Trump Massive Rally in Washington DC (Nov. 14th) (Tens of Thousands Gather)

[HarryStotle]

Yet another personal blog. YAWN .

And yes, I know that the response will be “Big Media is hiding the story!!! Individuals must stand up!!!”. Again: the tin-foil-hattery is getting old.

Zuckerberg at the Senate hearing gets all evasive in his replies when asked about a shared “Task” platform that Facebook shares with the other media giants (the bigger of the big media companies). He doesn’t commit to providing a list of “Tasks” that discuss the banning or censorship of conservative individuals or websites.

He was caught off guard by the question because the sharing platform is an industry secret provided to Senator Hawley by a former Facebook employee.

Break out the tinfoil!

 

[HarryStotle]

gam197:

Trump said they rigged the election months ago probably shortly after Covid because the request for mail-in ballots was way off the charts. Voter numbers from 2016 were not adding up so they knew this election had the potential for massive fraud.

He said this as the polls said he was going to lose.

He made these allegations without a shred of proof, just to condition his people to believe that he had won if he lost.

So, look at it this way: Trump won last time, in 2016, with an even thinner margin in some some battleground states. Are you saying that wasn’t free and fair and Trump stole the election? No, of course you aren’t. It’s only when it’s close and your guy lost that there’s a problem.

Ah, no. What is to be made, do you think, of the executive order by the President in Sept [is abbreviating September a slur ] of 2018 describing the potential for foreign interference in elections and the potential for election fraud, including laying out prescribed actions for apprehending and penalizing offenders?

This was before the 2018 election and permitted the intelligence agencies special authority to gather evidence.

Are you certain you want to keep operating under the assumption that President Trump is the Sgt. Schultz of presidents who knows nothing, and certainly less than you about what is going on around him?

I wouldn’t take any bets on that notion if I were you.

 

[HarryStotle]

My kind of guy.

I must state that voting in person at my polling place was remarkably smooth and fast, as compared with previous years.

Hoping the vote was counted, anyway. Suspect it was.

Counted? Probably.

But for whom?

CITIZEN FREE PRESS

 

[gam197]

Zuckerberg at the Senate hearing gets all evasive in his replies when asked about a shared “Task” platform that Facebook shares wof the big media companies). He doesn’t commit to providing a list of “Tasks” that discuss the banning or censorship of conservative individuals or websites.

He was caught off guard by the question because the sharing platform is an industry secret provided to Senator Hawley by a former Facebook employee.

The fact that Facebook has a task team and they coordinate information with Google and Twitter and Zuckerberg would not allow the Senate access is telling. I sure when the hearing was over, he called someone and said clean up all task meeting correspondence.

If someone like Steve Bannon and I use him because he was brought up and just recently got kicked off Twitter for comments about Anthony Fauci. At the same time, he got kicked off Youtube but was able to get reinstated on Youtube…

If these things are coordinated, that is a real issue. Twitter banned the Washington Post and Facebook down sourced so few could see the link at exact same time.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Zuckerberg at the Senate hearing gets all evasive in his replies when asked about a shared “Task” platform that Facebook shares with the other media giants (the bigger of the big media companies).

Sounds like a kanban board.
We use Trello.

But more on topic, sounds like he may have been trying to give an honest answer. I don’t think he can know whether ot not someone else in the company is getting (name removed by moderator)ut from other companies. For such a question “I don’t know” or “I am not aware” are appropriate answers.

 

[GKMotley]

Considering the outcome, and the history of the voting in the area (I’m an elderly native), I see no reason to suspect anything untoward occurred.

 

[Odilon]

Hoping the vote was counted, anyway. Suspect it was.

Probably counted as mine was, but if some shenanigans occurred our votes didn’t mean a darn thing.

 

[Odilon]

sounds like he may have been trying to give an honest answer

Are you for real? He got caught and he couldn’t think fast enough. He claims Facebook to be a “platform”, but in reality it is acting as a “publisher” what with all his censoring. Time to remove the Section 230 protections and make the place operate like the big publishing business it really is.

 

[GKMotley]

As noted, all partisan-contested races in my precinct/state went as desired and as anticipated. No real surprises.

Mileage may certainly vary, with geography.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Zuckerberg at the Senate hearing gets all evasive in his replies when asked about a shared “Task” platform that Facebook shares with the other media giants (the bigger of the big media companies).

Sounds like a kanban board.
We use Trello.

But more on topic, sounds like he may have been trying to give an honest answer. I don’t think he can know whether ot not someone else in the company is getting (name removed by moderator)ut from other companies. For such a question “I don’t know” or “I am not aware” are appropriate answers.

He was asked specifically if they use the “Task” board to coordinate their responses with regard to censoring certain pieces of information and links. He couldn’t answer that. What precisely would he not know?

I grant you that Zuckerberg was more forthcoming than Dorsey who seemed to have walked in off the street completely unaware that he would be asked questions.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

The Dem Party is pushing for non-citizen voting and open borders. I don’t think that will turn out well for the country even if it does benefit the Dem Party short term.

Could you please cite who favors this? I have heard no one come out for such notions.

It is the Democratic party, by the way. Anything else is a slur and out of bounds on the forum.

Been thinking about this quite a bit, and I’ve decided I am not participating in your attempts to turn an abbreviation into a slur.

There are instances of several others who are ostensibly Democrat supporters who are participating in this very thread using the abbreviated form in similar threads and I don’t recall you making an issue of it. If you do a search for “Dem Party” or “Rep Party” in the forums generally, there are hundreds of posts using those forms.

Sorry, I’m not turning over control of the language to you to dictate what is and what isn’t a slur when I am the one using and intending the abbreviated form. Respectfully, no. That call is not yours.

Personally, I am tired of the absconding of the language to make words mean only what the left insist they mean.

The word racist has a very particular meaning and it is not what the left has taken it to mean. There are a plethora of other words that have been abused in their meaning and I am opting out of the push to redefine them.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Are you for real?

Yep. As there is an attorney that is constantly training me on how not to answer as to accidentally make a false statement as a part of a sworn statement.

He got caught and he couldn’t think fast enough.

I don’t think he was the right person for many of their questions. But these committees have rejected the “right person” before. I think Mark makes for a better spectacle.

He claims Facebook to be a “platform”, but in reality it is acting as a “publisher”

To have that discussion, we’d have had to come to an agreement of what is meant by those words under the First Amendment and the Communications and Decency act. The word “publisher” is in reference to an item of speech in question. It is synonymous with “speaker.” This is different than how the word is used conversationally, where one uses it to talk about a distributor of content irrespective of who produced the content.

what with all his censoring.

What about it?

Time to remove the Section 230 protections and make the place operate like the big publishing business it really is.

Removing that would prevent CAF from being able to exist without liabilities for what the users of the forum say.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

He was asked specifically if they use the “Task” board

Boards are a common tool in collaborative projects. In software form I use Azure Boards and Trello. Some people just use a white board with columns drawn on it and post-it notes for the tasks that make up a project. There’s not a lot of information to extract from the use of such a thing.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

to coordinate their responses with regard to censoring certain pieces of information and links.

They didn’t have an agreement on this. Mark said he disagreed with the characterization from which Josh was speaking.

Josh Halley also expressed the belief that the board was somehow indicative of collaboration with entities outside of Facebook. He didn’t share how he came to this conclusion.

He couldn’t answer that. What precisely would he not know?

Josh was asking about coordination between Facebook and other companies. Mark shared the collaboration of which he does know (security, child exploitation content, signals around terrorist attacks, foreign government influence operations).

Josh got a little more specific.

“Do your Facebook moderation teams speak with their counterparts at Twitter or Google.”

This got a reply “I am not aware of anything specific.” That may be his honest answer. Had he answered that question with “No,” and if there were any single person in the moderation team that has had a conversation with someone at either of these companies about moderation, then his sworn statement would be false. There is no way to know what conversations that people at a company of 45,000 people have had.

Josh also asked for a list of every item in their collaboration tool that mentioned Google or Twitter. Mark did not commit. This was also reasonable. Had he committed, and if there is any item that is not appropriate for public consumption (such as because of contractual obligation), then the only options are to either violate a confidentiality agreement or break the commitment. I can think of other reasonable motivations to not commit.

A better person to talk to about Facebooks moderation practices would have been Monika Bickert (VP of Global Policy Management).

 

[HarryStotle]

Do your Facebook moderation teams speak with their counterparts at Twitter or Google.”

This got a reply “I am not aware of anything specific.” That may be his honest answer. Had he answered that question with “No,” and if there were any single person in the moderation team that has had a conversation with someone at either of these companies about moderation, then his sworn statement would be false. There is no way to know what conversations that people at a company of 45,000 people have had.

Clearly the question was to elicit a better sense of what Zuckerberg was willing to divulge, which is fine as far as that goes; but I think it was also to set him up with a clear indication that there are others in or from the company that could provide verification as to what Zuckerberg will be expected to provide regarding collaboration.

The former Facebook employee Hawley was referring will serve as a check on how complete the information Zuckerberg will provide is and whether a subpoena is necessary. Still caught him off his guard.

 

[HarryStotle]

Boards are a common tool in collaborative projects. In software form I use Azure Boards and Trello.

And how common is sharing such boards between corporations, especially those each dominant in their sectors?

The message, in case you missed it, was that antitrust legislation frowns upon using dominance in the market to further reduce competition. Colluding with other “big tech” monopolies to further the dominance of all of them would be a big no no.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

And how common is sharing such boards between corporations, especially those each dominant in their sectors?

Josh believes that there is sharing, but this was not established.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

And how common is sharing such boards between corporations, especially those each dominant in their sectors?

Josh believes that there is sharing, but this was not established.

The whistleblower from Facebook could well be positioned to know the truth of that, so Zuckerberg is left not knowing what Hawley knows or doesn’t know. Ergo, it could be established by Zuckerberg’s future response whether he will be appropriately forthcoming with what he is asked to provide. He is caught between a rock and a hard place not knowing what the whistleblower knows.

He will certainly be trying to identify the person who might be a past employee, but also a current one.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The whistleblower from Facebook could well be positioned to know the truth of that

I don’t think speculating on what someone may or may not know to be informative.

 

[HarryStotle]

Speculation is the flea in the doghouse of life.

 

[Odilon]

What about it?

Facebook and Twitter have literally become the town squares of the nation. We would not tolerate censorship in the town square and it should not tolerated be in those places either. One could easily make the case for election interference because of what they have done in keeping things that could negatively affect the Biden campaign from being discussed or disseminated by others.