Tyrants and their temper tantrums: The Establishment Party sues WikiLeaks right after Julian Assange’s voice is silenced. Yeah, those nasty old relics keep playing dirty as they try to talk you out of using social media.

Tyrants are a very ugly subspecies of animals.

2000px-DemocraticLogo.svg

The Establishment Party, otherwise known as the Democratic Party are the sorest losers in the history of mankind.

Suing WikiLeaks for exposing their rot during the 2016 US Presidential Election is a new low even for those fossils.

It is very convenient to play this game as Julian Assange’s ability to speak out was quashed.

And this psychopathic propaganda campaign to get rid of Facebook and social media is also no coincidence.

The Establishment lost control, and now they are playing dirty to get it back.

Anyone who plays control freak games like that doesn’t deserve power.

They ought to earn their keep, not be self-entitled snowflake rulers behaving like spoiled brats in soggy underpants.

It is all-out war on democracy and free speech, and the Democrats have now proven why they weren’t worthy of power in the first place…

Bots run Twitter? You don’t say, Wired!

You have to fill up that bottomless pit somehow. Twitter is spammish by design, and the Wired article pretty much states the obvious. Fake followers and Twitter’s penchant for shadow banning in that white noise makes it a very fleeting experience. Very few people can make Twitter actually work. It makes dents in waves, and requires mass reaction to align at the right time. #MeToo is a rare success. Donald Trump also knew how to game it, but it is harder than it first appears.

Twitter is anarchy, and requires a lot of massive work. Bots are needed to bring mass attention. Fake followers is the puffing to look successful. Rigging is an essential ingredient. It is not personalized, and its terse word limit prevents true connection.

Facebook is more personal: it talks of friends. Twitter has an arrogance with having followers.

Twitter’s impersoanl nature makes it ripe for bots and carny. It’s the reason Twitter never really impressed me, though I do have an account, but rarely use it except for having my blog posts go up there…

Memo to Politico: There is no more “trusted” journalism sources anymore. Including you. Why a dead profession is still in denial about reality.

Politico — like other journalism outlets — has no concept of reality. None. It is all about spinning narratives that paints them as perfect.

Their latest delusional rambling dressed up as a “special report” has a the same blinders journalists have had since November 2016:

Trump thrives in areas that lack traditional news outlets

Relentless use of social media and partisan outlets helped him swamp Clinton and exceed Romney’s performance in places lacking trusted local news media.

Yes, of course. If those yokels only had a “trusted local news source”, they would have been properly indoctrinated with the correct propaganda and the Great Unwashed would have followed the decree issued by the people who are given the right to do everyone’s thinking.

Are you serious?

Journalism squandered their “trusted” status long before that. I even wrote a book about it in 2005.

dbi

Social media took off because it was a real Information Emancipation. People were liberated from the shackles of the old guard gate-keepers. They had no choice but to get their information from the press. They had no choice but to rely on the press to tell their stories.

Social media changed the landscape. People wanted the freedom to speak their piece without getting edited.

If journalism had the sensitivity to understand that deep truth, they would have reflected on their deficiencies, and realized the rigs in the system gave them a platform — not that they were actually an essential service.

Then they would have seen how to change their methods and mandates. There would be experimentation and empiricism.

But that isn’t what happened.

Just one angry temper tantrum after another with propaganda campaign after manipulative propaganda campaign how people need journalism.

And people are not buying it.

They are still a dead profession.

People do not need stories telling them to go crawling back to journalism. That’s not news.

Trump won because people were sending a message to journalism: stop meddling. Stop telling us what to think and what to do.

In other words, shove off.

Journalists want things to go back to the old ways, and that ship has sailed.

You cannot unring a bell.

And dreck like this “special report” is not going to make it happen.

You lost the war.

You completely lost the war.

Trump saw it, and he took advantage of it.

He saw what you still do not have the courage, sensitivity, morality, or the intelligence to see.

Move on.

Why journalism will learn nothing from Facebook’s privacy crisis.

The New York Post has a silly article about those pesky Millennials are not getting all scared by Facebook. They are seen as naive and their Live Out Loud philosophy means they do not care what people know about them.

The implication is that nothing like that ever happened before those Facebook bad guys came along.

Not quite.

There was Farrell’s Ice Cream Parlour.

f1

They compiled lists where children could give their vitals to get ice cream for their birthday.

A couple of young boys created a fake birthday boy, and when that fake boy turned of age, Selective Service sent him a reminder that he was liable for draft registration.

The boy only existed on the ice cream list.

This was 1984.

What does ice cream have to do with the military?

Having children fill out a form shouldn’t give any government a clue how old they are, but the idea of personal data being used for other purposes is not new.

When the story broke, journalists were asking who else was playing those games.

And like Facebook, Farrell’s said they had no idea what those lists were being used for at the time. It was a third party, after all.

Journalists don’t seem to clue in that this whole using personal data for other purposes is not new.

As in totally not new.

But the press will keep trying to make it sound as if this was a Facebook thing rather than an old and reliable way of gathering information, learning nothing from history — often chronicled in their old pages…

#DeleteFacebook? And pretend the others aren’t invading privacy? Why panicking on cue won’t change anything.

Facebook is using dead trees to say they are very, very, very sorry.

Dead trees media is pouncing all over it, those jealous kiddies with the Globe and Mail going full force with the fear-mongering calling it a “threat to democracy” and it achieving a ominous new narrative.

Seriously stupid.

Let’s review the last decade of social media, you know, the one where people were repeatedly warned about privacy issues, and could see that algorithms and cookies meant all your information would be store by third parties who made you agree to Terms of Service that stated that pictures and documents you stored would become their property.

And now, all of a sudden, people finally got around to reading the memo?

The memo written by vested interests who have always thought they had a right to know everything and were constantly in court looking to lift bans and have access to your information for their profit — not public service.

And it was never just Facebook. No, sorry, offended people. It is all of them, from your hardware to your software to your social media.

It was okay until someone started to engage in warfare, scare-mongering specifically.

Now people want to delete Facebook?

Really? Do you scare that easily?

It is like the spouse whose mate always cheats out in public, and the warnings are ignored until the day the person decides this is a bad thing and then throws a fit.

It was never the cheating the was the deal-breaker. That was the price of having a relationship, but then something else happened to cause the explosion.

In this case, people are not getting rich and famous providing content on social media.

It was never about the privacy. Facebook had done much worse, and it didn’t cause the sort of temper tantrum we are seeing now.

The press tried to get people angry back in 2016, but there wasn’t the anger. One newspaper headline read:

After reading this, you’ll probably NEVER trust Facebook again

Yeah, but then where could you plaster your latest airbrushed selfie?

This would not have even been as bad had Mark Zuckerberg not wait five days to respond. That left a vacuum, and crisis management is all about getting ahead of a scandal.

You don’t wait five days, and then use the Same Day Apology to combat it.

That was a tactical error, and as I have said before, I am surprised they never anticipated a scandal and struck back within the hour.

The other tech companies are trying to deflect attention away from their own sketchy deeds by distancing themselves from Facebook.

It won’t be hard to shift the narrative for Facebook. It is not that hard to do as the reaction is too artificial to begin with. Whenever I hear the temper tantrum, I point out the person’s current toy, and ask a few questions about how well do they know how they are being tracked by their own trinket.

Because I am not playing in this childish game. Facebook’s silence is the only reason people are talking about it at all instead of wondering about the bigger privacy invasions that are going on as we speak…

Fake narratives in the Facebook Debacle: Vultures are feasting, but psyching out the sheep does not make it so.

I have chronicled Facebook’s problems on this site before, and there is no need for a re-hash; however, this latest “scandal” is a black eye, but hardly some sort of final blow.

I am actually surprised that Facebook hasn’t foreseen this scenario and already had a crisis management plan in place to react quickly and spin this themselves.

When I taught public speaking to college students, one major component was crisis communications. Companies had to be aware of potential scandals and be ready show things hit the fan. They could foresee a lot of potential trouble — all they had to do was look at their insurance policies and figure out some of the situations they could face.

Facebook, for whatever reason, didn’t, even though they faced a similar problem several years ago when it was revealed users were unwitting subjects in a mass experiment.

You have that many third parties leeching on to your site, it stands to reason that many of them could exploit the rigs to sell information or do something that goes against the rules — or common sense.

That they don’t have that strategy in place says a lot about the company — that they didn’t foresee that they’d ever have to deal with bad publicity.

But bad publicity doesn’t mean a company is finished. Once upon a time, some consumer terrorist poisoned bottles of Tylenol, resulting in people dying, and yet it is still on the shelves as it weathered the storm. What Facebook is associated with is hardly in the same boat. News Corps was embroiled in a phone hacking scandal — but in the end, one tabloid shut down, but the company survived.

They can easily get past this story.

But ironically, the New York Post — one by News Corp. — it spinning a dark narrative that Facebook has no to “win” of this mess when they have many outs here. The worst scenario has Mark Zuckerberg pushed out with someone else put in his place — new leader, new start. Shake up the executives to be more in tune with today’s realities, and all is forgiven.

They could also take steps — and public ones — to address the bigger issue of invasion of privacy — showing current examples of media and governmental snooping — expose how serious a problem this is — and their biggest critics are left defending themselves and having to explain their own hypocrisy in the matter.

There are at least a dozen other ways to handle it boldly where they turn their current disadvantages to advantages.

Journalists are a little too quick in hoping social media will just go away and they can go back throwing their weight around — but the advantages to Facebook as a communications tool is too great to just ignore.

So I don’t expect Facebook to die — but it all depends on how they handle themselves at the moment…

The Anti-Facebook propaganda campaign keeps on going: Self-interest is not news, Globe and Mail kiddies.

Serial plagiarist Margaret Went is walking lockstep with the anti-Facebook diatribes.

Dou Saunders is marching to the same tune, too.

For all those people whose privacy was invaded by the press, and those invaded by the government, these cases do not count.

Edward Snowdon’s warnings about government meddling have been for nothing. Nothing has changed, but the government is not the news media’s competition. Facebook is.

Should anyone delete their Facebook account? Are you taking quizzes, and revealing your innermost thoughts?

Or are you taking pictures of your restaurant meals so that your siblings can be jealous of you?

Propaganda brings both fear and paranoia, creating helpless and outraged victims.

And there is no reason for that fear. Why would anyone delete Facebook when you can make demands of the company instead?

The problem is people always expect They to fix things and clean up messes, and there is no such group. People are disconnected, and then others take advantage. You have a powerful tool — you do not give it up because you didn’t make demands — you can have conditions and then you have a product that suits your needs more.

Journalists would love nothing more than people to relinquish their power and their freedoms and come crawling back to them. Their sins are far worse than Facebook’s, and they have a vested interest in misrepresenting the reality of the situation.

I am not buying the snake oil they are selling — I use Facebook just like any other tool — a saw can be handy, but you don’t misuse it to trim your nails.

Besides, your personal information is not all that valuable — so don’t get worked up over nothing, especially if you don’t get engaged in your world…

Don’t invade our privacy, decrees Live Out Loud Generation: Yes, kids, “Checking In” at your bathroom is profitable to the enterprising.

Social media is good at exposing the infantilization of modern Western thought.

The temper tantrum that other people can make money from your bragging vanity has been a hard pill to swallow.

Facebook is getting flack. The Drudge Report is having a field day, and helpfully reminds the little people that Google is also a hotbed for privacy invasion.

Why people are upset is mystifying. Privacy has been a problem on social media, but people chose to Live Out Loud. I remember a few years ago, there was a website used to collect social media feeds of people who advertised that they were out of the house — to draw attention that all robbers had to do was mine those sites to know where to rob an empty house. People ignored it.

This phenomenon is nothing new. The Stasi (short for Staatssicherheit) was an East German secret police force that used to recruit family members to data mine citizens. People discovered decades later that their parents, children, or even spouses were spying on them all along.

Privacy is a hypothetical construct. It is not an actual real thing. With AI coming into its own, Big Data is going to be the fuel to target people to get them to behave lockstep in a certain way.

Which will be easy. Critical thinking is not taught in schools, nor is the quality valued.

It will not be used to protect people. We have had no shortage of mass killers post their intentions online and no one acted on it.

People are up in arms over something that has been a thing for as long as social media has been around. You cannot stop it at this point. Laws will be circumvented. The convenience of apps will override common sense every time.

If you choose to Live Out Loud, you are giving away information, and people are free to do with it whatever they like. If you are an active critical thinker who doesn’t scour social media to see how to think, it doesn’t matter what you say online — your data cannot be manipulated to control you.

People will need to learn how not to be defined by their data. Once you create the technology, there is no going back. Even if it is outlawed, that line in the sand will merely ensure it goes underground.

You might choose to live out loud, but for those who are enterprising, they work from the shadows, and get what they want at any cost…

The Zombie Attack on Social Media: How journalism is trying to wrest control away from social media in an Age of Propaganda.

The first edition of Ben Bagdikian’s book The Media Monopoly is an interesting read, as are the updated editions over the years:

Take your pick.

Once upon a time media critics were sounding the alarm that traditional media had a stranglehold on the information flow.

Journalism shrugged it off as if it were unimportant.

It was very important, not just to society, but to the survival of the profession itself. If it is a giant monolith, there will be no deviation in thought or methods, making it easy for it to be toppled should a new competitor come on the scene.

The deceptive narrative of “Big Tech” glosses over one giant point:

That once upon a time, it was the Goliath of Big Media that met a David — a small, young upstart called Social Media.

And David wiped the floor with Goliath, freeing people and giving them a platform to broadcast their own thoughts and experiences to the world without the tyranny of Goliath to meddle in their message with manipulative narrative, or preventing that message from ever coming out in the first place.

Journalism was defeated. It is a dead profession, and they went straight into the bowels of Hell.

Now those angry demons are trying to haunt social media from beyond. It is the punishment for destroying the power of having a monopoly.

You have newspapers such as The Seattle Times trying to regain control of that power by trying to get the government to stop “Big Tech” by using their outlet to push their agenda.

Newspapers are not reporting. They are advocating against a rival, They are not some objective party.

With a glaring confirmation bias: when traditional media had the stranglehold on information, they did not demand the government go “trust-busting.”

How very interesting.

Journalism is not the place to settle scores with rivals.

It is not the place to lobby the government to go after your rivals.

That is not an opinion piece. That is an open letter to get your own way.

But traditional media owners bungled their own fortunes, and now are trying to take social media down in any way they can.

It is war on “Big Tech” and it is a war they have already lost. The old guard who grabbed power by equally deceptive means are the pots calling the kettles black.

Governments are threatened by Big Tech. Old Media are threatened by Big Tech.

Big Tech is a power, and now the trick is for those who wish to continue their stranglehold to malign Big Tech just enough to try to regain control.

It won’t work, however because the argument that an electric car is bad so you should just go back to a horse and buggy doesn’t fly.

If someone wrests control away from Big Tech, it is not going to be the old guard who grabs it. It will be an entity who is more modern, has none of the stench of past sins, and has something better to offer.

People are not going to go back to their first spouse if the second spouse disappoints them. They may very well dump Spouse #2…but will look for younger, better-looking, and happier Spouse #3 instead.

But the attacks are coming in the highly deceptive manner — linking old media’s three enemies: Donald Trump, Russia, and Big Tech together to create a fake Jabberwocky.

And you can find the latest attempt here, here, here, and here.

Big Tech’s problem is that the players are doing the exact same things old media did — things that spelled their fall from power. Is Big Tech too powerful? Yes, but once upon a time, so was traditional media. The power went to their heads and they checked their morality at the front door.

Traditional media has still not been made accountable for all their sins — from lying to misusing their platforms to push their own agendas.

If Big Tech were smart, they have damning and embarrassing information about Old Media, and they should expose it all: the fake social media followers is the least of it. From the real numbers of clicks to the vile email exchanges to plagiarism to the out-and-out sleight of hand fraudulent practices, Big Tech could be of service to expose facts that could create the greats exposé of the decade. Big Tech is playing way too nice and fair to the old guard, and have the means and tools to show which entity is the more untrustworthy. Leak out the electronic conversations between reporters and PR firms. Take a page out of WikiLeaks’ playbook.

It would certainly bring a new perspective to this current rancid zombie attack…

The Internet’s Dark Age: Fear, hatred, anger, lies, and delusions. Where does a new communications discipline begin?

The Internet has become the place where people are always hitting you up for money — all for an absolutely critical, essential, and really, really, really important cause you absolutely cannot live without.

Give us money! Or your freedom is at stake from the genocidal robots!

Perhaps there has been one superhero film too many out there.

Get a grip, boys and girls.

wwwf

This open letter from the Web Foundation is interesting and common in today’s manic times:

The web is under threat. Join us and fight for it.

A call to arms from none of other than someone Very Important.

Here’s a message from our founder and web inventor Sir Tim Berners-Lee on what we need to ensure that everyone has access to a web worth having.

Oh, and the warning is very Bond-worthy:

What’s more, the fact that power is concentrated among so few companies has made it possible to weaponise the web at scale. In recent years, we’ve seen conspiracy theories trend on social media platforms, fake Twitter and Facebook accounts stoke social tensions, external actors interfere in elections, and criminals steal troves of personal data.

You mean, the Internet is making all the same mistakes as traditional journalism did when they were the gate-keepers? You don’t say!

The fear-mongering serves two purposes: it is a way for people to ask for donations All In The Name of a Noble Cause, and then there the foot-in-the-door technique: put your trust in one organization to fight your battles for you. The Left were convinced they could persuade an entire planet to think the way they do through belief-shaming, and when that proved to be a pipe dream, now it is the second line of defence — frighten people into giving up their independence to be rescued by people they just met on the Internet.

So now we are absolutely certain that we are being primed to be too afraid to believe we can actually think for ourselves. and make institutions accountable for their tyranny.

If you do not believe everything you read, and you do not mindlessly react, then the propagandist’s power is non-existent. His power is in your credulity. He maligns or presents a patriarchal narrative that doesn’t align with reality — if you don’t react and start asking hard questions, even if he says the very things you want to hear, he won’t waste his time. He cuts his losses, and then goes marry someone with money to support him as he leaves you alone.

But when you blindly allow someone else’s decrees that their fear-mongering are facts, you place yourself in a bind where you are dependent on someone else’s narrative to guide you to where they want you to go. It becomes a rig that confines, and not to safe places.

The Internet was supposed to be in the background — a neutral appliance to disseminate information — it wasn’t supposed to be questioned or even noticed. It’s like wondering what nefarious purposes your toaster was created for — is it to brown your bread — or to make you a fascist sympathizer?

We do not think about print, radio, or television in the same way — and perhaps we should have all along.

Because none of these media ever had journalism in mind when they were created. Not ad hoc, but somehow, journalism formed within them. The Internet’s arrival didn’t take journalism into consideration — and journalism certainly never jumped into the Internet weave willingly. People in the profession still talk about digital as if it was the future, not the present.

So of the four media — the one that should have been tailer-made for that kind of information, wasn’t. It was all after the fact, and very reluctant.

That’s how journalism became obsolete. When a radically new technology begins to form — that’s the time to be a part of it; so that it becomes one with it.

And the future of journalism became nonexistent, even if you have university students who still think that relic has some relevance. It doesn’t.

You need to start again, but with focus.

You cannot create an alternative to journalism under the false rush of the fear-mongers who tell you all about Jabberwockys zombies who are out to get you, and eat your brains. You cannot ignore their techniques, feints, stunts, ruses, tricks, stratagems, or strategies, either. It has to be done in such a way to be built with the idea of finding lies all around you — left, right, above, below, and the centre.

And then seeing reality beyond perception in order to find the truth.

And it has to be done without always begging for money.

It has to be profitable through its utility.

It can be done, and it will be done — and a lot sooner than you think.