Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

Russian version of Facebook

Facebook

  • Please log in to reply
110 replies to this topic

#21 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9478 posts

Posted 19 October 2018 - 09:07 AM

Facebook 'completely hopeless and negligent'
 
facebook-upvote-downvote.png
 
 
 
October 19, 2018
 
 
Social media giants need to admit they are publishers and news outlets, and do more to protect their users and consumers, Tracey Spicer has urged.
 
Spicer was particularly critical of Facebook, which she says is being dragged "kicking and screaming" towards regulation and was "completely hopeless and negligent" in a case she took to the police.
 
Tanya Hennessy, Tracey Spicer, Virginia Trioli and Jonathon Moran on stage at Radio Alive 2018
 
"I would like to see the social media companies take responsibility, because I have actually dealt closely, particularly with Facebook with this police case, and they have been completely hopeless and negligent, so I think they need to step up to the plate," she said.
 
Spicer referenced various police cases throughout the Q&A session at Friday's Radio Alive conference, noting she has referred death threats and trolling on social media platforms to the authorities.
 
Part of the issue, she said, is how the corporations view themselves within the ecosystem.
 
"I think [that more regulation is required] - with Facebook and Twitter in particular - because they say that they're platforms, but, let's face it, they're also publishers, they are news outlets as well," she said.
 
Facebook gets the thumbs down from Spicer
 
The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Telegraph's entertainment editor Jonathon Moran said the other issue was the organisation's elusiveness.
 
Spicer acknowledged the issue would be difficult to tackle locally.
 
"It's a global issue," she said. "It's something we can't really address in Australia. I think they need to be taken to task on it."
 
 
 
 
 

Edited by grog, 19 October 2018 - 09:08 AM.

  • 0

#22 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9478 posts

Posted 20 October 2018 - 09:24 AM

Gay couple arrested for LGBT Facebook
 
 
 
 
 
October 20, 2018 
 
 
Gay couple arrested in Bandung for running LGBT Facebook page as homophobia grips West Java
 
The West Java Police have arrested a man and his partner for allegedly running a Facebook page for the gay community in Bandung, West Java, in Indonesia's first case of criminalisation of homosexual hangouts on social media.
 
Police raided on Thursday (Oct 18) a house in Batununggal rented by the man, identified only as IS, who allegedly created the "Gay Bandung" page on October 2015.
 
They also confiscated five cell phones and 25 condoms.
 
"They connect and matchmake people who want to make same-sex friendships," the police's special crimes deputy director, Adjutant Chief Commander Hari Brata said on Friday.
 
The Facebook group reportedly has 4,093 active followers of various ages, including teenagers.
 
A wave of anti-LGBT sentiment has swept across the conservative province of West Java, as public anxiety rises over LGBT groups on social media.
 
Another Facebook page for young gay people triggered controversy in Garut regency two weeks ago, triggering a call from school principals to ban LGBT students at schools.
 
The Cianjur regency administration issued a circular on Monday, instructing all subdistrict heads in the regency to ensure that sermons during Friday prayers discuss the so-called dangers of homosexuality as a lifestyle.
 
The instruction cited a report by the Aids Prevention Commission (KPA) of Cianjur which claimed that the number of LGBT people had risen significantly in the regency.
 
The Bandung case marked the first police crackdown on online LGBT groups, who usually keep a low profile in the largely conservative and religious society.
 
The suspects have been charged under Article 27, Point 1 of the Electronic Transactions and Information (ITE) Law on transmitting and spreading electronic information containing immorality. The law carries a maximum sentence of six years' imprisonment and a maximum fine of 1 billion rupiah (S$90,888).
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  • 0

#23 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9478 posts

Posted 20 October 2018 - 10:06 AM

Facebook hires former UK deputy prime minister
 
 
 
 
 
 
October 20, 2018 
 
 
Facebook hires former UK deputy prime minister to circumnavigate new sweeping rules
 
As Facebook faces more scrutiny over serial scandals triggered by privacy violations, election meddling, and fake news, the social media giant has hired former UK deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg to head its global affairs and communications, reports Reuters.
 
With the appointment, Clegg, who was deputy to David Cameron for five years (2010 to 2015) and a former leader of Liberal Democrats Britain, will become the first senior European politician to have a leadership role in Silicon Valley.
 
The hiring process was closely supervised by CEO Mark Zuckerberg and COO Sherly Sandberg, who started talking to Clegg since summer, Facebook said.
 
While congratulating Clegg on a Facebook post, Sandberg admitted that the company, which is currently facing serious challenges, is "on a critical journey" and "need new perspectives to help us through this time of challenge"
 
Clegg, 51, will succeed the departing Elliot Schrage and will report to Sandberg starting on Monday. He will move to Silicon Valley with his family in January 2019.
 
Tensions over Facebook data privacy have recently heightened and officials from the European Union along with members of the US Congress have criticized Facebook for not being able to fight these threats in the form of data breaches, Russian election meddling, and the Cambridge Analytica scandal. Hiring Clegg could mean that Facebook is looking forward to pushing back against continued efforts from EU to regulate tech companies.
 
Clegg has served as a negotiator for European Commission trade, which has records of slamming some valuable companies in Silicon Valley billions of dollars in fines for regulations infringement. One of the most prominent recent fines being Google's $5 billion fine by the commission for anti-trust behavior involving the Android operating system.
 
Facebook is already at the verge of being sanctioned by the EU commission over its terms of service. Czech politician and lawyer Vera Jourová, who is currently the European Commission commissioner for justice, consumers, and gender equity, disclosed that the sanction would come as early as next year, having been looking at Facebook's current privacy policies and data transparency for some time now.
 
Facebook, Google, and Twitter were among the companies that had significantly bumped up their privacy standards earlier this year, following complaints of violations after the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation went into effect. Clegg Facebook career as an executive member will help the company circumnavigate these new sweeping rules that are relatively new.
 
Clegg is expected to wield more power than he ever did in politics if he succeeds in Facebook, with the most crucial part of his new job being to challenge Mark Zuckerberg frequently while also maintaining a good relationship with him. Without the relationship going well, Clegg could head back home sooner than most of us had expected.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  • 0

#24 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9478 posts

Posted 20 October 2018 - 11:03 AM

Republicans Find a Facebook Workaround: Their Own Apps
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
October 20, 2018 
 
 
 
Imagine a society in which everyone more or less agrees with you.
 
You wake up in the morning to online greetings from people who share your views on guns, religion and country. Your news feed contains only posts from like-minded politicians or articles from like-minded news outlets. You can safely post your own comments without fear of vitriol from trolls or challenges from naysayers.
 
This is the insular world in which tens of thousands of Americans who use conservative political apps are experiencing the midterm election season.
 
Amid a chorus of conservative complaints that Facebook and YouTube have become hostile to right-leaning views - and as those social media giants take steps to limit what they see as abusive or misleading viral content - a few Republican consultants have begun building a parallel digital universe where their political clients set the rules.
 
One start-up has built an app for the lobbying arm of the National Rifle Association that has been downloaded more than 150,000 times. Supporters of President Trump can download an app from Great America, a big-spending pro-Trump political action committee, or America First, Mr. Trump's official 2016 campaign app, which has some features that remain active. Many backers of Senator Ted Cruz of Texas use Cruz Crew, an app built for his re-election campaign.
 
The apps deliver curated partisan news feeds on what are effectively private social media platforms, free from the strictures and content guidelines imposed by Silicon Valley giants. Some allow supporters to comment on posts or contribute their own, with less risk that their posts will be flagged as offensive or abusive.
 
Many apps have video-game-like features where users can earn points for making campaign donations or contacting their legislators. Amass enough points and a supporter can attain increasing status levels - like "BigLeague" or "Patriot" - or even gain a spot on the app's leader board.
 
Crucially, these mini-platforms harness the powerful reach of platforms like Facebook and Twitter even while competing with them. Some apps give users the option of posting on Twitter or Facebook messages that are scripted by the campaigns, combining the seeming authenticity of organic social media posts with the message discipline of paid advertising.
 
Proponents are positioning these apps as durable communities that offer conservatives viable alternatives to mainstream social networks.
 
The Great American app has offered text messages that you can send to your representatives with a push of a button. The app identifies your representatives from the ZIP code you provide when building your profile.
 
"People with center-right views feel like the big social platforms, Facebook and Twitter, are not sympathetic to their views," said Thomas Peters, the chief executive of uCampaign, a start-up in Washington that developed the N.R.A., Great America and Trump campaign apps. "It's creating a safe space for people who share a viewpoint, who feel like the open social networks are not fun places for them."
 
Sheltered from the broader public, however, the platforms can intensify political polarization and social divisiveness, or circulate disinformation.
 
Anyone in the United States may download uCampaign apps, Mr. Peters said, but they give a campaign the ability to bar interlopers who post messages challenging the campaign's positions.
 
CONTINUED AT THIS SITE:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  • 0

#25 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9478 posts

Posted 20 October 2018 - 01:12 PM

Facebook tool makes UK political ads 'transparent'
 
 
 
 
 
 
16 October 2018
 
 
Political groups have been spending increasing amounts of money on Facebook adverts
 
From today, if you want to advertise a political cause on Facebook in the UK, you'll have to obey new rules. You will need to prove your identity and location to the company, and each ad will carry a message saying who paid for it.
 
There will also be an online archive, showing all of your previous ads, roughly how much you spent, and who they have reached. The archive can be searched by anyone, whether or not they are a Facebook member.
 
The new system has already been in operation in the US and Brazil.
 
Facebook was forced to act following controversy about ads it displayed during the 2016 US Presidential election campaign and the UK's EU referendum.
 
In the United States, thousands of ads were bought by Russian groups trying to sow discord. Facebook has been under pressure to make sure the same thing did not happen in the run-up to November's mid-term elections.
 
_________________________________________________________________
 
Facebook stops sending staff to help political campaigns
 
Vote Leave's targeted Brexit ads released by Facebook
 
Electoral Commission demands social media transparency
_________________________________________________________________
 
Facebook insists that Russian spending on ads during the Brexit campaign amounted to just £0.73, although the Department of Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee was unhappy with the level of information provided by the company.
 
The tool reveals how many times an ad has been seen, how much was spent on it and a profile of its audience
_________________________________________________________________
 
The first time anyone wants to place an advert that features political figures and parties, elections, legislation before Parliament and past referendums such as those involving Scottish independence or Brexit, they will go through a verification process to prove their identity and that they are based in the UK. They will have to provide a passport, a driving licence or a residence permit, and these will be checked by a third-party organisation.
 
Searching the archive, you come across examples of ads that have been placed without the "paid for by" label.
 
Facebook then shows this message: "After the ad started running, we determined that the ad was related to politics and issues of national importance and required the label. The ad was taken down."
 
The system allows users to report a political ad as fake news, and if Facebook determines that it does contain falsehoods, it can be taken down. Adverts that have broken the rules remain in the archive, so that you can check just how many people it reached while it was on the site.
 
_________________________________________________________________
 
The tool was introduced to Brazil in July ahead of the country's elections
_________________________________________________________________
 
In a blog about the new policy, Facebook says that in the US and Brazil it is pleased with the progress made so far. But the company admits that it will not cut out abuse entirely.
 
"We're up against smart and well-funded adversaries who change their tactics as we spot abuse," it says.
 
Last week, the social network removed more than 500 pages and 250 accounts it said were spamming users with what it called "sensational political content" to gain attention as the US mid-term elections approached.
 
Facebook suggested the motives behind the material were financial rather than political, designed to get users clicking on adverts.
 
The new rules will not necessarily show who has broken the UK's laws on election spending. The message that must be displayed on any ad will only show who paid Facebook for it, not where their money came from.
 
That, says Facebook, would be a matter for the Electoral Commission to investigate. In July, the commission found that the Brexit campaign group Vote Leave had broken the law by funnelling money for Facebook ads through a youth group, BeLeave.
 
Facebook says in future spending on adverts will be more visible.
_________________________________________________________________
 
Facebook also intends to let third-parties develop their own software to search its archive
_________________________________________________________________
 
"The goal is to make it transparent, so that people can see that - not after the fact, but while the campaigning is going on," says Rob Leathern, the executive in charge of the initiative.
 
In the US, the library has recorded over one million political ads since it launched in late May.
 
Spending in the UK will presumably be pretty low for the time being - unless there is a snap election. But when a vote comes, we can expect Facebook's ad archive to become an essential tool - not just for the electorate but for parties trying to work out what their opponents are up to.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  • 0

#26 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9478 posts

Posted 20 October 2018 - 01:43 PM

election interference
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
October 20, 2018 
 
 
Op-Ed: WhatsApp undermines Facebook's war on election interference
 
 
There is a conference room inside of Facebook's headquarters that is devoted to fighting election interference. Casey Newton a reporter with the Verge visited what is called the war room and wrote a recent article about the visit.
 
Newton visits the Facebook war room
 
After an introductory briefing, Newton got to visit the actual room. The room MPK 20 is just one of many conference rooms in the headquarters in Menlo Park, Palo Alto as shown in the appended image. There were desks for 24 people and the room is ringed by seventeen screens. Each screen highlights a stream of information that Facebook is monitoring.
 
Employees watch for suspicious spikes in spam and hate speech. In some cases they use special software to do this. They are looking for activity such as voter suppression. For example there may be posts saying that an election has been delayed because of long lineups. The team recently uncovered a hoax claiming that the Brazilian election had been delayed a day because of protests. The offending posts were quickly removed.
 
Newton was unfortunate in that nothing dramatic happened while she was there.
 
Facebook's war room is fighting a war in the Brazil election
 
Newton notes that the room was festooned with both US and Brazilian flags. The war room is waging war against fake news not only in US elections but those in Brazil as well. Surely, this might be considered interfering in the Brazilian election. Even if this is done in the name of stopping fake news, it could be considered interfering in the Brazil election. If Bolsonaro wins then Facebook could very well find itself banned in Brazil because its actions meant that he probably had less votes than otherwise.
 
It seems that a report by Folha on the scheme to use WhatsApp for fake news was timed to coincide with the reporters visit as it appeared while they were there. Buzzfeed notes: "The report was released the same day that WhatsApp's new CEO, Chris Daniels, published a piece in Folha, writing, "We have a responsibility to amplify the good and mitigate the bad." Thursday morning, also, appears to have been the time when Facebook allowed access stories from American journalists such as CNN covering Facebook's new "election war room" to publish. The timing of the embargo - an agreement between news organizations to publish news provided by a source at the same time - the investigation by Folha, and Daniels' op-ed throw into question exactly how Facebook intends to monitor fake news and hyperpartisan misinformation, especially in a WhatsApp-dominated country like Brazil."
 
In other words the timing was intended to ensure that the stories would point out the failings of WhatsApp. Newton uses Buzzfeed to explain what happened.
 
How the scheme worked
 
Media firms that support the right-wing front runner Jair Bolsanaro used his supporter database along with third party databases of phone numbers. Some agencies even broke down data on the basis of income level and location. They then used a service called mass shooting to send thousands of messages.
 
The Folha investigation alleges that the firms bought contracts worth up to $3.2 million dollars. This is not only an abuse of WhatsApp, its illegal in Brazil where companies are banned from donating to political campaigns and are not allowed to access a candidate's database.
 
The scheme may not show up on any Facebook screen
 
The media companies' scheme is most insidious in that it is not evident that any of the many screens in the Facebook war room can capture the malign activity. The fake news is spread virally using a platform that almost no one can see inside.
 
How the damage might be limited
 
Several Brazilian researchers have suggested three ways the WhatsApp propaganda could be limited. The number of times a message can be forwarded could be reduced from 20 to 5. Facebook already does this in India. Secondly, Facebook could lower substantially the number of people that a person can send a single message to from the present very large 256. Finally, the company could limit the size of new groups in the hope that this could limit the formation of misinformation mobs. As to the last technique, surely this would be easy to avoid by just forming many clones of smaller groups and having them work in concert.
 
Newton concludes that it would be best to not allow an app to have both end-to-end encryption and viral sharing mechanics just one or the other. This would allow the mobs to be in plain sight. It would be interesting to see what WhatApp would have to say about Newton's complaints and suggestions.
 
Are those helping to filter fake news neutral?
 
One should always be suspicious when giant corporations decide to protect us from fake news and misinformation. Obviously political figures such as Donald Trump and many other politicians make announcements that are lies and they are dutifully reported by the mass media ad nauseam often without comment since to comment is not straight objective reporting. Now this is not regarded as fake news but it has the same effect especially if the politician is regarded as truthful by many of his or her followers. No one suggests banning those reports. People are left to determine themselves whether what important figures say is true or false. Other reports may show these are lies or claim they are but such reports do not ban the original statements.
 
Among those helping Facebook to filter the news is the Atlantic Council. Rania Khalek an independent journalist said in a tweet: "This is alarming. The Atlantic Council - which is funded by gulf monarchies, western governments, NATO, oil and weapons companies, etc. - will now assist Facebook in suppressing what they decide is disinformation." In Facebook's statement which announced the partnership it said that the company will use the Atlantic Council's Digital Research Unit Monitoring Missions during elections and other highly sensitive moments.
 
Adam Johnson, a contributor at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, said in response to Facebook's announcement: "Monopoly social media corporations teaming up with [the] pro-U.S. NatSec blob to determine truth was always the logical end of 'fake news' panic."
 
While Facebook will naturally try to ensure that it does not place itself in a position where it breaks the laws of a country where it operates it would be wise not to hold itself otherwise responsible for filtering what appears on its platform. Leave it to the authorities to warn them when posts are against the law and to prosecute those who break the law as happened in Brazil. The companies using WhatsApp in Brazil broke the law and there is evidence for it. The way to stop them is to prosecute them not to complain about WhatsApp.
 
As the appended video shows Facebook even banned a video by well known Guardian columnist George Monbiot.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  • 0

#27 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9478 posts

Posted 20 October 2018 - 03:58 PM

Brexit Facebook ad war
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Saturday 20 October 2018
 
 
Remain v Leave: Scale of Facebook ad war revealed
 
Analysis of Facebook advertising shows pro-EU groups are running considerably more adverts than those in favour of Brexit.
 
Leave means Leave is running fewer Facebook adverts than their Remain opposition
 
Image:
 
Leave Means Leave is running fewer Facebook adverts than their Remain opposition
 
By Rowland Manthorpe, technology correspondent
 
Anti-Brexit groups are running at least twice as many adverts as major Leave campaigns on Facebook - and possibly up to 59 times more, Sky News can reveal.
 
The two largest Remain campaigns, People's Vote and Best for Britain, are currently running 16 Facebook ads on their pages.
 
By contrast, Leave Means Leave, the group backed by Nigel Farage, is running five ads. Leave.EU is only running two.
 
A data set of Facebook ads over the last two-and-a-half months, seen exclusively by Sky News, presents an even starker contrast.
 
In this period, the Best For Britain and People's Vote campaigns ran 177 ads, whereas the two largest pro-Brexit campaigns ran only three.
 
Fake news inquiry targeted by 'sophisticated' campaign
 
Ahead of the Remain-supporting March for the Future taking place in London on Saturday, People's Vote and Best for Britain aimed ads at different geographic regions of the UK - including Swansea, Edinburgh, Hackney, Liverpool and Stoke.
 
It also targeted ads at supporters of Premiership football clubs, including West Ham United and Manchester City, telling fans how much their club had lost out on in the transfer window as a result of the weak pound.
 
Image:
 
Remain groups are out-advertising Leave
 
Tom Baldwin, director of communications for People's Vote, told Sky News that the campaign had also targeted Facebook users in the West Midlands after the boss of Jaguar Land Rover said that Brexit could put tens of thousands of jobs at risk.
 
Baldwin said the People's Vote campaign had increased the number of ads it was putting out in recent weeks, adding: "We've just really started doing this, and we've managed to reach around two or three million people, that's the kind of impressions that we're getting."
 
Image:
 
The adverts are targeting MPs as well as voters
 
The historic Facebook ads come from a start-up called Who Targets Me, which uses a free browser plug-in to collect Facebook ads from around 10,000 different news feeds. It pulls in between 7,000 and 8,000 ads a day, many of which are related to Brexit.
 
"There's a lot more advertising coming from the Remain side," said Sam Jeffers, one of the project's founders. "We're not seeing a lot of stuff on the Leave side at the moment.
 
"Maybe that's confidence on their side, that things are going the way they want it to be, or maybe those campaigns haven't really got going yet."
 
 
 
 
 
 

  • 0

#28 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9478 posts

Posted 20 October 2018 - 04:25 PM

secretive 'Chuck Chequers' campaign
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
October 20, 2018 
 
 
Facebook criticised as secretive 'Chuck Chequers' campaign is exposed
 
 
An unknown campaign has spent over £250,000 urging voters to lobby their MPs to "chuck Chequers", a report by a Parliamentary select committee claims.
 
MPs have criticised Facebook for failing to ensure that political campaigns are transparent. Credit: PA Images
 
MPs on the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee claim to have exposed a 10-month Facebook advertising campaign urging voters to back a hard Brexit. 
 
Unknown donors are believed to have spent £257,000 on the campaign, which directed users to a site called the 'Mainstream Network' and is estimated to have reached 11 million people.
 
Nick Clegg hails 'exciting new adventure' as he lands plum Facebook job
 
Philip Hammond urged to introduce tech levy as MPs slam 'outrageous' Facebook tax bill
 
Vote Leave accused of using Facebook ads to breach Brexit campaign pause after Jo Cox murder
 
Damian Collins, Chair of the DCMS Committee said that a sophisticated organisation was behind the campaign, and that he had "no idea" who was funding it. 
 
"The only people who know who is paying for these adverts is Facebook," he said. 
 
Collins and his fellow DCMS Committee member Paul Farrelly are among MPs whose constituents have been targeted.  
 
MPs have called on Facebook to improve its transparency, and warned that the social network's secretive approach to political adverts risked undermining democracy. 
 
"While debate on one of the central issues facing our country is part of a thriving democracy, there is an important question of where campaigning stops and political advertising starts" Collins said.
 
"If you are targeted with a message or asked to do lobby your MP, you should know exactly who is behind the organisation asking you to do it." 
 
89up, the digital campaign group which shared the information with MPs, said that the campaign's backers were likely to be better resourced than Ukip.
 
"Mainstream Network has potentially a bigger budget than UKIP, and is aiming to influence MPs, yet there is no transparency whatsoever over who is paying for this website," 89up said in written evidence to the inquiry. 
 
"Facebook claims to be tackling fake news but individuals or groups with a political agenda can still remain entirely anonymous on the platform and reach millions of people."
 
The Mainstream Network campaign was exposed as part of the DCMS Committee's inquiry into 'fake news'. 
 
The revelation follows a Facebook announcement that it was introducing new policies to increase the transparency of political campaigns. From November 7, all political advertisements will have to be clearly labelled and included in a searchable archive.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  • 0

#29 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9478 posts

Posted 20 October 2018 - 04:59 PM

Under Fire for an Anti-Muslim Facebook Rant
 
 
 
 
 
October 20, 2018 
 
 
Another Candidate for Jason Kenney's UCP is Now Under Fire for an Anti-Muslim Facebook Rant
 
UCP nomination candidate Mark Mantei's rant is being denounced as 'racist and Islamophobic'
 
Another nomination candidate for Jason Kenney's United Conservative Party is facing scrutiny after an anti-Muslim Facebook rant surfaced Friday.
 
Mark Mantei, a UCP nomination candidate for Calgary-Shaw, downplayed the significance of the Crusades and claimed Muslims are the only group that engages in extremism and violence.
 
The UCP nomination candidate's remarks were immediately denounced by Alberta's Human Services Minister Irfan Sabir, who described Mantei as "another racist and Islamophobe" running to be a UCP candidate.
 
"When will Jason Kenney make it clear to potential flag bearers of his part that these views have no place in Alberta?" Sabir asked in a Facebook post Friday.
 
Facebook
 
The comments were made two years ago, while Mantei was serving as president of the Wildrose Party's Calgary-Shaw constituency association.
 
The UCP hopeful was reacting to a Facebook meme likening the Crusades to modern terrorism, suggesting Christianity also has a dark and violent history - Mantei interjected to call the meme "complete crap."
 
"I'd be more worried about violent extremism that is happening now than any debate about what happened literally centuries ago," the UCP hopeful said of the medieval religious wars that historians estimate killed 1.7 million people.
 
"We need to stop saying that every religion is equally responsible for terrorism, they're not," Mantei continued. "We are not seeing acts of global terrorism committed by Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, etc."
 
"The first step is to stop apologizing for calling things as they are."
 
Mantei's rant reflects a line of far-right thinking that previously led Fox & Friends' Brian Kilmeade to issue a public apology. While extremists claiming to represent each religion named by Mantei do have histories of violence, a 2018 terrorism report by Europol, the EU's law enforcement agency, shows ethno-nationalist separatist groups were responsible for "most terror attacks" carried out in Europe in 2017.
 
Research shows religious extremists often have a "rudimentary and fragmented" understanding of their own religions. Even the Harper government privately agreed radicalization is typically a product of sociological and mental health issues.
 
Mantei was spotted campaigning for the UCP nomination as recently as Friday morning. Calgary-Shaw's UCP nomination is scheduled for Saturday.
 
The UCP nomination candidate has secured a number of key endorsements from sitting UCP MLA Tany Yao and acclaimed UCP candidate Tanya Fir. Both note his deep roots in Alberta's "conservative movement."
 
Facebook
 
UCP Executive Director Janice Harrington recently told Global News all UCP hopefuls go through a "rigorous" vetting process that includes a questionnaire, background checks, in-person interviews and disclosures of social media histories.
 
"Leader Jason Kenney has repeatedly pledged a rigorous pre-screening of prospective candidates to avoid the kind of 'bozo eruptions' that have derailed campaigns in the past," Harrington said.
 
The newly surfaced comments, as well as others from Mantei's social media history, may raise questions about who else slipped through the cracks?
 
Facebook
 
Mantei did not respond to a request for comment from PressProgress.
 
 
 
 

  • 0

#30 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9478 posts

Posted 21 October 2018 - 08:51 AM

Nick Clegg faces flak
 
1-1-4.jpg
 
 
 
October 21, 2018
 
 
Nick Clegg faces flak for joining Facebook as Head of global affairs
 
Former British Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, who earlier criticised Facebook for paying too little tax in Britain, is now facing flak for joining the social network as its head of global affairs, the media reported.
 
Former British Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, who earlier criticised Facebook for paying too little tax in Britain, is now facing flak for joining the social network as its head of global affairs, the media reported. The former Liberal Democrat MP will start working for Facebook on Monday and move with his family to Palo Alto in California in the New Year, The Telegraph reported this week.
 
Clegg will earn 1 million pounds a year in his new role at Facebook, which paid only 7.4 million pounds in tax in Britain last year despite recording 1.3 billion pounds in sales, the report added. A couple of years ago, Clegg, who lost his seat in Parliament in the 2017 general elections, said that he was not "especially bedazzled by Facebook".
 
"Nor am I sure that companies such as Facebook really pay all the tax they could ? though that's as much the fault of governments who still haven't got their tax act together," he was quoted as saying. And now his acceptance of the Facebook role has not gone down well with his former party colleagues as well as other lawmakers in Britain. He has been accused of hypocrisy.
 
Senior Liberal Democrats leader Vince Cable said he would urge Clegg "to make sure Facebook co-operates with attempts to make sure they pay their fair share of tax".
 
"This is deeply hypocritical. He has been critical about companies that try and reduce their tax and he is now running to the door of Mark Zuckerberg," Nigel Evans, a Tory MP, was quoted as saying.
 
"Quite frankly we all know he has the ability to say one thing and do another. He's now their champion. Pass the sick bag."
 
The decision to appoint Clegg, a former European commission trade negotiator and member of the European parliament, is indicative of Facebook's desire to have a better relationship with Brussels, where it is facing calls for increased regulation, the Guardian reported.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  • 0

#31 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9478 posts

Posted 21 October 2018 - 10:14 AM

fake friend requests to your Facebook friends
 
 
 
 
 
 
October 21, 2018
 
 
Stop forwarding those silly warnings. Nobody is sending fake friend requests to your Facebook friends
 
Facebook account cloning was popular in the past, but the amount of viral warning messages flying around Facebook recently is way greater than the actual number of cloned accounts. - TNS
 
Enough already with the Facebook messages. Nobody is sending out friend requests in your name.
 
So you can stop sending those warnings to everyone on your friend list.
 
This is one of those viral Internet moments where everyone is getting swept up in worrying about security, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. But it's really just a hoax.
 
I'm sure almost every Facebook user got a message in the last few days that read, "Hi ... I actually got another friend request from you which I ignored so you may want to check your account. Hold your finger on the message until the forward button appears ... then hit forward and all the people you want to forward too. I had to do the people individually. PLEASE DO NOT ACCEPT A NEW FRIENDSHIP FROM ME AT THIS TIME."
 
I copied that text from a Facebook message sent by my sister.
 
For the record, I haven't received any fake friend requests this week, and I bet you haven't either.
 
There have been instances of people's Facebook accounts being cloned.
 
If it does happen to you, it doesn't mean you were hacked. It just means someone copied information from your Facbook page to create their own cloned version.
 
Depending on your Facebook security settings, I could create a new Facebook account in your name, and even snag your profile picture so it looks just like your account. Then I could go through your friend list and send all those people a new friend request from the cloned account.
 
Why would anyone do this?
 
To send people messages that look like they are from you. Perhaps asking for money - telling your friends you are out of the country and had your wallet stolen - that sort of thing.
 
Facebook account cloning was popular in the past, but the amount of viral warning messages flying around Facebook recently is way greater than the actual number of cloned accounts.
 
So what should you do? Is there a way to curtail the potential cloning of your account?
 
Take this opportunity to re-examine your Facebook security settings. Make sure your Facebook friend list is not viewable to the public.
 
Even better: Open your Facebook privacy settings and make sure none of your Facebook page is viewable to anyone but your friends. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  • 0

#32 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9478 posts

Posted 21 October 2018 - 12:44 PM

Facebook Erases Hundreds of Alternative Media Pages in Mass Purge
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
October 21, 2018
 
 
Facebook Erases Hundreds of Alternative Media Pages in Mass Purge
 
This Real News Network segment discusses Facebook's new practice of erasing popular alternative media pages that had millions of likes and suspending anti-war and anti-police brutality accounts, in coordination with Twitter. Journalist Max Blumenthal says this is part of a larger political crackdown; EFF's David Greene says the implications are dangerous.
 
BEN NORTON: It's The Real News Network, I'm Ben Norton.
 
Facebook has erased numerous alternative media pages that had millions of likes as the corporate social media giant cracks down on numerous pages and accounts. Twitter also apparently coordinated with Facebook and suspended some of the same accounts behind these alternative media pages. In just one day, Facebook removed 559 pages and 251 accounts in one fell swoop. Among the pages targeted in this mass purge were popular websites such as Anti-Media and The Free Thought Project, which had roughly three million likes.
 
Pages that monitored police brutality were also purged, including the page Cop Block and also Police the Police. Several antiwar pages were taken down as well, along with libertarian pages and left wing pages like Reasonable People Unite. Many of the personal Facebook accounts used by people who were admins for those pages were also removed. Facebook announced this purge in a blog post on its website on October 11. Facebook ambiguously accused the pages and accounts of "coordinated inauthentic behavior" and claimed the reason they were removed was based on behavior, not their content, supposedly.
 
Facebook implied the pages were posting clickbait and were ad farms and claimed the people behind the pages were creating numerous fake accounts in order to spread their material across Facebook. But for many of the pages, this is not true. For example, Facebook removed the antiwar page, The Naked Empire, which I know this is not true because this website has actually interviewed me and other journalists. The Naked Empire posted interviews with antiwar journalists and posted them online. It did not engage in any clickbait or ad farms. And the personal Facebook account of this page was also removed.
 
I know this also because the person behind this account personally reached out to me as someone who had been featured on her page and said that Facebook removed her page with interviews with me and others and her personal account. So, joining us to discuss this most recent crackdown by Facebook in which it removed hundreds of accounts of pages, are two guests. Max Blumenthal is one guest. He is the editor of The Grayzone Project. He's also an award-winning journalist and the author of several books. And we're also joined by David Greene. David Greene is the Senior Staff Attorney and Civil Liberties Director at Electronic Frontier Foundation, EFF. Thanks for joining us, guys.
 
DAVID GREENE: Thanks.
 
MAX BLUMENTHAL: Good to be here.
 
BEN NORTON: All right, Max. Let's start with you. Facebook has done this multiple times now. We've seen numerous pages that have been removed. We've also seen the scare of so-called fake news. And what's troubling about this is that some of the partners Facebook has in its crackdown on so-called fake news, vetting pages like these that have been removed, one of the partners is The Atlantic Council. The Atlantic Council is essentially a kind of unofficial NATO, it's is funded by the United States government and the European Union along with NATO. Among the other fact-checkers that have partnered with Facebook to screen so-called fake news is The Weekly Standard. The Weekly Standard is a neo-conservative website that itself published false information in the lead-up to the Iraq war, which it strongly supported.
 
So, given this most recent crackdown on alternative media websites and given the fact that Facebook has partnered with neo-conservative websites and also have actually published fake news in the past in the case of the Iraq war, you as a journalist, can you respond to what you feel about the situation and what you think it really could mean for journalists like you, who are not necessarily in the mainstream and who are challenging some of these mainstream narratives?
 
MAX BLUMENTHAL: Yeah. We've talked about this before on previous interviews, Ben, and we talked about VenezuelAnalysis being momentarily removed. There just seemed to be this arbitrary criteria and sites that were targeted tended to be the kind of sites that were challenging the Washington Consensus on foreign policy particularly. You mentioned the Atlantic Council. They are funded by NATO as well as Saudi Arabia, a bunch of Gulf States, arms manufacturers. They exist in Washington to really reinforce the consensus around permanent war.
 
And they have an internal operation called the Digital Forensics Lab, which was hired or kind of partnered in with Facebook in order to regulate material online as part of Facebook's Election Watch. I don't know what any of this has to do with the Election Watch, but the takedown of some 800 sites clearly was timed around the midterms. And what probably happened, what we can deduce from what's happened since Donald Trump was elected, was there was a hysteria about Hillary Clinton's loss. She personally blamed fake news and what she called Russian active measures for her defeat. There's been a campaign to prove that Donald Trump colluded with Russia to subvert the election and to basically win by illegitimate means.
 
And Facebook executives, along with other Silicon Valley social media executives, have been dragged before the Senate Intelligence Committee as part of the Russia investigation and basically been forced to prostrate themselves before the Senate. So, Facebook has sort of been forced to take on the Atlantic Council. And to supposedly clean up its platform, the criteria for taking down sites is obviously arbitrary, but it's all based around this idea of justifying it as Russian propaganda.
 
Now, if we go back to the weeks and months after Donald Trump was elected, the Washington Post ran a very suspicious story by Craig Timberg, who's been kind of following the Russian meddling beat. And it was promoting a very shady website called PropOrNot. PropOrNot had introduced a McCarthyite blacklist of alternative sites that it accused of being Kremlin influence operations, including a site that I've written for, that I think you've contributed to, Ben, called Truthdig, which is run by Bob Scheer, one of the most reputable journalists in America. It's a progressive website.
 
It also included Anti-Media, The Free Thought Project and some of the other anti-police brutality sites. So, there is a clear overlap between this shady, anonymous McCarthyite blacklist that was pumped out from the Washington Post, promoted on Twitter by Obama and Hillary Clinton insiders, and the takedown of these alternative sites by Facebook. We still don't know who is behind that PropOrNot list, but the signs all point to a real attempt to suppress dissident media. And I know one of the people whose own personal Facebook pages, Rachel Blevins, she's a former contributor to The Free Thought project, which is a libertarian site that has done a lot of anti-police brutality work.
 
Rachel Blevins is a real person. She has never spammed anyone. She hasn't engaged in anything Facebook has accused any of these sites of, and she has lost 70,000 followers that she worked really hard for several years to amass. So, this is really the equivalent of taking a bone saw to alternative media, and we don't know who's going to get hit next. But it's really disturbing, I think, for everyone I know who relies on these platforms to promote their alternative, independent sites.
 
BEN NORTON: David Greene, let's go to you. You, as the Civil Liberties Director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, have talked a lot about the attack on civil liberties, on media freedom in this country. And in the past several years, we've actually seen an increasing crackdown under the Obama administration. We saw the record imprisonment of whistleblowers. And then, under Donald Trump, we've seen the president himself call the media the enemy of the people, incite against journalists and even incite violence.
 
Facebook claims that these pages were not taken down because what they were posting, but rather because of their behavior, claiming that all of these pages and accounts were engaged in some kind of clickbait, ad farm to raise money instead of actually informing people. Many of the people behind these accounts, including someone who was actually interviewed by the Washington Post when he reported on this, said otherwise, said that they're actually just trying to challenge mainstream narratives and voice their own political expression. Can you respond to what you think about this mass purge of personal accounts and pages on Facebook?
 
DAVID GREENE: Yeah and let me first say that I'm not an expert on this specific purge, but we do follow both Facebook and other platforms' content moderation policies and their problems very closely. And I can say with great confidence that this is not an isolated problem, that this is a problem that's inherent in their policies. I mean, we see it all over the world. We see dissident groups all over the world being removed from platforms. And usually, that's done with pressure from a foreign government or from some other powerful force. I don't know what the decision-making process here is by Facebook or any other platform. What we see is that they have set up systems for people to complain about content and for content to be removed. And those systems seem to be very easily gamed, again, by powerful forces, to target their detractors.
 
We've seen this in Morocco, we've seen this all over the Mideast, in parts of Europe as well. It's very common in other parts of the world. So, what we have done in response to this is to really call on the platforms to adopt some set of standards by which they're going to remove content and some standards that are consistent with international human rights standards. And very basically, these are things like transparency and due process, having people's things not removed until they have an opportunity to respond to any challenges to them, just being very clear about what your standards are, why you remove people. Just really sort of basic structural reforms like that.
 
BEN NORTON: And David, several of the pages that were targeted were pages that monitored police brutality, such as Cop Block, pages that encourage citizen journalism to film the police. I'm wondering if you could talk, maybe it's not just Facebook, but you could talk in general about how the crackdown on police transparency groups is part of this larger crackdown on alternative media.
 
DAVID GREENE: I mean, it's really a great example of a group where there's a powerful body on the other side and somewhat where I think the platforms feel a great amount of pressure to respond to. Because many times, they're getting very legitimate complaints from law enforcement about illegal activity on the sites. And many times, and again, I don't know if this is the case with any particular platform, but it's fairly common for sites to have good relationships with law enforcement in order to respond to illegal activity happening on the site. And so, you see how that could very easily bleed over into other practices. And so, I'm not surprised.
 
One of the other things we see is that, as we have discussed, sort of the rush to try and respond to propaganda or false media reports has really led to some bad practices, at least bad from the human rights perspective, because sort of efforts that are being made to try and identify sort of reliable or established media sites are really going to lean heavily in favor of mainstream media, well-funded media, and lead against independent media people or non-mainstream organizations either that aren't well-known outside of their specific subject matter, and also many who, because of what they do, need to report synonymously or anonymously. And that type of sort of anonymous reporting tends to be downgraded by metrics that try to identify reliability of media sites.
 
BEN NORTON: We're going to take a brief pause in our discussion here and continue in part two. I'm joined by David Greene of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Max Blumenthal, an award winning journalist and the editor of The Grayzone project. We're talking about social media crackdown on alternative media outlets and political expression and looking at Facebook's mass purge of hundreds of accounts.
 
Join us here at The Real News Network for part two.
 
 
 
 
 

  • 0

#33 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9478 posts

Posted 21 October 2018 - 01:18 PM

excluded from TCR after abusive Facebook post
 
2018-2018-Barcelona-Race-1-2018-Barcelon
 
 
 
October 21, 2018
 
 
Kris Richard excluded from TCR Europe finale after abusive Facebook post
 
Target Competition's Kris Richard has been excluded from the final TCR Europe series race of the season at Barcelona following an abusive tirade on social media.
 
The Swiss driver has also been thrown out of the opening race after which he initially finished eighth on the road.
 
Richard was already in hot water with race stewards after receiving a penalty post-qualifying for exceeding track limits. He then went on to lambast the race officials using expletive language in a Facebook post which has since been deleted.
 
The post originally said: "Stress is the result of the daily contact with idiots! #tcreurope #stewards" before adding: "Due to a ridiculous decision I have to start both races from P10 instead of P7 and P4."
 
He then signed off with "#f**ckoff"
 
The stewards stated that Richard "had caused moral injury" which led to the decision to exclude the Hyundai i30 N TCR driver from the meeting.
 
The disqualification hurts his team Target Competition's chances of securing the teams' championship title in today's final race, as they currently lie five points behind KCMG.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  • 0

#34 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9478 posts

Posted 21 October 2018 - 02:39 PM

banned an ad about a Palestinian film
 
ac13-DEC-Uprising-2.jpg?f=16x9&w=1200&$p
 
 
 
October 21, 2018
 
 
Facebook banned an ad about a Palestinian film for all users in Israel
 
 'I really have trouble understanding how a film that depicts a feminist, civic, nonviolent struggle doesn't meet the social network's standards'
 
A still from 'Naila and the Uprising'. Photo / Dubai International Film Festival
 
Facebook lifted its ban on the trailer for Julia Bacha's 2017 documentary Naila and the Uprising on Thursday, just in time for the film's debut Israel screening in Jaffa on Thursday night, and its subsequent online launch.
 
The +972 website, which is part-funded by the film's co-producer Just Vision and had taken out the Facebook ad, received notice on Friday October 12 that its ad had been removed from the social networking giant for all users in Israel - although not the rest of the world - as it was not in line with Facebook's guidelines, just hours after it had been taken out: "Your ad was not approved because it doesn't conform to our advertising policy," the message stated.
 
"We don't allow advertising that includes shocking, derogatory or sensational content, including ads that depict violence or threats of violence."
 
The film's trailer:
 
+972 immediately appealed the ban, however no one from Facebook responded inside the site's 48-hour period to hear appeals. In fact, no one from Facebook responded at all until the Israeli newspaper Haaretz contacted them on Thursday October 18, just hours before the film's screening, at which point the ad finally received approval to run on the site.
 
It should be noted that Facebook did not actually ban the trailer, just the paid advertising that had been taken out for it, however the fact that Facebook deemed the ad as contravening its standards only inside Israel seems to set a worrying precedent in terms of double standards.
 
Julia Bacha, director of Naila and the Uprising. Courtesy Just Vision
 
Julia Bacha, director of Naila and the Uprising. Courtesy Just Vision
 
Yael Marom, +972's co-editor, told Haaretz: "I really have trouble understanding how a film that depicts a feminist, civic, nonviolent struggle doesn't meet the social network's standards. What's really sad is that instead of standing at the forefront of the battle for freedom of expression, an important platform like Facebook is generously applying the laws of censorship dictated by the right and the zeitgeist to itself."
 
Naila and the Uprising tells the story of Palestinian activist Naila Ayesh's personal struggle during the First Intifada. It received its world premiere at the DOC NYC Festival in November 2017, and debuted regionally at DIFF the following month with Ayesh among the audience.
 
The film still maintains a strong presence on the international festival circuit, with several screenings scheduled at festivals in the US and Europe during October and November this year.
 
____________________
 
Read more:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  • 0

#35 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9478 posts

Posted 21 October 2018 - 03:57 PM

How Politicians Took Down Facebook
 
 
 
 
October 21, 2018
 
 
Extremism is on the rise globally. Instead of attacking the root cause, politicians are increasingly scapegoating big technology companies.
 
Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission, warned in September that Google, Facebook and Twitter would be given one hour to remove extremist content, or else face fines of up 4% of revenues.
 
Samidh Chakrabarti, Director of Elections and Civic Engagement, from left, stands with Katie Harbath, Global Politics and Government Outreach Director and Nathaniel Gleicher, Head of Cybersecurity Policy, during a demonstration in the war room, where Facebook monitors election related content on the platform, in Menlo Park, Calif., Wednesday, Oct. 17, 2018. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu)
 
The proposal is preposterous on its face. To appear tough on extremism, politicians are prepared to tear down big tech.
 
It a warning sign for investors. This could get ugly.
 
Google and Facebook are wonderful digital businesses. They are also in the best position to ride a wave that is still building. Eventually, all advertising is going to be digital. It just makes sense.
 
The algorithms and communities built by the Silicon Valley giants offer precise demographic targets for advertisers. Despite the popularity of "Monday Night Football" or the "Big Bang Theory," advertisers still can't measure exactly who they are reaching.
 
This is not the case with Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Google Search. In a results-oriented world, precise measurement matters.
 
Unfortunately, big tech is also an easy target for politicians.
 
All over the globe, Facebook, Google and Twitter are facing unprecedented attacks from both the left and right sides of the political spectrum. Surging profitability and the notion the data being collected is being misused is a deadly combination.
 
Investors need to begin preparing for the possibility that politicians may do something stupid.
 
In May, the European Union began enforcing the General Data Protection Regulation. The privacy law required all technology companies to tell users what data was being collected, how it would be used, and how it could be deleted.
 
The GDPR is a net win for big companies like Google and Facebook. It forces smaller companies with little or no name recognition to compete for user data. It is a public-relations battle they cannot possibly win.
 
The Juncker edict is different …
 
The plan still must gain approval from the European Union and the European Parliament. However, this action targets big tech specifically.
 
Google and Facebook executives claim they have made significant progress removing extremist content quickly and at scale. In addition to more machine-learning tools, last year Google managers committed to hiring 10,000 additional staff. Also in 2017, Facebook claimed 99% of all Islamic State and al-Qaeda content was removed before being flagged by users. And 83% was deleted within the first hour.
 
Hosting extremist content, even involuntarily, is terrible for business. Still, good intentions may not matter. Populism is growing. Politicians know they can scapegoat big tech for all of societies' perceived ills.
 
Facebook is especially vulnerable. I have been watching the stock because it is trading very near my long-term support level. If the stock falls below $155, the tape could get really ugly.
 
At 20x forward earnings, the stock seems cheap given its growth potential. The problem is that value is relative.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  • 0

#36 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9478 posts

Posted 21 October 2018 - 05:01 PM

pro-life movie 'Gosnell' say Facebook blocked their ads
 
 
 
 
 
 
October 21, 2018
 
 
The makers behind a new movie about notorious abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell say Facebook blocked their attempts to promote it on the social media platform. 
 
Gosnell: The Trial of America's Biggest Serial Killer stars Dean Cain as a detective who investigates real-life abortionist Gosnell.  
 
Gosnell was the operator of an abortion clinic in West Philadelphia, where he was accused of performing illegal late-term abortions and terminating live births outside of the womb.  He was convicted in 2013 of first degree murder over the deaths of three babies at the clinic, and found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the death of a woman during an abortion procedure there.
 
One of the producers of the movie, Phelim McAleer, said some supporters had tried to pay to 'boost' posts about the movie on Facebook without success.  
 
McAleer told The Federalist that the paid boosts had been rejected by Facebook without any explanation, but he accused the social media giant of having an anti-conservative bias - something Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has previously denied.
 
'The Silicon establishment do not want this story told,' McAleer said.
 
'They [Facebook] simply state it's not been approved and to check their standards, but it does not give you a specific reason why this post could not be promoted at all to a wider audience.
 
'It's clear it is the pro-life audience that they don't want to encourage or provide content to. They really hate anyone who doesn't subscribe to the liberal world view.'
 
'As independent filmmakers, we have a limited budget and Facebook was a mainstay of our outreach efforts,' he said. 
 
The movie opened in 673 theaters on October 12 and has so far grossed over $2 million - nearly making back all of the $2.3m budget it raised through crowdfunding.
 
The report comes in the same week as a pro-life news site said its Twitter account was frozen for a day over a four-year-old post about an apparent link between unprotected homosexual sex and sexually transmitted diseases. 
 
LifeSiteNews said its Twitter account had been locked after Twitter administrators said the news site had violated its rules on 'hateful conduct'.
 
Twitter then unlocked the account and said in a message to LifeSiteNews that it had been locked in error. 
 
'We have restored your account, and we apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused,' the message to LifeSite Friday read.
 
'Twitter takes reports of violations of the Twitter Rules very seriously. After reviewing your account, it looks like we made an error.'
 
Despite the reversal by Twitter, Steve Jalsevac, co-founder and president of LifeSiteNews, also fears an anti-conservative bias in Silicon Valley.
 
'Twitter is now trying to force news agencies to report only what is acceptable to their personal, biased views and shutting down balanced, factual reporting on the homosexual issue,' he said. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  • 0

#37 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9478 posts

Posted 22 October 2018 - 08:07 AM

Stabbed To Death Over Facebook Post
 
 
 
 
 
 
October 22, 2018 
 
 
Congress Worker Stabbed To Death In Mumbai Allegedly Over Facebook Post
 
Manoj Dubey was stabbed by two or three unidentified assailants near Asalpha Metro Station.
 
A Congress worker was allegedly stabbed to death, reportedly over a post on social media, in suburban Ghatkopar in the wee hours on Monday.
 
Manoj Dubey (45) was stabbed by two or three unidentified assailants near Asalpha Metro Station around 1.30AM, a police official said.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  • 0

#38 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9478 posts

Posted 22 October 2018 - 09:06 AM

Facebook cracks down 'clickbait' ads
 
 
 
 
 
 
October 22, 2018
 
 
Facebook is expanding its efforts to demote low quality ads on its social network, with a new scheme to penalise any ads containing sensationalised language or headlines that withhold information.
 
The platform will more strictly enforce restrictions on ads with low-quality and disruptive content, including those with "spammy content" that asks users to engage with it by requesting likes, comments and shares.
 
It will also be cracking down on ads that purposefully withhold information to encourage people to click on them to understand the full scope, and ads that contain exaggerated headlines or bring about a reaction from people but fail to deliver.
 
Ads with low-quality characteristics will have reduced distribution in the Facebook ad auction or will not be approved.
 
The move applies to all advertisers, but ads related to media, entertainment, politics and issues will be impacted more, according to Facebook.
 
Advertisers with multiple ads flagged because of low-quality characteristics may see the performance of all of their ads impacted.
 
Three key types of ads were listed by Facebook:
 
Ads that withhold information. See the examples shown above. Any Facebook ads that include sensationalized or exaggerated headlines to generate a reaction, but fail to deliver the anticipated response on the landing page will also be demoted or disallowed.
 
Engagement bait ads. Another type of advertisement that will be penalized is any ad that withholds information to get people to click on a link to understand the full meaning of the post. Advertising headlines like "You won't believe what happened next" or "You'll be shocked when you see the results" are prime examples of this type of clickbait.
 
Ads with sensationalized language. Facebook says advertisers trying to promote ads with any of these attributes should expect to see lowered distribution in ad auctions. Ads flagged for low quality content may also be disapproved.
 
Facebook says this heightened enforcement applies to all advertisers, but media, entertainment, political and issue ads may be impacted more as these are ad categories more likely to use such methods.Advertisers with multiple ads flagged for low quality content may see all of their campaigns impacted - meaning if Facebook identifies an advertiser habitually trying to post low quality ads, all of that advertiser's campaigns may be penalised.
 
These latest updates are an extension of Facebook's 2014 move to fight clickbait headlines. The company has since made improvements to cut back on the amount of spammy content in the News Feed.
 
Read more here
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  • 0

#39 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9478 posts

Posted 22 October 2018 - 10:04 AM

Facebook looking to improve security
 
Facebook-looking-to-improve-security-by-
 
 
 
October 22, 2018 
 
 
Facebook looking to improve security by acquiring a company specialized in the field
 
Recently, Facebook suffered a major security breach, exposing around 50 million user accounts. That was just one of the mishaps that put the company under fire from users and authorities alike for the way it handles private information. It appears that Facebook is now taking concrete measures to boost its security and please investors and users in the meantime. According to reports from sources within the industry, Facebook is having talks with several cybersecurity companies, looking to make one of them part of its already extensive portfolio.
 
The potential candidates to join the Facebook conglomerate are yet undisclosed, but if a deal is to go through, that will be only the third security-oriented acquisition. Previously, Facebook bought Acrylic Software, the developer of secure database app, in 2012 and PrivateCore, a company that provides secure server technology, in 2014. Of course, Facebook currently has a cybersecurity department, but some outside know-how can bring it to the next level.
 
With online security becoming increasingly important, companies that specialized in that field are not hard to come by, especially in Silicon Valley. Security specialists are in a constant cat-and-mouse chase with hackers and malware spreaders and new tools are constantly being developed to counter the latest means to illegally gather user data, a valuable commodity in the tech world. All Facebook has to do is decide how much it is willing to spend and choose a company that provides a product suitable for the tech giant's needs. 
 
A deal is expected to happen before the end of the year, but it will take while before any new security measures are implemented. The changes happening behind the scenes are unlikely to change the user experience, but we're sure that Facebook will announce the improvements to gain back some of the lost trust.
 
 
 
 

  • 0

#40 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9478 posts

Posted 22 October 2018 - 11:30 AM

Facebook vs dirty tricks politics
 
 
 
 
 
 
October 22, 2018 
 
 
Facebook has set up a war room to stop block any to moves to manipulate the US midterms elections. The space is staffed by employees across the organisation, including from Facebook itself, WhatsApp, Instagram, data science and legal. 
 
Facebook says that this is all about improving reaction times within the organisation and maintains that the technology it has in place would have been able to tackle the Russian manipulation rife in the presidential election. The company says its 20,000 employees working on safety and security.
 
Facebook says it identified efforts to suppress turnout ahead of the recent Brazilian presidential election and was able to quickly shut it down. However, allegations emerged late last week of a dirty tricks campaign on WhatsApp in favour of far-right populist candidate Jair Bolsonaro.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  • 0





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Facebook

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2020 Pravda.Ru