Reporters Posed as 100 Senators To Run Ads on Facebook. Facebook Approved All of Them.

[DamianTV]

https://tech.slashdot.org/story/18/10/30/1843254/reporters-posed-as-100-senators-to-run-ads-on-facebook-facebook-approved-all-of-them


One of Facebook's major efforts to add transparency to political advertisements is a required "Paid for by" disclosure at the top of each ad supposedly telling users who is paying for political ads that show up in their news feeds. But on the eve of the 2018 midterm elections, a VICE News investigation found the "Paid for by" feature is easily manipulated and appears to allow anyone to lie about who is paying for a political ad, or to pose as someone paying for the ad. To test it, VICE News applied to buy fake ads on behalf of all 100 sitting U.S. senators, including ads "Paid for by" by Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer. Facebook's approvals were bipartisan: All 100 sailed through the system, indicating that just about anyone can buy an ad identified as "Paid for by" by a major U.S. politician. What's more, all of these approvals were granted to be shared from pages for fake political groups such as "Cookies for Political Transparency" and "Ninja Turtles PAC." VICE News did not buy any Facebook ads as part of the test; rather, we received approval to include "Paid for by" disclosures for potential ads.

Theres NO WAY anyone could EVER meddle with this election! Its air tight! No one can buy ads without being super verified, but users MUST reveal real names, but not Advertisers! What could possibly go wrong?

[acptulsa]

PBS' Frontline did two hours on the subject of Fedbook. I saw no mention of the CIA involvement in its creation, though I did not see it all.

One thing Frontline did not point out was that this public-private partnership, which almost certainly had government assistance in achieving its near-monopoly status, is private property, and not subject to the First Amendment (or the Fourth, or the Fifth...)

Now, I don't mind that a private company is not subject to the Bill of Rights. But when that company was assisted in building up a virtual monopoly by the government, and the Constitution does not apply, that is a major problem in my book.

[Grandmastersexsay]

PBS' Frontline did two hours on the subject of Fedbook. I saw no mention of the CIA involvement in its creation, though I did not see it all.

One thing Frontline did not point out was that this public-private partnership, which almost certainly had government assistance in achieving its near-monopoly status, is private property, and not subject to the First Amendment (or the Fourth, or the Fifth...)

Now, I don't mind that a private company is not subject to the Bill of Rights. But when that company was assisted in building up a virtual monopoly by the government, and the Constitution does not apply, that is a major problem in my book.

To be fair, Facebook had overtaken Myspace by the time they got any CIA money. Furthermore, Facebook recieved that CIA startup money through venture capitalists, who received some money from a company funded by the CIA. That really doesn't look like direct involvement by the CIA.

More importantly, there are thousands of companies that get federal money, does that make them any less private? There is no law that says that, nor would many companies agree to take federal money with such stipulations.

Facebook is evil, but they are a private company and are allowed to be evil as long as they don't break the law or violate anyone's rights. They have every right to do what they want with their private property.

[acptulsa]

Furthermore, Facebook recieved that CIA startup money through venture capitalists, who received some money from a company funded by the CIA. That really doesn't look like direct involvement by the CIA.

Um, you know, the CIA works really, really hard at making sure nothing looks like what it is.


More importantly, there are thousands of companies that get federal money, does that make them any less private? There is no law that says that, nor would many companies agree to take federal money with such stipulations.

So let them not take federal money. I'm a libertarian; I have no problem with that. We aren't talking about some contract, we're talking about seed money. If you seriously think seed money didn't come with any strings attached, you aren't thinking at all.

If We, the Taxpayers are going to make a major infusion of seed money in a private company, I don't think it's too much to ask that said private company be held to the Bill of Rights more than other private companies.

Of course, I'd much prefer the CIA didn't act as a venture capitalist. But the CIA is a rogue agency, and has been out of control since before I was born. We probably can't modify their behavior. So why wouldn't we insist that the private companies they fund obey the First Amendment?

[specsaregood]

Now, I don't mind that a private company is not subject to the Bill of Rights. But when that company was assisted in building up a virtual monopoly by the government, and the Constitution does not apply, that is a major problem in my book.

Exactly what does Facebook have a virtual monopoly over?

[acptulsa]

Exactly what does Facebook have a virtual monopoly over?

You know, it's an interesting question. And when I try to come up with an answer, it scares me.

It's like the woman interviewed on the show said--you may hate Facebook policies, and you may even hate Facebook itself. But all your family is on it, and all your friends are on it.

How many of us have pried all our loved ones off of FB with our concerns about them? I am one of those who refuse to use it, and yes, that makes me a pariah. The days are gone when most people are willing to dig out envelope and stamps to keep in touch with what they consider the family Luddite.

[Danke]

Exactly what does Facebook have a virtual monopoly over?

Set up a competing one and see the hosting companies and ISPs shut it down. GAB :toady:

[phill4paul]

Set up a competing one and see the hosting companies and ISPs shut it down. GAB :toady:

+rep. See also Silk Road.

[specsaregood]

You know, it's an interesting question. And when I try to come up with an answer, it scares me.

It's like the woman interviewed on the show said--you may hate Facebook policies, and you may even hate Facebook itself. But all your family is on it, and all your friends are on it.

How many of us have pried all our loved ones off of FB with our concerns about them? I am one of those who refuse to use it, and yes, that makes me a pariah. The days are gone when most people are willing to dig out envelope and stamps to keep in touch with what they consider the family Luddite.

So what exactly do they have a monopoly over? I mean there are many ways to keep in touch and talk to people. There are many social networking sites, we are talking on one now.

[specsaregood]

Set up a competing one and see the hosting companies and ISPs shut it down. GAB :toady:

A competing what exactly? What does facebook have to do with Gab getting shutdown? Nothing that I am aware of.

[acptulsa]

A competing what exactly?

Why are you asking me? I just said I don't use it. That makes me an expert?

You say this is a social networking site. Has it helped as many people get jobs as FB? Set up as many dates? Reunited as many long lost friends? Organized as many family reunions? Replaced as many Christmas cards?

[specsaregood]

Why are you asking me? I just said I don't use it. That makes me an expert?

I ask you; because you are the one that made the claim that they were are "virtual monopoly". I don't care much for people throwing the term monopoloy around willy nilly, since its often something leftists use to attack "capitalism". I simply see nothing they have any type of monopoly over.



You say this is a social networking site. Has it helped as many people get jobs as FB? Set up as many dates? Reunited as many long lost friends? Organized as many family reunions? Replaced as many Christmas cards?
I don't see what "as many" has to do with whether RPF is a social networking site. Yes facebook is bigger, RPF is much more niche. That doesn't mean it isn't a social networking site.

I know what a monopoly is. My company has a monopoly. We've gotten it fairly through hard work and dedication. But still we know that at any moment competition could spring up. And that keeps us hungry and hardworking enough to keep that competition away.

[Origanalist]

A competing what exactly? What does facebook have to do with Gab getting shutdown? Nothing that I am aware of.

I have no supporting evidence but I find it hard to believe Facebook/Twitter are entirely uninvolved.

[acptulsa]

I ask you; because you are the one that made the claim that they were are "virtual monopoly". I don't care much for people throwing the term monopoloy around willy nilly, since its often something leftists use to attack "capitalism". I simply see nothing they have any type of monopoly over.

I know what a monopoly is. My company has a monopoly. We've gotten it fairly through hard work and dedication. But still we know that at any moment competition could spring up. And that keeps us hungry and hardworking enough to keep that competition away.

I see. Well, I wasn't trying to strike any nerves. So, the question is what constitutes a 'virtual' monopoly. Well, let's see. Sites like Gab are being systematically squeezed out. Facebook has tabs built into 98% of the software one uses on the net, including this site. There are thousands of sites where no one can comment unless they sign in using a FB account. There are jobs one cannot get without a FB account. FB has about 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 users--possibly more accounts than the total number if humans alive today.

I did not say they had an actual monopoly. So, you tell me. What do you demand something have before I am allowed to characterize it as a virtual monopoly? How do I avoid triggering you?

Not that it matters much. Taxpayers invested in it. We're not talking about a transaction, service or goods of value provided for the money. Our money was dumped in and we're getting social and political censorship in return. That Pandora can't be stuffed back in the box. So how can that be used as leverage? Should we organize taxpayers to demand our money back? Should we file a class action suit, saying that FB took a grant and used it to violate our First Amendment? Should we tell the court that, since the CIA obviously can't be trusted to make sensible investments, we should get a direct refund of those tax dollars straight out of Zuckerberg's pocket?

[specsaregood]

I see. Well, I wasn't trying to strike any nerves. So, the question is what constitutes a 'virtual' monopoly. Well, let's see. Sites like Gab are being systematically squeezed out. Facebook has tabs built into 98% of the software one uses on the net, including this site. There are thousands of sites where no one can comment unless they sign in using a FB account. There are jobs one cannot get without a FB account. FB has about 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 users--possibly more accounts than the total number if humans alive today.

I did not say they had an actual monopoly. So, you tell me. What do you demand something have before I am allowed to characterize it as a virtual monopoly? How do I avoid triggering you?


No need to be a sniggity little bitch; I don't believe I have ever been one to you in all these years.

Is it problematic that employers might require facebook account? Sure, it sounds like a really stupid position to take as an employer though and hopefully they learn their lesson before they go out of business. There are plenty of other sites that one can comment and interact.

I would call it a monopoly when there are no other choices or competitors and one is forced to use a service. Your example sounds more like ubiquitous than monopolistic.

[acptulsa]

No need to be a sniggity little bitch; I don't believe I have ever been one to you in all these years.

Is it problematic that employers might require facebook account? Sure, it sounds like a really stupid position to take as an employer though and hopefully they learn their lesson before they go out of business. There are plenty of other sites that one can comment and interact.

I would call it a monopoly when there are no other choices or competitors and one is forced to use a service. Your example sounds more like ubiquitous than monopolistic.

So, you refuse to make a distinction between an actual monopoly and a virtual monopoly. But that in no way qualifies as being a "sniggly little bitch".

Sure. I can accept that as a reasonable position. I apologize to you for the mental distress I caused you when I wrongly assumed modifying it with the qualifier 'virtual' would make it acceptable to use the M-word. FB clearly does not have a monopoly.

Can we get back to the topic at hand now?

[specsaregood]

So, you refuse to make a distinction between an actual monopoly and a virtual monopoly. But that in no way qualifies as being a "sniggly little bitch".

Sure. I can accept that as a reasonable position. I apologize to you for the mental distress I caused you when I wrongly assumed modifying it with the qualifier 'virtual' would make it acceptable to use the M-word. FB clearly does not have a monopoly.

Can we get back to the topic at hand now?

Since you can't help your self. I don't see what virtual or actual has anything to do with anything.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/monopoly


1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.

2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.

3. the exclusive possession or control of something.


none of those fit from what I can tell.

[acptulsa]

Can we get back to the topic at hand now?

I guess that's a no?

[jkr]

COMMUNISM has come to the internet, and IT SUCKS

GOODBYE FREE SPEECH, WE HARLY KNEW YE!

[enhanced_deficit]

Same anti fb actions coming to US also?

Germany accuses Facebook of abuse, slaps restrictions on how it can gather data



Germany's antitrust watchdog ruled on Thursday that Facebook abused its market dominance in collecting, merging and using user data.
The competition authority said Facebook could no longer combine users' data from separate apps like WhatsApp and Instagram without voluntary user consent.
Facebook said in a blog post it will appeal the decision.

Elizabeth Schulze | @eschulze9

Published 9 Hours Ago Updated 4 Hours Ago CNBC.com


https://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/img/editorial/2018/08/21/105408029-1534856426745gettyimages-962130594.530x298.jpeg?v=1548860819 (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/07/german-antitrust-watchdog-cracks-down-on-facebook.html#) Christophe Morin/IP3 | Getty Images News | Getty Images
Mark Zuckerberg, chief executive officer and founder of Facebook Inc. attends the Viva Tech start-up and technology gathering at Parc des Expositions Porte de Versailles on May 24, 2018 in Paris, France.

Germany's antitrust watchdog ruled on Thursday that Facebook (https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/?symbol=FB) abused its market dominance in collecting, merging and using user data.
The German competition authority, called the Bundeskartellamt, said it was imposing far-reaching restrictions on how Facebook processes user data and gathers consent. Specifically, it said Facebook could no longer combine users' data from separate apps like WhatsApp and Instagram without voluntary user consent. The decision is the culmination of a three-year investigation into the social media company by the German watchdog.

"In future, Facebook will no longer be allowed to force its users to agree to the practically unrestricted collection and assigning of non-Facebook data to their Facebook user accounts," Andreas Mundt, president of the Bundeskartellamt, said in a press release (https://www.bundeskartellamt.de/SharedDocs/Meldung/EN/Pressemitteilungen/2019/07_02_2019_Facebook.html?nn=3591568) Thursday.

Facebook has one month to appeal the decision, which it said it will do in a blog post (https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2019/02/bundeskartellamt-order/) published Thursday.
"The Bundeskartellamt underestimates the fierce competition we face in Germany, misinterprets our compliance with GDPR and undermines the mechanisms European law provides for ensuring consistent data protection standards across the EU," Facebook said.

GDPR, short for the General Data Protection Regulation, is a sweeping set of data privacy rules that went into effect across the EU last May. Companies that don't meet GDPR's requirements face strict fines of up to 4 percent of global annual revenues.
Germany's competition authority said Facebook's terms of service, and the manner in which it collects and uses data, are in violation of Europe's data protection rules. The watchdog said many users are unaware that Facebook collects an "almost unlimited" amount of data from third-party sources, including Facebook-owned Instagram and WhatsApp, that the company then links to a user's Facebook account.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/07/german-antitrust-watchdog-cracks-down-on-facebook.html