Facebook on PBS Frontline

[Zen Traveler]

20 hours ago, Jeff Matthews said:

If I recall correctly, I think I just recently heard there is a new theory floating around that the Stormy money was exchanged illegally.  Could that be the crime?  What is illegal about hush money?

Fwiw, I feel there are going to be several crimes that come to light but this has nothing to do with Facebook or Weaponized Propaganda being spread over the internet and media--THAT is what this documentary help expose--Nothing to do with Storm Daniels--That's a whole 'nother disturbing aspect of living a Reality Show instead of living pragmatically in the real world.  😒

[Zen Traveler]

8 minutes ago, oldtimer said:

Don't knock it,  it can get you a pardon.  Sound familiar?

We'll see. That said, can't pardon folks who have been found guilty of  state offenses and depending on who you pardon it could be another example of conspiracy--That's my take.

[Jeff Matthews]

1 hour ago, Zen Traveler said:

Nothing to do with Storm Daniels--That's a whole 'nother disturbing aspect of living a Reality Show instead of living pragmatically in the real world.  😒

That is the real world.  Some Presidents have affairs.  Some have had affairs.    

[Jeff Matthews]

1 hour ago, Zen Traveler said:

We'll see. That said, can't pardon folks who have been found guilty of  state offenses and depending on who you pardon it could be another example of conspiracy--That's my take.

The problem with a lot of those perjury-type cases and fraud-type cases is that the burden of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt."  Intent is a crucial element in each of those.  Per Comey, we know how difficult it is to prove intent.  

[Zen Traveler]

I watched 3 complete interviews of the documentary over the weekend and David Madden was the most disturbing.😳 He talks about his involvement in Myanmar and how information technology spread quickly to the point that everyone's experience with "the telephone" wasn't some rotary BS but the Smartphone and Facebook became "the internet."To cut to the chase, the UN issued a report that the Facebook dynamic lead to the Myanmar Genocide and Elizabeth Linder, who is also interviewed paint a wildly realistic picture of the danger of propaganda in 3rd World countries--Words Matter and in the Information Age we should rally against propaganda, especially here in our own country.

 

 

[Zen Traveler]

Here is the interview with the International Affairs person for Facebook (mentioned above) that pretty much exhibited how unprepared "corporate" was dealing with Free Speech in 3rd world countries and dealing with Hate Speech/Propaganda in which they were the deliverer of messaging...The interview before this one (Madden) painted the picture of sim cards going from $150, down to less than &10 in 6 months and the ramifications that followed. 

 

[Zen Traveler]

On ‎12‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 8:22 PM, Jeff Matthews said:

Per Comey, we know how difficult it is to prove intent.  

I wish we could delve more into this given his comments yesterday after he spoke with Congress--It shouldn't have been behind closed doors but my guess is regardless how hard you may feel it is there will more likely than not be a case made for it in court. THAT is where the rubber meets the road, my friend. 

[Jeff Matthews]

3 hours ago, Zen Traveler said:

To cut to the chase, the UN issued a report that the Facebook dynamic lead to the Myanmar Genocide and Elizabeth Linder, who is also interviewed paint a wildly realistic picture of the danger of propaganda in 3rd World countries--Words Matter and in the Information Age we should rally against propaganda, especially here in our own country.

We could be like China and censor it.  Otherwise, it's like open immigration policies and terrorism.  If you want to be free, you have to live with the consequences.

[Zen Traveler]

2 hours ago, Jeff Matthews said:

We could be like China and censor it.  Otherwise, it's like open immigration policies and terrorism.  If you want to be free, you have to live with the consequences.

The point you seem to be missing is that our discussion here shows it's not about censorship as you keep framing it--It's about learning how to effectively communicate Truth/Facts in our country while realizing what is happening in others can be exploited by those who want to channel violent uprising in others that have never been able to freely communicate--What this brings to light is that there are countries that are at the VERY LEAST several decades behind those of us in the information age and the ramifications will have an effect on our Foreign Policy.

 

Facebook is an American company, whom Linder stated had their own Foreign Policy team; That coupled with the genocide in Myanmar and the Russian Political interference here exposed there are a lot of similar ramifications in between with more happening in the future....Iow, it's not about censorship as much as recognizing where problems lie and discussed on forums like this and others. 

 

 

[Jeff Matthews]

18 minutes ago, Zen Traveler said:

The point you seem to be missing is that our discussion here shows it's not about censorship as you keep framing it--It's about learning how to effectively communicate Truth/Facts in our country while realizing what is happening in others can be exploited by those who want to channel violent uprising in others that have never been able to freely communicate--What this brings to light is that there are countries that are at the VERY LEAST several decades behind those of us in the information age and the ramifications will have an effect on our Foreign Policy.

 

Facebook is an American company, whom Linder stated had their own Foreign Policy team; That coupled with the genocide in Myanmar and the Russian Political interference here exposed there are a lot of similar ramifications in between with more happening in the future....Iow, it's not about censorship as much as recognizing where problems lie and discussed on forums like this and others. 

 

 

I understand all of that, and I don't care if they want to try to dissuade people via disclaimers about a source's reliability.  That's no big deal.  Nada.  Some people will care; most won't.  They're just looking for things to support their world views.  They're not looking to be informed.  Moreover, what do you think will be the attitudes of a lot of people when they see the "Deep State" trying to block or marginalize "information" where foreign sources expose the crimes and failures of our officials?  

 

I hardly see the move to protect us from foreign influence as a mere blip on the radar, while you seem to think it will accomplish something and send us in a different direction.  

 

 

[oldtimer]

Do you know what you are talking about?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_state_in_the_United_States

[oldtimer]

Zen, I keep trying to tell you the word you want to use is "lo" not "low."

[Zen Traveler]

13 minutes ago, oldtimer said:

Zen, I keep trying to tell you the word you want to use is "lo" not "low."

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=IOW

[Zen Traveler]

1 hour ago, Jeff Matthews said:

I understand all of that, and I don't care if they want to try to dissuade people via disclaimers about a source's reliability.  That's no big deal.  Nada.  Some people will care; most won't.  They're just looking for things to support their world views.  They're not looking to be informed. 

I understand this is how you view the world and debate politics but the importance lies in those that actually want to learn something and be informed--You don't bring things to the table that are factual and instead want to argue people can be as oblivious to the facts as they want. Fine, but I want to point out that you are buying into a worldview where followers are more important than thinkers--I don't buy it. 

1 hour ago, Jeff Matthews said:

 

I hardly see the move to protect us from foreign influence as a mere blip on the radar, while you seem to think it will accomplish something and send us in a different direction.  

Yes. I do think our country would be going in a different direction if weaponized propaganda wasn't used so effectively in the 2016 election and contend the vetting of the POTUSA should've gone on before the election....That said, your response in American-centric whereas the discussion on the two interviews I posted today had to do with international ramifications. Now that it has been exposed I absolutely think Americans can deal with it without government intervention and censorship. 

[Jeff Matthews]

2 hours ago, oldtimer said:

Do you know what you are talking about?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_state_in_the_United_States

The Deep State is whoever they don't like. Guess who doesn't care much for FB anymore.

[Jeff Matthews]

1 hour ago, Zen Traveler said:

Now that it has been exposed I absolutely think Americans can deal with it without government intervention and censorship. 

Not only that, it will have to be dealt with that way.  You can't instill trust in democracy through censorship, IMO.

[oldtimer]

12 hours ago, Zen Traveler said:

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=IOW

Ah, so that's an I and not an l.  Got it.  I think the whole thing needs to be capitalized so a troglodyte like me could understand.

[oldtimer]

11 hours ago, Jeff Matthews said:

The Deep State is whoever they don't like. Guess who doesn't care much for FB anymore.

I don't.  I never did.  That still doesn't illuminate us on which version of "deep state" you buy into, unless you are just tossing popular buzzwords around to sound hip?

[Zen Traveler]

12 hours ago, Jeff Matthews said:

Not only that, it will have to be dealt with that way.  You can't instill trust in democracy through censorship, IMO.

The first interview I watched last weekend was with Andrew Anker. He was a graybeard tech guy who worked for Facebook for a couple of years during the critical time and previously was the CTO of WIRED, amongst a few other things.  He seemed to be hitting to the crux of where Jeff  and I agree and laying the blame at the feet of the consumers...AGREED! That said, one of the arguments he made was that proven fact base information media should be given more exposure than opinionated propaganda media, but all should be allowed. What Facebook didn't realize was that their algorithms were being manipulated, to the extent they didn't realize who was driving traffic on their platform--It wasn't the people on the planet they were hoping to connect with each other!  Anker's response to the question, "Do we live in a post-truth world since the 2016 Election?" hit the nail on the head and why I started this thread: "No we don't live in a post truth world even though elected officials at the very top keep trying to promote that kind of propaganda."  This also leads us full circle to the observation about what to do about the WikiLeaks situation where illegal hacking brings great rewards and we all pay for it...That's my take in a nutshell over morning coffee.

 

[Jeff Matthews]

1 hour ago, oldtimer said:

12 hours ago, Jeff Matthews said:

The Deep State is whoever they don't like. Guess who doesn't care much for FB anymore.

I don't.  I never did.  That still doesn't illuminate us on which version of "deep state" you buy into, unless you are just tossing popular buzzwords around to sound hip?

"Which version?"  I thought I was speaking plainly.  I wasn't speaking of any version.  I was speaking about all of them.  They will define "Deep State" to be anyone they don't like.  I guess I could be more precise and state it includes "people in power" and "people with influence on government" they don't like.