by Ruby Henley
Zuckerberg’s testimony does not address fully that Obama’s reelection campaign scraped data from users who downloaded the Obama 2012 app, and from those users’ friends. The users’ friends did not give consent – these people were simply unaware their data was being used by the Obama campaign analytics.
The former director of Obama for America’s Integration and Media Analytics shop, explained that the political bias within Facebook allowed her to continue the use of Facebook user’s data without their consent. Facebook had to realize they were violating the rights of their users but failed to care.
Here is Zuckerberg’s testimony before Congress and his excuse making statements:
Here is an excerpt: “We face a number of important issues around privacy, safety, and democracy, and you will rightfully have some hard questions for me to answer. Before I talk about the steps we’re taking to address them, I want to talk about how we got here.
Facebook is an idealistic and optimistic company. For most of our existence, we focused on all the good that connecting people can bring. As Facebook has grown, people everywhere have gotten a powerful new tool to stay connected to the people they love, make their voices heard, and build communities and businesses. Just recently, we’ve seen the #metoo movement and the March for Our Lives, organized, at least in part, on Facebook. After Hurricane Harvey, people raised more than $20 million for relief. And more than 70 million small businesses now use Facebook to grow and create jobs.
But it’s clear now that we didn’t do enough to prevent these tools from being used for harm as well. That goes for fake news, foreign interference in elections, and hate speech, as well as developers and data privacy. We didn’t take a broad enough view of our responsibility, and that was a big mistake. It was my mistake, and I’m sorry. I started Facebook, I run it, and I’m responsible for what happens here.”
Oh, so he is sorry, but he truly only cares the he got caught, so he blames it on Trump. Of course, he does – doesn’t everyone?
Zuckerberg basically says his company did not do enough to protect users’ personal information from exploitation by Trump-linked consulting firm Cambridge Analytica, but his remarks ignored a similar data breach by the Obama campaign in 2012.
In my opinion, Zuckerberg has not said anything to show Facebook’s Trump supporters that he even takes responsibility for his political bias. He goes on to blame Russia, and that is nothing new. He is just like all the other Liberals blaming Trump and Russia. He should not get a break – he should be punished.
Facebook is a blackmailer and a voyeur – bottom line. They invaded the American’s people’s privacy, and they should be charged. But they won’t. You “signed-in.”
In another instance of Facebook abuse, documents have been leaked to The Guardian: www.manilatimes.net/ph-role-fb-revenge-porn-sextortion-possible-expert/329327/
“Facebook documents leaked to the London-based The Guardian exposed that the site had to assess 54, 000 potential cases of revenge porn and sextortion–and 33, 000 of those involved child abuses. This led the social networking site to dismiss 14, 000 accounts worldwide in January, The Guardian posted online.
The newspaper revealed moderators were told to allow videos of abortions “to remain on Facebook as long as they do not contain nudity,” while video records of violent deaths do not have “to be deleted because they can help create awareness of issues such as mental illness.”
It said ‘handmade’ art that shows nudity and sexual activity can remain in the site,” but digital art showing sexual activity, however, cannot.
The Guardian also exposed non-sexual physical abuse and bullying of children need not be deleted “unless there is a sadistic or celebratory element.”
Facebook earlier disclosed that it had only 4, 500 content moderators for its 1.94 billion users, the reason why moderators only have seconds to decide what to delete because the website has become ‘too big, too quickly,” its report said.
Because of this, Facebook promised to hire more than 3, 000 people to review content. But some organizations still see this as a disturbing fact.
As reported by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) News, British charity the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) expressed its frustration about how Facebook works, describing it “alarming to say the least.”
“It needs to do more than hire an extra 3, 000 moderators. Facebook, and other social media companies, need to be independently regulated and fined when they fail to keep children safe,” the organization said.
“Any suspicious sites that promote child pornography should be banned,” Adventist Development and Relief Agency (ADRA) International representative Geraldine Maleon Gutierrez also told The Manila Times.
She said Facebook should implement stricter plans and responsible actions for the controversy, adding that Facebook administrators “should be responsible enough in any posts that will endanger children from all forms and abuse, and have a mechanism that will help the authorities to track down and punish abusers.”
Facebook is not the wholesome website community it has professed to be – it is anything but! Facebook knows who our friends and enemies are, our family relationships, and our work histories. It tracks us everywhere we go on the Internet. It can identify us by sight, using digital face-recognition technology to analyze our photos.
Facebook knows all, and it keeps all. We give them everything; they give us — what, exactly? They give us likes and pats on the back, and the “love” we don’t get at home. We are a very needy people, and that is sad. Most of us will not give up Facebook, and they know it. We have been warned, but it will not do any good. In reality the monster has been created, and it will live on.
Facebook isn’t the only Silicon Valley monster that monetizes personal information. Google, Apple, and Microsoft are all inviting advertisers, researchers and government agencies to find you through their platforms. What’s revealing about the Cambridge Analytica affair is that Facebook’s critics seem more exercised about the Trump connection than they do about the data breach.
You see they all hate Trump, as they are so educated they no longer live under an antiquated Constitution. To them the Constitution is dead, and they live in a global society without boundaries.
They will not be charged, and we know it.
Did you know about this? I didn’t until I just found it – wow. www.forbes.com/sites/quickerbettertech/2014/06/30/did-facebook-break-the-law/#6fd2e0605a30
“According to a new paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Facebook altered the News Feeds for hundreds of thousands of users as part of a psychology experiment devised by the company’s on-staff data scientist. By scientifically altering News Feeds, the experiment sought to learn about the way positive and negative effect travels through social networks, ultimately concluding that “in-person interaction and nonverbal cues are not strictly necessary for emotional contagion.””
The co-author of the study defended the research, saying: “The reason we did this is because we care about the emotional impact of Facebook and the people that use our product. We felt that it was important to investigate the common worry that seeing friends post positive content leads to people feeling negative or left out. At the same time, we were concerned that exposure to friends’ negativity might lead people to avoid visiting Facebook.”
Give me a break – they did it, because they are like Nazi scientists experimenting on human beings – it is just all in a day’s work to Facebook. Did they break the law? No, they can do what they want without being charged with anything. Why and how? They are in control, because you allow it.
They are in control, because they know a global rule of law is currently being implemented in the US, and President Trump is fighting it. Do you think he can beat the Globalists?
Do you think the First and Second Amendment is being respected in this Country or anywhere else? No, because the super smart rich elite like Zuckerberg and Bill Gates created the perfect seduction that kept the people busy while the Globalists destroyed the Constitution.
Is the United States living under a functioning Constitution as the rule of law? Let us look into this.
In 1787, only white men over 21 could vote, and the President could serve for as long as he was elected! These Constitutional amendments changed those laws.
15th Amendment. This amendment, ratified in 1870, said that no citizen’s vote could be taken away because of his race or color or because he was once a slave. In 1863, President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, giving slaves their freedom. Nine years later this amendment gave citizens of all races the right to vote. It was a start in giving blacks full equality with whites.
19th Amendment. After this amendment was ratified in 1920, all women in the U.S. were allowed to vote. In 1787, men were always considered head of the household. Only they could vote. But women were becoming better educated. By 1848, they were working together to gain voting rights. Lawmakers were finally convinced 72 years later that women could vote as intelligently as men.
22nd Amendment. This amendment limits a president to two terms in office. George Washington started the presidential tradition of serving for two four-year terms. President Franklin Roosevelt, who was elected four terms in a row, was the first to break with this tradition. Many Americans thought that his four terms had allowed him to become too powerful. This national feeling helped get this amendment ratified in 1951.
26th Amendment. This amendment was passed in 1971, and it gave people 18 to 20 years old the right to vote. The national voting age had been 21. Eighteen-year-olds are old enough to join the U.S. armed forces. Many people think that this makes them old enough to vote for U.S. leaders, too. This amendment had widespread support. It was ratified in only four months.
In the past 200 years, the Constitution has been amended 27 times. The 13th Amendment, in 1865, forever banned the practice of slavery. The 15th Amendment, in 1870, gave all citizens the right to vote, regardless of their race.
Americans have added laws only to take them back. In 1919, the 18th Amendment was passed. It banned the making and selling of alcohol. But it was impossible to get all people to stop drinking. Many people felt the government had no right to make laws about their private habits. So in 1933, the 21st Amendment was adopted. It repealed, or canceled, the 18th Amendment.
Now at the present year of 2018, we are seeing those who seek to repeal the Second Amendment – the Right to Bear Arms.
On March 9, Florida Governor Rick Scott signed legislation that will drastically change the state’s gun laws. The bill effectively bans bump stocks, raises the age required to purchase rifles, implements a three-day waiting period for gun purchases, and allows specific school staff members to carry a firearm if they want to do so.
Some Floridians are pleased with the legislation, even if they opposed the new age restriction or hoped the law would do more. Others love everything about it. And then there are those who are calling the law unconstitutional and a blatant violation of the Second Amendment. The National Rifle Association (NRA) is in the last camp and announced this weekend that it would be suing the state.
Florida claims it has a way to defeat lawsuits at the state level. The state can prevent a lawsuit with these three words: Constitution Revision Commission (CRC).
If Florida can successfully amend its constitution, the law can no longer be said to be unconstitutional at the state level, and any challenges at the state level will fail.
While Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides two ways for amending the U.S. Constitution – a proposal from Congress that passes both chambers with two-thirds of the vote or a constitutional convention by two-thirds of the states – Article IX of Florida’s constitution allows for the Florida constitution to be amended five different ways.
Here we go, we are going to see this happen.
“The CRC is a group of 37 individuals that meets every 20 years to propose changes to the state’s constitution. Thirty-six of the 37 members earn their place on the commission via appointment. Florida’s governor is given the authority to appoint 15 members, the state’s House Speaker and the state’s Senate President each appoint nine members, and the Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court selects three. The 37th member of the commission is the state’s Attorney General who, at this time, is Attorney General Pam Bondi.
Here’s how the CRC works. The 37 individuals mentioned above get together to discuss the state’s constitution and the issues facing Floridians. Over the course of their meetings, they decide whether a constitutional amendment will help solve those issues or not. If the commission agrees on an amendment proposal, it goes on the ballot for voters to support or oppose. Throughout the commission’s decision-making process, it travels the state to hear from voters themselves. The meetings are open to the public, and they allow Floridians to voice their concerns about state issues, as well as give the commission feedback on its rumored proposals. Once the commission approves an amendment, the amendment appears on the ballot and requires 60 percent of the popular vote to become a part of the constitution.
According to reporting from the Miami Herald, CRC member Roberto Martinez, appointed by Chief Justice Jorge Labarga, proposed to the rest of the CRC that the new age restriction and waiting period for firearms should be an amendment proposal on this year’s ballot.
Minutes after the governor signed the bill, Washington lawyers for the National Rifle Association filed a federal lawsuit challenging the law, alleging it violates the Second Amendment. The Martinez proposal would place the firearm safety measure of the law into the constitution, fortifying the law against a state constitutional challenge, not a federal one.
“I think the law is constitutional,” said Martinez, a partner at Colson Hicks Edison and former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. “Can lawyers come up with arguments against it? Of course. To the extent this eliminates any constitutional challenges, we should adopt it.”
Martinez said he has spoken with individual members of the 37-member CRC to discuss his proposal and “everybody has said they are open to considering it. There has been strong support from some,’’ he said. “The CRC should put the proposed amendment on the ballot in November, allowing the voters to cast their support,” Martinez said.
However, Martinez’s efforts would be meaningless if the NRA wins its federal lawsuit. There’s a lot riding on this lawsuit for the NRA and Second Amendment supporters.
The Florida CRC’s next public hearing will be on March 13, from 1:00 pm to 7:00 pm ET on the University of South Florida-St. Petersburg campus at the University Student Center.”
Now we have this from Arizona: www.ammoland.com/2018/04/progressive-ill-rep-declares-constitution-means-nothing/#ixzz5CHe6ykrt
“An Illinois technocrat has demonstrated the Progressive attitude about the Constitution and the Second Amendment. Representative Bill Foster has a PhD in Physics from Harvard. He was raised and earned his Bachelor degree in ultra-liberal Madison, Wisconsin. In his view, the Constitution is a document that can be re-interpreted to mean different things every few years. That is true in a sense. Amendments to the Constitution can be put forward and passed any time. It is clear a constitutional amendment is not what Representative Foster is talking about. “
“Flanked by two area high school students, a pediatrician and the mother of a gun violence victim, U.S. Rep. Bill Foster told a community forum audience Monday the Second Amendment should be up for reinterpretation as new generations come into power.
“It always has been up for reinterpretation,” Foster, D-Naperville, said during an event focused on gun violence. “The technology changes, and the weapons thought to be too dangerous to be in private hands change. A civil war cannon is frankly much less dangerous than weapons we are allowed to carry on the streets in many of the states and cities in our country today. This is something where technology changes and public attitude changes and both are important in each of the generations.””
So we see what is upon us. Facebook, Google, and other technocrats – Nazi scientists – global powers are trying to overpower the Constitution of the United States. We can see that they have their ways, and they are supported by Liberals all over the Country.
Now we will watch as our Country moves to change the very roots of its founding. If this does occur, you can officially kiss the First and Second Amendments goodbye. Pray.
Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow Hans A. von Spakovsky discusses whether Facebook helped Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign.