Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Surveillance Chills Speech—And Free Association Suffers

fearful things scared of what

18 replies to this topic

#11 RottenApples

RottenApples

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 97 posts

Posted 13 June 2016 - 04:17 PM

 

How well does anyone read a book when someone is looking over your shoulder?

 

That's something to consider! Take a look at this shadow over your shoulder. Did you know that it was there?
 
What’s a Facebook shadow profile, and why should you care?
 
A Facebook shadow profile is a file that Facebook keeps on you containing data it pulls up from looking at the information that a user’s friends voluntarily provide. You’re not supposed to see it, or even know it exists. This collection of information can include phone numbers, e-mail addresses, and other pertinent data about a user that they don’t necessarily put on their public profile.
 
 

  • 0



#12 Ghosty McFly

Ghosty McFly

    Premium Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 270 posts

Posted 13 June 2016 - 05:03 PM

quote-who-knows-what-evil-lurks-in-the-h


  • 0

7mDFXjl.gif


#13 Quartus

Quartus

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 75 posts

Posted 13 June 2016 - 05:18 PM

Anger mounts after Facebook's 'shadow profiles' leak in bug
 
A growing number of Facebook users are furious and demand to know who saw private information they had expressly not given to Facebook.
 
Users were clearly unaware that offsite data about them was being collected, matched to them, and stored by Facebook.
 
Facebook did not specify which app or contact database tool was utilized when collecting and matching offsite-sourced data about users.
 
 
This has been going on for years. The shadow over your shoulder compels you. No specification of the apps used to collect this data? Hah! How about every single app installed.

  • 0

#14 status - Guest

status - Guest
  • Guests

Posted 19 November 2016 - 07:09 PM

Facebook and Google Ready to Kill Alternative Media for the Government
 
Websites that publish “fake,” misleading, or even satirical news will now be subject to a sliding scale of infractions that will target ad revenue and social media algorithms. Without ad revenue from monetization platforms like Google Adsense, many of these sites would not be able to continue publishing, and without Facebook’s distribution platform, even sites with good organic reach could find their traffic severely crippled.
 
“Moving forward, we will restrict ad serving on pages that misrepresent, misstate, or conceal information about the publisher, the publisher’s content, or the primary purpose of the web property,” Google stated, following the lead of Mark Zuckerberg.
 
On a proprietary note, do these companies have the right to restrict users of their services who they deem to be in breach of contract? Yes. Is it understandable to want to exert some control over hacks who manipulate search engine and social media algorithms at the expense of a misinformed public? Yes. Does this exonerate the intellectual and cultural crime of using the specter of online ‘yellow journalism’ to deliver a crippling blow to the revenue streams of independent media…?
 
The move comes after Facebook and Google found themselves taking a lot of heat after the election. (Liberal) detractors went so far as to blame Facebook and Google for Trump’s win, claiming the constant online echo chamber of sensationalist news, unsubstantiated claims, and apocryphal headlines paved the way for Clinton’s electoral collapse.
 
The new restrictions will target a wide variety of websites: sites whose editorial content is deemed (by, Google, Facebook and Twitter’s board of directors, presumably?) false or misleading; sites that intend to invoke outrage with clickbait-y titles; and even sites that are purposely fake (such as the Onion’s sister site, Clickhole) for satirical purposes.
 
The websites on the new blacklist include Zero Hedge, The Free Thought Project, Collective Evolution, Disclose.TV, and dozens of others. The selections run the gamut from partisan propagandistic sites to alternative philosophy and healing resources. Unsurprisingly, alt-right darlings Infowars and Breitbart, both of which will soon wield vast power in the Trump administration, are targeted. In the case of Infowars, one might surmise the conservative Trumpland publication’s insistence that Hillary Clinton’s inner-circle practices satanic rituals had something to do with their inclusion on the list.
 
Some of the other sites on the list are surprising. Collective Evolution, as an example, may be considered by some to have New Age influences, but many of their articles practice sound journalistic ethics.
 

  • 0

#15 status - Jackrabbit

status - Jackrabbit
  • Guests

Posted 21 November 2016 - 05:53 PM

Zuckerberg Just Revealed Facebook’s 7-Point Plan to Censor “Fake News” and It’s Chilling
 
“The bottom line is: we take misinformation seriously,” Zuckerberg wrote late Friday evening, apparently forgetting what he posted exactly one week ago. “Our goal is to connect people with the stories they find most meaningful, and we know people want accurate information. We’ve been working on this problem for a long time and we take this responsibility seriously. We’ve made significant progress, but there is more work to be done.”
 
Curiously, the head of the Facebook Ministry of Truth neglected to explain how the 65 corporate presstitutes and myriad mendacious mainstream outlets exposed in WikiLeaks’ Podesta Files for colluding with the Clintonite establishment were awarded a free pass to spread propagandic disinformation — and, frequently, flagrant lies.
 
Zuckerberg laid out his plan to combat the ‘relatively small percentage of misinformation,’ encompassing the following points:
 
    Stronger detection. The most important thing we can do is improve our ability to classify misinformation. This means better technical systems to detect what people will flag as false before they do it themselves.
 
    Easy reporting. Making it much easier for people to report stories as fake will help us catch more misinformation faster.
 
    Third party verification. There are many respected fact checking organizations and, while we have reached out to some, we plan to learn from many more.
 
    Warnings. We are exploring labeling stories that have been flagged as false by third parties or our community, and showing warnings when people read or share them.
 
    Related articles quality. We are raising the bar for stories that appear in related articles under links in News Feed.
 
    Disrupting fake news economics. A lot of misinformation is driven by financially motivated spam. We’re looking into disrupting the economics with ads policies like the one we announced earlier this week, and better ad farm detection.
 
    Listening. We will continue to work with journalists and others in the news industry to get their input, in particular, to better understand their fact checking systems and learn from them.
 

  • 0

#16 status - Masked Marketer

status - Masked Marketer
  • Guests

Posted 21 November 2016 - 07:35 PM

Google Will Punish "Fake News" Websites By Halting Ads
 
One of the more perplexing theories to emerge explaining the failure of Hillary Clinton's presidential bid, is that popular news curators and aggregators such as Google and Facebook had distributed news created by "fake" and "false" websites, thus influencing public opinion.  So, in an attempt to curb such websites, a move some consider tantamount to censorship, Google and Facebook announced measures aimed at halting the spread of "fake news" on the internet by targeting how the creators of this alleged "phony content" make money: advertising.
 
Google said it is working on a policy change to prevent websites that misrepresent content from using its AdSense advertising network, while Facebook updated its advertising policies to spell out that its ban on deceptive and misleading content applies to fake news. Considering the amount of fingerpointing by much of the liberal press in the aftermath of Nov. 8 we wonder if websites such as CNN would be captured by this filter. 
 
 
CATEGORY 1: Below is a list of fake, false, or regularly misleading websites that are shared on Facebook and social media. Some of these websites may rely on “outrage” by using distorted headlines and decontextualized or dubious information in order to generate likes, shares, and profits. These websites are categorized with the number 1 next to them.
 
CATEGORY 2: Some websites on this list may circulate misleading and/or potentially unreliable information, and they are marked with a 2.
 
CATEGORY 3: Other websites on this list sometimes use clickbait-y headlines and social media descriptions, and they are marked with a 3.
 
CATEGORY 4: Other sources on this list are purposefully fake with the intent of satire/comedy, which can offer important critical commentary on politics and society, but have the potential to be shared as actual/literal news. I’m including them here, for now, because 1.) they have the potential to perpetuate misinformation based on different audience (mis)interpretations and 2.) to make sure anyone who reads a story by The Onion, for example, understands its purpose. 
 
2016.11.16%20-%20Fake%20News%201_0.JPG
 
 

  • 0

#17 Feathers

Feathers

    Premium Member

  • Moderators
  • 687 posts

Posted 21 November 2016 - 07:45 PM

More on this topic can be found here:

 

http://forum.chicken...misinformation/

 

This link gives information for internet users to discern for themselves:

 

http://forum.chicken...disinformation/

 

Then there are the trolls. Who can forget the trolls? This link provides some information on the common behaviors shills use.

 

http://forum.chicken...e-trollosphere/


  • 0
Posted Image

#18 status - InnerSpyce

status - InnerSpyce
  • Guests

Posted 18 May 2017 - 06:08 PM

Online social networking as participatory surveillance
 
How can we conceptualize the practice of online social networking? I have chosen to study this practice through the lenses of space, place and time for two reasons: Firstly, these perspectives offers a way to discuss the off-line-online debate (e.g., boyd, 2007a; Ellison, et al., 2007; Nip, 2004) in a non–dualist way. Secondly, spatial metaphors have been discussed as an important frameworks in relation to the Internet (e.g., Graham, 1998), just as developments relating to place and time play an interesting role in relation to social networking sites today.
 
In the context of social networking sites and the offline–online debate, I argue that it is an unproductive abstraction to make a sharp distinction between the physical world and the virtual world. Instead, online social networking must be viewed as a mixed world and relating to both online and offline activities.
 
What kind of discourse surrounds the practice of online social networking? Social networking sites are dominating online activities today (boyd and Ellison, 2007; Lenhart and Madden, 2007) and this presence has, of course, led to divided opinions about the pros and cons. Especially surveillance–related scenarios have been discussed and a number of concerns voiced. With this question I want to focus on the conceptions of surveillance inherent in the arguments about online social networking.
 
What can we learn about surveillance through social networking? Characteristic of online social networking is the sharing of activities, preferences, beliefs, etc. to socialize. I contend that this practice of self–surveillance cannot be adequately described within the framework of a hierarchical understanding of surveillance. Rather, online social networking seems to introduce a participatory approach to surveillance, which can empower – and not necessarily violate – the user.
 
 

  • 0

#19 status - Zero the Hero

status - Zero the Hero
  • Guests

Posted 02 August 2017 - 03:35 PM

YouTube Will Censor Non-Rulebreaking Content, Manipulate Search Results, And Work With ADL
 
Content creators on YouTube who follow all of the site’s rules may still face censorship by the platform, under new plans announced by Google.
 
YouTube is also planning to artificially alter its search results so that searches for “sensitive” topics on YouTube no longer return the most popular videos, but a “playlist of curated YouTube videos that directly confront and debunk violent extremist messages.”
 
The platform also plans to artificially promote videos created via its “Creators for Change” program,  which, in YouTube’s words, features creators who are “using their voices and creativity to speak out against hate speech, xenophobia and extremism.”
 
 
 

  • 0



Reply to this topic



  



Similar Topics Collapse


IPB Skin By Virteq