Okay, FACEBOOK remains in hot water – as it should Andre Damon (WSWS) reports:
Zuckerberg explained how every single statement made by the company’s 2.2 billion users is analyzed and vetted by artificial intelligence systems, then reviewed by an army of some 20,000 censors. If the company finds a statement to be “sensational” or “divisive,” the user will be flagged as a “bad actor,” and either have their posts blocked, be reported to the government, or both.
It is “not enough to build tools” and let users do what they want with them, Zuckerberg said. “We need to make sure they are used for good” by “policing” the Facebook “ecosystem.”
The ability to “police” all the content on Facebook was impossible until the rise of artificial intelligence, Zuckerberg said. “From the beginning of the company in 2004, we didn’t have AI technology that could look at content people were sharing.” But the rapid development of artificial intelligence now allows Facebook to screen and understand every single post and message on its platform.
“By the end of this year we’ll have more than 20,000 people working on security and content review,” Zuckerberg said. “So when content gets flagged to us we have those people look at it.”
He bragged that Facebook’s artificial intelligence tools now succeed in flagging 99 percent of “terrorist propaganda” before users ever see it. By “rolling out AI tools,” Facebook can “proactively police and enforce” all content, Zuckerberg said.
These AI tools will be used to identify accounts that spread “fake news,” and they have helped the company “proactively remove tens of thousands of accounts before they could contribute significant harm.”
To drive home the company’s integration into the military/intelligence/police apparatus, Zuckerberg declared that Facebook is actively involved in an “arms race” with Russia.
Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy demanded that Zuckerberg do more to combat “divisive” Facebook accounts and pages, not just those operated by Russia. The Senator had a staffer hold up a sign with examples of such “divisive” pages, asking why they were allowed to continue operating.
Zuckerberg’s appearance came after he announced on Friday that the company would require all “large” Facebook pages and all pages that run political and issue ads to verify their identities. He clarified what this would mean in his appearance Tuesday, saying he would require anyone operating “large” pages to have a “valid government identity,” and to “verify their location” by receiving a confirmation code by mail.
That’s a recipe for disaster. I have no idea why anyone has a FACEBOOK account. I was told once, by a friend, that I don’t get it because I have a social secretary. I actually don’t and never have but I am a trust fund baby and I think that was somehow trying to say that’s why I’m not on FACEBOOK.
Again, makes no sense to me.
I am a psychologist. I am a mother. I have no time for FACEBOOK. I’m an alumni of many things and I get a letter or an e-mail on that. Otherwise, I’m really not that interested. I don’t mean that in a mean way but I keep in touch with a number of friends and they’re people I want to be in touch with. I honestly don’t have time to go through a screen of ‘events’ liking them. It seems like a game we’d do when we were little girls. Like one of those paper folding things.
I know a lot of people love FACEBOOK. Some even feel the need to stream their weddings on the platform. I don’t need to be a celebrity. My life is my life and I’ll share what I want with my actual friends, not on some social platform.
I always thought FACEBOOK was peculiar because of the 2008 roundtables where various guests were explaining to us about the seed money and how it was not protecting people’s information and it was spying, etc. That was before you factored in the creep aspect of Mark Zuckerberg but there was that too. (FACEBOOK started as a way to rank the looks of women he knew.)
I know it was a trend but so was MYSPACE at one point – I was never on that either.
"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):
Thursday, April 12, 2018. Executions increase in Iraq, Mad Maddie Albright gets free p.r. from a media desperate to help her sell another of her poorly written books, and much more.
Starting with Amnesty International which has released it's annual look at executions.
Starting with Amnesty International which has released it's annual look at executions.
In the Middle East, only Saudi Arabia had more executions (146) than Iraq did. At least 125 executions were carried out in Iraq last year. 125 was a significant increase from 2016 -- Amnesty International recorded 88 executions that year in Iraq. In Iraq, if you are executed you face the noose.
If you steal? You're usually serving in the government. Corruption remains a huge issue and on that topic we'll note the following.
by an Iraqi-American. The itinerary of this archive and the rhetoric legitimizing its “acquisition” is quite telling. In April 2003, Kanan Makiya, one of the cheerleaders of the war (during its first few weeks he wrote that the bombing was music to his ears) made his way
to the basement under the Ba`th Party’s headquarters in Baghdad. Makiya removed the records he found there to his family home in what became later the Green Zone. The house supposedly became the Baghdad office of the Iraq Memory Foundation, a Washington, DC-based institution
he established. The entire staff of the Iraq Memory Foundation is comprised of five persons, two of whom are not Iraqi. It has no advisory board of any sort, nor does it have any links to any Iraqi historians. It has no presence on the ground in Iraq outside the Green Zone.
In 2005, the foundation reached an agreement with the US army to ship the documents to the United States. Considering the rampant corruption of both the US occupation and the Iraqi puppet regime it installed in Iraq none of this is surprising. Nevertheless, it does not change
the fact that these documents are not anyone’s private property. They belong to the Iraqi people and their seizure and transfer to the United States. was a violation of international law. Despite calls from Saad Eskander, the Director General of Iraq’s National Library
& Archive back then to return these documents to Iraq, the Iraq Memory Foundation decided otherwise. In January of 2008, the foundation signed an agreement with the Hoover Institution to transfer the documents there. Opposition did not only come from inside Iraq.
In April of 2008, the Society of American Archivist (SAA) and the Association of Canadian Archivists (ACA), the world’s largest organization of archivists with 5100 members, expressed its “deep concern about [these] records and others obtained by the United States. . . in actions
[that] may be considered an act of pillage, which is specifically forbidden by the 1907 Hague Convention.” The letter stressed that these records must be returned to Iraq “to be maintained as part of the official records in the National Library and Archives.”These plundered
documents are a treasure for scholars. They illuminate the inner dynamics of the Ba`th regime and trace its growth and detail its various visceral effects on Iraqi society. But, alas, neither Iraqi scholars, nor Iraqi citizens, the victims of the Ba`th regime, have access
to these important documents from their visceral past. One of the “happy” stories about the benefits of this plunder to “our knowledge” speaks about the intensity with which some scholars are working on these “recovered” documents. “Recovered” is the key word here.
The plunder is conveniently erased. But not for Iraqis. They have to live with the loss and fight to retrieve their plundered memory. And not a year has passed without plunder in Iraq. As for the concerned scholars who mine this archive to “understand” the barbarism of the Ba`th
regime, I wonder if they will find time to contemplate the "barbarism [that] taints the manner in which it was transmitted from one owner to another," to borrow Benjamin`s words. jadaliyya.com/Details/25296/…
Looting and theft of Iraq's history has been taking place since the start of the 2003 US-led invasion. Craig Barker (ANCIENT ORIGINS) observes:
The looting is regarded as one of the worst acts of cultural vandalism in modern times, but much more of Iraq’s rich cultural history has been destroyed, damaged or stolen in the years since. Indeed the illegal trade in looted antiquities is growing.
The Iraq War was a get richer scheme for many including Mad Maddie Albright, War Criminal Supreme. Despite her repugnant nature, she's being pimped by the US media relentlessly.
The laughable VIEW is only one of Mad Maddie's many stops. There she made nice with torture-supporting Whoopi Goldberg. Stephen Colbert also hosted the War Criminal. CNN, CBS THIS MORNING, MSNBC . . .
Madeleine Albright: I'm warning the American public on.msnbc.com/2JDvjfW
She's warning the American public, she insists. Who warned the Iraqi people about her? Who today bothers to hold her responsible for the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children -- deaths she said were "worth it"?
To pimp her hatred of Donald Trump, she's been brought on every outlet you can think of -- even Terry Gross has made room for her on NPR's FRESH AIR. (Terry always has room for War Mongers. The "even Terry Gross" refers to the fact that sexist Terry books so few female guests each year.)
You write a bad book and you're guaranteed a platform? I don't get that with a normal author, but especially not with a War Hawk.
Very few have called Mad Maddie out.
Madeleine Albright is one of the most deranged and bloodthirsty warmongers to occupy a high government position in decades (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc. were worse only by a degree), so of course she praises Trump's hostile proclamations - just wants a better "strategy" for the war:
There is a reason for the silence and John Stauber has long noted it.
The fake assery has allowed the US government to continue their wars without end. Democrats have controlled Congress, Republicans have controlled it. Democrats have held the White House, Republicans have held it. Democrats have controlled the White House and the Congress at the same time, Republicans have controlled the White House and the Congress at the same time. Yet the wars continue. No one stops them.
If you win primaries and elections the DNC will do what you want. The Dems didn't want to be against the Iraq War. Then that position started winning elections. Guess what happened next?
And you get the fake asses like Oliver Willis. "Guess what happened next?"
Uh, the Democrats promised, in 2006, that if you gave them one house in Congress in that year's elections they would end the Iraq War. The American people then gave them both houses of Congress. Did the Iraq War end in 2007?
Let's shorthand this and note the reality that the Iraq War continues to this day.
To the fake asses, the great affront is not the Iraqis killed in the Iraq War -- over a million, way over a million -- it's the death of Hillary Clinton's dream of being president that most offends.
Hillary who supported the war -- as did Mad Maddie -- and their support for Hillary goes a long way towards explaining their craven nature.
The following community sites -- plus Jody Watley, BLACK AGENDA REPORT and PACIFICA EVENING NEWS -- updated: