins from ny.
they probably get kickback from the same tong.
we americans have a non codified idea about our privacy rights.
how do we make them understandable?
first, if you look at gdpr what pieces do you feel would fit in american juris prudence.
not just you but smaller companies as well.
well, making sure people have control over what they are sharing. and to be able to delete it. second, people should have the tools to make decisions. third piece is that some sensitive technolidies like face recognition that your get special consent for. if we make it too hard we will lose to innovative countries. like china.
do you believe that you should be able to use AI with a non facebook user?
that’s a good question and we should probably have control over it and we’re going to ask people around the world in our upcoming push.
in general for sensitive technologies you do want consent.
is facebook EVER a publisher in your mind as the term is legally used.
how is the term leagally used?
would you ever be responsible for the content you put onto your platform?
yes. but the vast majority of content on facebook isn’t commissioned or posted by facebook.
runs out of time while asking how the data might be slighted .
did you know that 91 people die every day from opioid addiction.
2 and half million addicted.
it’s bringing the life expectancy down.
i ask you this because you have ads for illicit drugs and your responsibility.
will you help.
yes i will.
did you know there are groups that have provided evidence that ivory is traded on facebook.
i was not aware of that
some conservation groups claim that facebook is contributing to the extinction of the elephant.
did you know that piracy of movies is challenging their profits.
i believe that has been an issue for a long time.
so you did know.
hate speech may be difficult but these things are not.
i don’t want to legislate morality but we need a commitment from you that you will help us.
you want to see a mess, let the federal government into this!
more than 20, 000 people will be working on security and content review and we need to build more tools, too.
been on facebook since 2007
it’s like a downhill in real time.
so i asked my facebook crowd and they want to know about being discriminated.
user privacy and censorship.
first amendment is cited.
why not have a community standard for the community that is a mirror of the first amendment without algorithms that have a viewpoint that is neutral.
well we don’t want to spread allowed hate. if you care about safety we don’t want people to spread info that can cause harm. allow the broadest spectrum
pontificating congress man continues to please and confuse himself.
ends with what will you do to assure the user that they are treated equally.
well, i think we make a lot of mistakes in content review that don’t focus on one political persuasion. i think it’s unfortunate when that happens because the people think it’s focused on them.
thanks facebook and concludes.
north dakota R
we need to make sure we don’t overreact.
this is an important national discussion.
the consumer and industry or other companies share a responsibility.
but your answer weren’t reassuring about drug sites.
can’t you give it your best?
can’t you make taking down drugs more important?
its certainly far more dangerous than a couple of xian women being discriminated against.
yes congressman, we are making efforts.
unfortunately the enforcement isn’t perfect.
i don’t expect it to be perfect but i expect it to be a higher thought.
you need to have less liberal content reviewers.
you should look in the middle of the north american continent.
come to bismarck north dakota.
we’re common sensical and more diverse than maybe even facebook.
maybe we could have a nice big center somewhere?
we republicans don’t want the web hyper regulated.
don’ you think you should have privacy protection.
well, first, the majority of our content reviewers are not in silicon valley they are around the world in different places.
for net neutrality i think there is a big difference between internet providers and the platforms on top of them.
the big reason that well, i think about my own experience.
i only had one provider.
platforms there are just many more.
the average american uses 8 apps.
there are more choices.
they can reach large scale.
they close saying that they wan to look into more of the topics.
like they’ve all had their first internet class in social media platforms.
they thank him.
they appreciate his answers.
they will submit more questions in writing.
the aclu submits a letter and so do a bunch of other groups.
it’s a long list.
answer them within ten days of receipt.
ten days for questions to be submitted.