Showing posts with label FaceBook. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FaceBook. Show all posts

October 2, 2019

Mark Zuckerberg Thinks Elizabeth Warren Would Be Bad For Him, He Said Us but


Image result for arab spring birth
 Tahir Square, Egypt
    "What would really ‘suck’ is if we don’t fix a corrupt system that lets giant companies like Facebook engage in illegal anticompetitive practices"  E.Warren                 
 The guy that accepted all those Million dollars and billion rubbles knowing It was Russian helping Trump, I mean He would not know they are Russians if the money is coming from Russians and some paying in Russian currency...What? Yeap.  That is what I mean when I say Dear Mark see us like as himself because that is who he has been battling for. because it is easy to see that what Facebook does it does for itself and to help those that it believes it will help FB corporate culture. Facebook is been a big dissapoitment for me. I thought in those early days that Facebook was good for the world because on those days of the Arab Spring the exchange of information was critical for people to check what their governments were selling to them. Yes, we had an exchange of many ideas and a lot of information but I think the misinformation and bad ideas have been greater (as in worse).  I find it funny he now speaks about who is bad for the Us. He has not mentioned anything about a President that is being impeached but he helped him get elected so I don't blame him.
Adam Gonzalez         (I am not Pro Elizabeth but pro-American Companies which keeps our economy going.  (My vote for President is not important) Of all people to be critical of a presidential candidate Zuckenberg should be at the end of the row.)
The following was written by By David Uberti on vice.com
Mark Zuckerberg sees how antitrust enforcement might look under an Elizabeth Warren presidency, and he’s ready for a legal battle if she wants to break up his company.
“I mean, if she gets elected president, then I would bet that we will have a legal challenge, and I would bet that we will win the legal challenge,” the Facebook CEO told employees in July meetings, of which transcripts were just published by The Verge. “And does that still suck for us? Yeah.”  
The Facebook co-founder and CEO made the comments during a pair of staff meetings, where he fielded questions from employees on the troubled rollout of the Facebook cryptocurrency Libra, a rising competitor in TikTok, and his own unchecked power within the company.
But the executive’s comments on a leading 2020 Democratic candidate stand out at a time when Washington has dialed up the heat. As Congress ramped up a web of inquiries into Big Tech in recent months, Warren has surged in the polls in part by arguing for new checks on corporate power. That includes a plan to break up Silicon Valley giants like Facebook.
Warren doesn’t appear fazed by the prospect of a huge legal battle. Soon after The Verge reported Zuckerberg’s remarks Tuesday, the Massachusetts Democrat took aim at his company on Twitter. 
“What would really ‘suck’ is if we don’t fix a corrupt system that lets giant companies like Facebook engage in illegal anti-competitive practices, stomp on consumer privacy rights, and repeatedly fumble their responsibility to protect our democracy,” she wrote, linking to her campaign website and fundraising page. 
Many Silicon Valley honchos have argued that breaking up tech companies would make problems like user privacy harder to solve. Zuckerberg, whose company acquired Instagram and WhatsApp in moves that are now being scrutinized by federal regulators, panned the idea in his July meetings.  “It’s just that breaking up these companies, whether it’s Facebook or Google or Amazon, is not actually going to solve the issues,” he said. “And, you know, it doesn’t make election interference less likely. It makes it more likely because now the companies can’t coordinate and work together. It doesn’t make any of the hate speech or issues like that less likely. It makes it more likely because now ... all the processes that we’re putting in place and investing in, now we’re more fragmented.” 
“It’s why Twitter can’t do as good of a job as we can,” he added. “Our investment on safety is bigger than the whole revenue of their company.”
Facebook, Amazon, Alphabet, and Apple have already spent more than $26 million this year to shape potential regulations, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Zuckerberg himself went to Washington last month to add his personal touch to this lobbying push. 
And for all the talk of antitrust enforcement by Warren and other lawmakers, Facebook may have a larger warchest for any legal battle than federal agencies. Zuckerberg doesn’t appear afraid to use it. 
“I mean, I don’t want to have a major lawsuit against our own government,” he told employees in July. “I mean, that’s not the position that you want to be in when you’re, you know, I mean … it’s like, we care about our country and want to work with our government and do good things. But look, at the end of the day, if someone’s going to try to threaten something that existential, you go to the mat and you fight.”

August 22, 2019

Facebook Promises to Stop Stalking You Off Site>>"If you believe I have a cow for sale that gives Cheese instead of Milk"


BBC Had this report on Zuckerberg's Conference and I just had to print it for you. I didn't even mind correcting the British English to the American English (like Mat to Matt)Mark ZuckerbergImage copyright


Image captionFacebook founder Mark Zuckerberg first promised the new tool at the firm's F8 developers conference

Facebook is drawing back the veil to show what data it collects on users. 
Many may not like what they see.
A feature in settings called Off-Facebook Activity will show all the apps and websites that send information about you to Facebook, which is then used to target ads more effectively.
You will also be able to clear your history and prevent your future off-app behavior being tapped. But one expert said the move was unlikely to have a big impact on the firm's profits.
For now, it is rolling out very slowly, with only Ireland, South Korea, and Spain getting access. But the goal is to eventually offer it globally.
The initiative comes at a time when Apple and Mozilla have already taken steps to prevent Facebook and other services from tracking users from one online platform to another via their browsers.
In addition, Germany's competition regulator had told the firm it needed to substantially restrict the way it collected and combined data about its members unless it sought more explicit consent than it had done.

Shared interests

Facebook collects data from beyond its platform either because you have opted to use the social media site to log in to an app or, more likely because a website uses something called Facebook Pixel to track your activities.
This is why when you browse a website for new shoes, you find an ad popping up in your Facebook Newsfeed half-an-hour later telling you about that nifty pair of boots you've just been looking at. 
The Off-Facebook Activity setting will let you drill down into exactly what data various apps or sites are sharing about you - Facebook says the average smartphone user has 80 apps and uses 40 of them every month, so the list could belong.
You will then be able to disconnect the data from your Facebook profile - either the whole lot or singling out individual sources. If you take advantage of this, it should mean that those shoe ads stop following you across the internet in quite such a persistent fashion.
It is important to stress that Facebook will still collect the data, but it will be anonymized - they may know that lots of people have been looking at those boots but they won't know that they include you.
Off-Facebook Activity has been more than a year in the making and fulfills a pledge made by Mark Zuckerberg at last year's F8 developer conference to give users greater control over how their data is used. 

FacebookImage copyrightFACEBOOK
Image captionThe new tool will let users see which third-party sites and apps are feeding data into Facebook about them

But how will users react to this feature - and what will it mean for Facebook's advertising business? I suspect that those people who do use it will be pretty horrified. It is one thing to know that in principle you are being tracked, quite another to see it in black and white.
"This is how much of the internet works," says Facebook rather defensively in a blog about the new tool.
And in a briefing, Stephanie Max, the product manager behind it, made the unlikely claim that the reason it collected the data was to help users "discover businesses they care about."
If millions of users do investigate this new setting and then decide to disconnect the data, then that in theory could prove damaging to advertisers and to Facebook's bottom line. How much impact would there be, we asked Stephanie Max, if say 20% of users shut down the link between this stream of data and their Facebook profiles?
"We didn't do any modeling of that," she replied, going on to say that there was a lot of evidence that users valued having a personalized experience and that was intertwined with the way Facebook works currently.
It would seem bizarre that Facebook would not have worked out in advance what impact this new transparency might have on its revenues, but the company may be right to be pretty relaxed.
For one thing, it looks likely that finding and then acting on the Off-Facebook tool will be a very niche activity. For another, an expert on Facebook's advertising business says it is changing in ways that make the precise targeting of users less important.
Matt Morrison, planning director at marketing agency Digital Whiskey, says advertisers are gradually waking up to the idea that targeting 23-year-old men in High Wycombe who like mountain-biking and sushi is not that useful.
"Agencies are trying to tell clients to calm down about nano-targeting," he explained.
"When we began using Facebook data we could easily create nano-target audiences - only 20 people. Of course, this turns out to be a waste of everyone's time and money."
The story a few years ago was that the hugely expensive ad break in ITV's Coronation Street, which delivered a broad if the poorly-defined audience, was being superseded by the precise targeting offered by social media ads.
Now, says Morrison, the pendulum is swinging again and Facebook advertising is being valued for delivering a wide swathe of the population. "Creating a broad consensus in the audience is what advertising has always been about," he says.
So even if some of the Facebook population revolts against the constant tracking of their wider online activities - and remember the social media site will still have lots of data about them - it is unlikely that advertisers will desert what has become the prime destination for their messages.
It is worth noting that two of the countries where the new setting is making its debut are in the European Union. The tech giant can show EU regulators that it is giving users more control over their data, without doing any damage to its ad revenues. Job did...

March 11, 2019

Disabled? The Government Wants to know What You Post on FB~America? Yes GOP America



                                                                       Image result for disable government wants to know what you say


WASHINGTON —

 If you’re on federal disability payments and on social media, be careful what you post. Uncle Sam wants to watch.

The Trump administration has been quietly working on a proposal to use social media such as Facebook and Twitter to help identify people who claim Social Security disability benefits without actually being disabled. If, for example, a person claimed benefits because of a back injury but was shown playing golf in a photograph posted on Facebook, that could be used as evidence that the injury was not disabling.

“There is a little bitty chance that Social Security may be snooping on your Facebook or your Twitter account,” Robert A. Crowe, a lawyer from St. Louis who has represented Social Security disability claimants for more than 40 years, said he cautioned new clients. “You don’t want anything on there that shows you out playing Frisbee.”

In its budget request to Congress last year, Social Security said it would study whether to expand the use of social media networks in disability determinations as a way to “increase program integrity and expedite the identification of fraud.”
ADVERTISEMENT

Since then, administration officials said, the White House has been actively working with Social Security to flesh out the proposal, in the belief that social media could be a treasure trove of information about people who are applying for or receiving disability benefits.

Some members of Congress, such as Senator James Lankford, Republican of Oklahoma, and some conservative organizations, such as the Heritage Foundation in Washington, have supported the idea as part of a broader effort to prevent the payment of disability benefits to people who are able to work.

But advocates for people with disabilities say the use of social media in this way would be dangerous because photos posted there do not always provide reliable evidence of a person’s current condition.

“It may be difficult to tell when a photograph was taken,” said Lisa D. Ekman, a lawyer who is the chairwoman of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, a coalition of advocacy groups. “Just because someone posted a photograph of them golfing or going fishing in February of 2019 does not mean that the activity occurred in 2019.”

Moreover, people are more likely to post pictures of themselves when they are happy and healthy than when they are in a wheelchair or a hospital bed.
Editors’ Picks


‘Tell Your Husband to Leave Me Alone’


Bigger, Saltier, Heavier: Fast Food Since 1986 in 3 Simple Charts

Her Husband Did the Unthinkable. This Is a Play About Everything After.

ADVERTISEMENT

More than 10 million people receive Social Security disability insurance benefits totaling more than $11 billion a month. Beneficiaries have paid into the system through payroll taxes.

President Trump is expected to detail several proposals to combat fraud in the program in his 2020 budget, to be issued on Monday.

Before he was an official presidential candidate, Mr. Trump said he would not cut Social Security.
When he announced his candidacy in June 2015, Mr. Trump maintained that position: “Save Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security without cuts. Have to do it. Get rid of the fraud. Get rid of the waste and abuse, but save it.”

But his budgets in the last two years have proposed reductions in the disability insurance program, which has been part of Social Security since 1956.

The president’s budget director, Mick Mulvaney, who is now also the acting White House chief of staff, has suggested that Mr. Trump’s campaign commitment does not cover disability benefits.

“Do you really think that Social Security disability insurance is part of what people think of when they think of Social Security?” Mr. Mulvaney asked on CBS’s “Face the Nation” in 2017. “I don’t think so. It’s the fastest growing program. It was — it grew tremendously under President Obama. It’s a very wasteful program, and we want to try and fix that.”
Sign Up for On Politics With Lisa Lerer
A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know.

SIGN UP
ADVERTISEMENT

Brian C. Blase, a special assistant to the president for economic policy, has been coordinating development of the new proposals on Social Security. In 2014, Mr. Blase provided the staff work for a subcommittee investigation of the disability program led by Mr. Lankford, who was then a member of the House. Soon after he got to the Senate, Mr. Lankford proposed legislation to expand the use of “evidence obtained from publicly available social media.”
Mick Mulvaney, President Trump’s acting chief of staff and budget director, has suggested that most people do not think of disability insurance as part of Social Security.
Credit
Doug Mills/The New York Times


Image
Mick Mulvaney, President Trump’s acting chief of staff and budget director, has suggested that most people do not think of disability insurance as part of Social Security.CreditDoug Mills/The New York Times
At present, disability examiners do not routinely look at social media. They can refer suspicious cases to the inspector general for Social Security, who may use social media to corroborate information from other sources in fraud investigations conducted with state and local law enforcement agencies.

The Trump administration contends that it could authorize greater use of social media by regulation, without action by Congress. Under pressure from the White House, Social Security has drafted a timeline that envisions publication of a final rule in the spring of 2020.

Michael J. Astrue, the last Senate-confirmed Social Security commissioner, has expressed misgivings about the idea.

“Social media sites are not exactly clear and reliable evidence,” Mr. Astrue, who stepped down six years ago, said at a Senate hearing in 2012. “Facebook puts up phony websites under my name all the time.”

That, he said, is “why you need professionally trained fraud investigators” to evaluate the information.

Few would say that the Social Security disability program was free of fraud. The government has secured guilty pleas from a number of people who concealed the fact that they were working in various industries while drawing Social Security disability benefits.

In one case, a 57-year-old Louisiana man pleaded guilty last month to theft of government funds. He had received $2,177 a month in benefits — a total of $242,000 — while employed by companies that did demolition work and job site cleaning. He also operated heavy construction equipment. He told federal investigators that the companies had been registered in the names of family members, rather than his own name, “so y’all wouldn’t find out about it,” according to court records.
ADVERTISEMENT

In its latest financial report, Social Security estimated that it made $3.4 billion in overpayments to disability insurance beneficiaries in 2017, in part because of their failure to report work activities.

The program has been “riddled with problems, including fraud and abuse,” said Rachel Greszler, a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation. When people who can work collect benefits, she said, “it drains the system for those who truly cannot work and support themselves.”

The administration’s focus on fraud comes as the number of Americans seeking Social Security disability benefits is plunging. The number of applications was down 29 percent last year from a peak of 2.9 million in 2010.

A growing economy with strong demand for workers is one reason for the decline, officials say. In addition, they speculate that with new technology and the potential for teleworking, it is possible for some people to take jobs even though they have medical conditions that would have precluded work in the past.

Social Security officials are considering other changes that could make it more difficult for people to qualify for benefits.

They are working with the White House to overhaul the way Social Security weighs various “vocational factors” — age, education and job experience — in deciding whether a person is able to work.

In November, Social Security proposed a new rule that would strip applicants and beneficiaries of their right to an in-person hearing before an administrative law judge, after some judges came under scrutiny for leniency in allowing disability claims. In 2017, a former administrative law judge for the Social Security Administration pleaded guilty for his role in a scheme to fraudulently obtain more than $550 million in federal disability payments for thousands of claimants.
ADVERTISEMENT

Under the November proposal, Social Security could hold the hearings by video conference even if a claimant objected. With video conferencing, the agency said, it could improve service to the public and reduce wait times. At present, it said, nearly 860,000 people are waiting an average of 19 months for hearings to appeal the denial or termination of benefits.

But top Democrats responsible for Social Security policy in Congress denounced the proposal in a letter to the acting Social Security commissioner, Nancy A. Berryhill.

“This change would deprive millions of Americans of their constitutional right to due process and result in hearings which are less fair and less efficient,” said the letter, signed by Representative Richard E. Neal of Massachusetts, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, the senior Democrat on the Finance Committee, among others.

December 29, 2018

Facebook Must Take Responsibility for Its Impact on The Strike Down of International LGBT Rights





                                                    Image result for facebook and strikedown of LGBT




If like me you’re a progressive who believes in the march of global human rights, it’s been a bit of a depressing time since 2016. Vote after vote just hasn’t gone our way. 
We’ve all had to get uncomfortably familiar with bitter disappointment. From Brazil’s far-right crackdown on LGBT+ rights, with their new leader calling himself a “proud homophobe” to Poland’s Supreme Court being attacked for serving “the ideology of homosexual activists.” And most recently it was Taiwan’s turn to cause upset and anguish – its recent referendum on marriage equality after a 2017 court ruling to introduce same-sex marriage ended in a devastating defeat for equality.
The common thread running through so many of these votes is fake news on Facebook.
In Taiwan, the vote itself was organised by Christian groups; organisations that make up only 5 per cent of the country’s population. And by now it’s clear that online campaigning tactics fuelled and funded by Christian organisations and the Chinese disseminated fake news materials across Taiwanese social networks. The aim appeared to be to confuse and convince people ahead of the vote on marriage equality. This material described LGBT+ people as perverted and claimed that Taiwan’s universal healthcare system would become overrun with foreign HIV-positive homosexuals, who would marry Taiwanese men to access HIV/Aids treatment.

These sorts of fear tactics are nothing new in any political election. But as we’ve seen repeated across all recent public votes across the world, votes and referendums seem to now be won where the public are most connected – social media. Cambridge Analytica whistleblower Christopher Wylie has claimed that the now defunct political consulting firm could even utilise Facebook data on people's fashion tastes to encourage them to vote for Donald Trump during the 2016 US election.



Only this week we’ve again been reminded of the dangers of fake news on Facebook, with new research suggesting adverts on the platform have ignited anti-refugee attacks in Germany.
The core problem is that, through its algorithm, Facebook separates us from moderating voices or authority figures, and herds us into ever smaller like-minded groups, encouraging us to consume content that engages our base emotions.
It’s in this light that Taiwan’s decision to put marriage equality to a vote could be seen as a big mistake. Although in some cases these types of votes are won – as in Ireland and Australia – the risks now are too great. In an age of fake news and unregulated social media, wherever possible, human rights should not be put to a public vote. Lies and misinformation which used to be on the fringes of political discourse are now too easily seeping into the mainstream.



Arguably any organisation can now open an advertising account on Facebook, and can begin targeting individuals based on salary, job, interest, location and even association with any of these factors. But too many regressive organisations, who would like nothing more than to rollback hard won rights, have absolutely no qualms about abusing – rather than just using – smart social profiling techniques. They seem happy to lie, cheat and misinform to get what they want, posing a real threat to the ongoing move to equal rights and equality across the globe.
During the Out4Marriage campaign that I helped found in 2013 to support changing the law to allow same sex couples to marry, digital profiling didn’t exist in the same detail as today. What won the campaign for us was the power of progressive, personal and positive storytelling – empowering celebrities, MPs and members of the public to create their own short video content and post it online explaining why they we’re “coming out for marriage.” What wins marriage equality campaigns is the same thing which wins any campaign fighting for better human rights: empathy, compassion and relatability – particularly viewable by an audience who disagrees and needs convincing.



But shift forward to 2018, and using Facebook to reach an audience that disagrees with your opinion is near enough impossible. Imagine what could be done now if you add the power of personalisation on social media, adapting the messages to someone’s ambitions, aspirations and desires.
On the issue of gay rights there is still much work to be done. Equal marriage is still the exception around the world. And let’s not forget, it’s still illegal to be gay in 70 countries. In 10 of those countries the punishment is death. And in many cases, progress has not just stalled, it’s going backwards. Campaigners have their work cut out.
It’s time for companies like Facebook to step up and give the LGBT+ community a helping hand. First, they need to start taking misinformation seriously. As the fight for equal rights shows, there are real life impacts to the sort of fake news polluting the platform; from the thousands of gay people in Taiwan who will not be able to get married to the individual gay or trans people attacked in places like Brazil because of Facebook posts that demonise and vilify their identity. 
But they need to change their all-important algorithm. How are campaigners ever going to engage with and change the minds of those who disagree with LGBT+ rights if those people are stuck in an echo chamber that fails to expose them to different views? Without social media which proactively engages us with all different attitudes and points of view, we won’t be able to see the views that we need to change.
This change will require a big overhaul of social media sites’ profit models, but they need to take responsibility for the damage they have caused, and acknowledge the reality that this type of fake news disproportionately attacks LGBT+ people. Given how effective the tactic has been in mobilising the far right in recent elections, we can expect more in the near future. Facebook can either be a dark cloud on the horizon, or a ray of light. This coming year it needs to choose which one it wants to be. 
Mike Buonaiuto is the executive director of Shape History and co-founder of Out4Marriage campaign

Featured Posts

This is The Worse LGBT Rights Trump Has Appointed To Date, GOP Confirmed (51 Votes)

What is he against? "Anti Women, Gays, bi and Trans, HIV'ers, to name a few. Never been a judge, never had a trial. The...