Mother Jones: Because Clicks Are Big Money, Facebook Gave Us President Trump. 'Oops.'

[PoliTalker]

This article makes a lot of sense to me:

How Facebook Screwed Us All

It's a big in-depth article.

Take your time.

Read it all, read part of it, take a guess without reading anything just because of who is posting it or the fact that it is Mother Jones and not Fox News Channel.

What do you think?

PoliTalker anti-troll thread thief disclaimer: If this thread is stolen, plagiarized, will the thief have the nerve to use the entire OP, word for word? Including this disclaimer? If you want my take on it, you'll have to post to this original PoliTalker thread. I refuse to be an enabler for online bullies, so I won't post to a stolen thread. I won't even read it. If you don't see me, PoliTalker, posting in this thread check the author. This might be a hijacked thread, not the original.

Looks to me like government is not doing it's job. Here is an entire new industry, something that concerns a lot of people, even if they never even signed up for Facebook, and there obviously needs to be better regulation.

I am thinking access to social media like this should not be done for profit. Connecting with people is one thing. Sucking up all their data, turning into big brother watching everything you do, creating giant files on everybody, selling lists and access, deciding what information gets out there, with no requirement for that information to be vetted, allowing lists of categorized citizens to be used in marketing and political PR misinformation disinformation efforts, all of that is ANOTHER THING. Facebook was never conceived to be big brother, power for sale, profit platform. It was a way for college kids at a school to know who each other was. The rest of it just morphed and got seized by improperly regulated capitalism. Capitalism moved faster than aging lawmakers could keep up with.

Now we have seen the downside to Facebook. And we have seen that no matter how many times Zuckerberg is called to testify, Facebook is not going to do anything to fix this unless we force it to. Or maybe we fix it ourselves. This sharing of your personal information for profit should be illegal. That's not having a right to be secure in one's 'papers and effects, or to 'not be violated.' Rights we are supposed to be guaranteed by the 4th Amendment. Sharing of ANYBODY's personal information should be illegal, whether for profit or not.

I can see having a platform to connect. But all these algorithms that make different people see different pop-ups? That should be illegal. Anything that gives one person one thing when they click needs to give everybody the same thing when THEY click. No more information should be shared about anybody than they want to be shared.

 

[anonymoose]

I don't do Facebook. Never really did except when I joined a group because of a proposed development in my neighborhood.
I saw a lot of stupid stuff posted by stupid people.
Anyway I just don't see what the attraction is. Same with twitter. Why anybody would think I'm interested in what they're thinking at any time of the day is beyond me.
This message board and a few emails a day is about my only connection with a computer .
And I'll let you in on a little secret: not all that I post is honest about myself. Sometimes it's just to agitate to see what reaction I get.

 

[Flash]

That's not having a right to be secure in one's 'papers and effects, or to 'not be violated.' Rights we are supposed to be guaranteed by the 4th Amendment.

The 4th Amendment protects these rights against government, not internet social media.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Flash,

The 4th Amendment protects these rights against government, not internet social media.

It doesn't say that. It doesn't specify. I interpret 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,' to mean thos things shall not be violated by anybody, government included.

And really, why would private entities be excluded from this just because they are making money at doing it? It doesn't say that is OK. It says it is not OK.

 

[Flash]

Hello Flash,



It doesn't say that. It doesn't specify. I interpret 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,' to mean thos things shall not be violated by anybody, government included.

And really, why would private entities be excluded from this just because they are making money at doing it? It doesn't say that is OK. It says it is not OK.

That is not correct. The entire Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to limit the power of the federal government because many Americans (Anti-Federalists) feared the increased power of the central government over those powers under the Articles of Confederation.

The 1st Amendment begins "Congress shall make no law" and the other amendments followed that intent. That is the interpretation given by all the courts--it only restricted the federal government and did not even restrict the states. Beginning in 1925 the court began a process of applying individual rights to the states and most have now been made applicable but not all. Just last month the Supreme Court added "excessive fines" to the list of rights that restrict the states as it applied to civil forfeiture.

None of those rights have ever been used to restrict private entities.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Flash,

That is not correct. The entire Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to limit the power of the federal government because many Americans (Anti-Federalists) feared the increased power of the central government over those powers under the Articles of Confederation.

The Constitution does not say that.

The 1st Amendment begins "Congress shall make no law"

The Constitution does not say that.

and the other amendments followed that intent. That is the interpretation given by all the courts--it only restricted the federal government and did not even restrict the states. Beginning in 1925 the court began a process of applying individual rights to the states and most have now been made applicable but not all. Just last month the Supreme Court added "excessive fines" to the list of rights that restrict the states as it applied to civil forfeiture.

None of those rights have ever been used to restrict private entities.

Just because a case has not yet been brought under this Constitutional Right, does not mean it does not exist. It merely means that precedent has not been established. The day after the Constitution was ratified, no precedents existed at all. That did not mean that no such rights existed at that point in time.

 

[PoliTalker]

Learned that Steve Bannon, President Trump's campaign chief executive, and founder of Breitbart, was also a co founder of Cambridge Analytica, the data mining firm that gathered data on millions of people from Facebook, and then used that information to form targeted political PR aimed at getting President Trump elected.

Investigative Journalism like that is to be cherished.

 

[Flash]

Hello Flash,

The Constitution does not say that.

Just because a case has not yet been brought under this Constitutional Right, does not mean it does not exist. It merely means that precedent has not been established. The day after the Constitution was ratified, no precedents existed at all. That did not mean that no such rights existed at that point in time.

Precedent has not been established because the clear intentions of the Bill of Rights was to limit the federal government only (see Barron v Baltimore) and later most of the rights were extended to the states (but not all).

This is basic constitutional law and not my opinion.

This is the 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So, it does say Congress shall make no law although you said the Constitution does not say that.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Flash,

Precedent has not been established because the clear intentions of the Bill of Rights was to limit the federal government only (see Barron v Baltimore) and later most of the rights were extended to the states (but not all).

This is basic constitutional law and not my opinion.

I understand that, and I appreciate you stating it. I'm just reading the Constitution and interpreting it for myself. I am allowed to do that and state my view.

This is the 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So, it does say Congress shall make no law although you said the Constitution does not say that.

You're right. I screwed up that post. When I look at it now, I can understand why you would reply the way you did. I would have replied that way myself.

When I said: "The Constitution does not say that." I meant that as a reply to your statement:

The 1st Amendment begins "Congress shall make no law" and the other amendments followed that intent.

But I left off the last half of the sentence. Of course the 1st Amendment starts out that way. But all the Amendments don't start that way, and the Constitution does not say that phrase applies to them all. I am not a lawyer but I speak English and I understand the written word. If it said that phrase applied to all the Amendments I would agree. I just don't see where it says that. And I have not seen a precedent case that says these amendments only protect citizens from the government and not other citizens. If any of those rights are violated it is usually the case that some State law is also violated, so that's what is used to charge suspects with. I can understand why no precedents have been set where the 4th Amendment was used in this way.

But the 4th still does not specify that it applies ONLY to the government, and unless you can show me a precedent case which specifically stated THAT, then the way I read it, your right of privacy shall not be violated. It doesn't say by whom. It says shall not.

Decades ago the big buzz word was big brother. Everybody was afraid of the government gathering too much information about people. Well, it turns out that wasn't the threat at all. The threat of having too much information gathered about people comes from capitalism and Facebook. Government can access that information any time it wants. If this information violates the privacy of an individual, and it got used to influence government and politics (Facebook, Cambridge Analytica) then to me that is a widespread indirect violation of the 4th amendment.

People are having their personal information stolen without their permission, and it is being used in government. The President's on advisor, Steve Bannon, did this. Why Muller hasn't found a way to charge Bannon with something is beyond me. I'm surprised he's still loose.

But then, Muller's not done, is he?

 

[Flash]

Hello Flash,



I understand that, and I appreciate you stating it. I'm just reading the Constitution and interpreting it for myself. I am allowed to do that and state my view.



You're right. I screwed up that post. When I look at it now, I can understand why you would reply the way you did. I would have replied that way myself.

When I said: "The Constitution does not say that." I meant that as a reply to your statement:

The 1st Amendment begins "Congress shall make no law" and the other amendments followed that intent.

But I left off the last half of the sentence. Of course the 1st Amendment starts out that way. But all the Amendments don't start that way, and the Constitution does not say that phrase applies to them all. I am not a lawyer but I speak English and I understand the written word. If it said that phrase applied to all the Amendments I would agree. I just don't see where it says that. And I have not seen a precedent case that says these amendments only protect citizens from the government and not other citizens. If any of those rights are violated it is usually the case that some State law is also violated, so that's what is used to charge suspects with. I can understand why no precedents have been set where the 4th Amendment was used in this way.

But the 4th still does not specify that it applies ONLY to the government, and unless you can show me a precedent case which specifically stated THAT, then the way I read it, your right of privacy shall not be violated. It doesn't say by whom. It says shall not.

Decades ago the big buzz word was big brother. Everybody was afraid of the government gathering too much information about people. Well, it turns out that wasn't the threat at all. The threat of having too much information gathered about people comes from capitalism and Facebook. Government can access that information any time it wants. If this information violates the privacy of an individual, and it got used to influence government and politics (Facebook, Cambridge Analytica) then to me that is a widespread indirect violation of the 4th amendment.

People are having their personal information stolen without their permission, and it is being used in government. The President's on advisor, Steve Bannon, did this. Why Muller hasn't found a way to charge Bannon with something is beyond me. I'm surprised he's still loose.

But then, Muller's not done, is he?

PoliTalker, When interpreting the Constitution the courts cannot just go by only the words, but also the intent as accepted at the time from congressional debates on the amendments, writings, etc. Although only the 1st Amendment says "Congress shall make no law" that same condition applied to amendments 1-10. There is no real historical dispute about this fact and consistently ruled in court cases. Barron v. Baltimore which said (the 5th) only restricted the federal government and the states was unanimous (7-0).

If the 4th did not just restrict the federal (and now state) governments there would have been cases in which people tried to claim their rights against a private entity (checking the purse of Wal-Mart employees as they leave work), but the court has never made that right applicable to a private party

Here is an article with some supporting cases:

"With the notable exception of the Thirteenth Amendment’s ban on slavery, the individual liberties guaranteed by the United States Constitution protect against actions by government officials but not against actions by private persons or entities. Because of this, civil-rights lawsuits seeking to vindicate federal constitutional rights are limited to those situations where there is “state action,”

https://www.nyclu.org/en/publicatio...stitution-private-actors-new-york-law-journal

As to the 4th Amendment search and seizure, it is to protect your rights against government using illegally seized evidence to bring criminal charges. Even if they do an illegal search but seize no evidence or bring no charges, it does not violate the amendment. Facebook did not use any information to bring criminal charges and you voluntarily chose to use social media. I don't know enough about Cambridge Analytica but their information might be all publicly available.

If a police officer walks by your car in a mall parking lot and sees drugs inside, he did not need probable cause or a warrant because they item was in "plain sight" in a public place.

 

[PoliTalker]

Elizabeth Warren!

Right on, Elizabeth Warren.

She has called for the breakup of Facebook.

I LIKE her.

I could be open to switching my support from Bernie to Elizabeth Warren.

This is a very interesting campaign season.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Flash,

PoliTalker, When interpreting the Constitution the courts cannot just go by only the words, but also the intent as accepted at the time from congressional debates on the amendments, writings, etc. Although only the 1st Amendment says "Congress shall make no law" that same condition applied to amendments 1-10. There is no real historical dispute about this fact and consistently ruled in court cases. Barron v. Baltimore which said (the 5th) only restricted the federal government and the states was unanimous (7-0).

If the 4th did not just restrict the federal (and now state) governments there would have been cases in which people tried to claim their rights against a private entity (checking the purse of Wal-Mart employees as they leave work), but the court has never made that right applicable to a private party

Here is an article with some supporting cases:

"With the notable exception of the Thirteenth Amendment’s ban on slavery, the individual liberties guaranteed by the United States Constitution protect against actions by government officials but not against actions by private persons or entities. Because of this, civil-rights lawsuits seeking to vindicate federal constitutional rights are limited to those situations where there is “state action,”

https://www.nyclu.org/en/publicatio...stitution-private-actors-new-york-law-journal

As to the 4th Amendment search and seizure, it is to protect your rights against government using illegally seized evidence to bring criminal charges. Even if they do an illegal search but seize no evidence or bring no charges, it does not violate the amendment. Facebook did not use any information to bring criminal charges and you voluntarily chose to use social media. I don't know enough about Cambridge Analytica but their information might be all publicly available.

If a police officer walks by your car in a mall parking lot and sees drugs inside, he did not need probable cause or a warrant because they item was in "plain sight" in a public place.

Here would be an interesting case for the court:

Facebook uses intrusive means to learn information about individual (A) who never even signed up for Facebook, but was talked on Facebook about by others who did sign up. Facebook begins a file on individual (A). Facebook is also able to learn the email address of individual (A), and includes that in their file, without individual (A)'s permission. Facebook then sells marketing lists which include information about the personal habits of individual (A), along with the email address of individual (A).

Individual (A) becomes targeted by unwanted marketing emails, and is burdened by having to spend time sorting and creating filters to deal with the unwanted emails, which impose upon individual (A)'s life by eating up individual (A)'s time to deal with the privacy intrusion. Individual (A) is thus harmed, and seeks to have Facebook ruled in violation of individual (A)'s 4th amendment right of privacy, and held accountable for violating individual (A)'s 4th Amendment rights.

I contend that Facebook went too far. I believe the court should rule against Facebook. Individual (A) had a right to be secure in their personal effects, which was violated by Facebook.

Do you think Facebook acted within the law?

 

[Bill]

This article makes a lot of sense to me:

How Facebook Screwed Us All

It's a big in-depth article.

Take your time.

Read it all, read part of it, take a guess without reading anything just because of who is posting it or the fact that it is Mother Jones and not Fox News Channel.

What do you think?

PoliTalker anti-troll thread thief disclaimer: If this thread is stolen, plagiarized, will the thief have the nerve to use the entire OP, word for word? Including this disclaimer? If you want my take on it, you'll have to post to this original PoliTalker thread. I refuse to be an enabler for online bullies, so I won't post to a stolen thread. I won't even read it. If you don't see me, PoliTalker, posting in this thread check the author. This might be a hijacked thread, not the original.

Looks to me like government is not doing it's job. Here is an entire new industry, something that concerns a lot of people, even if they never even signed up for Facebook, and there obviously needs to be better regulation.

I am thinking access to social media like this should not be done for profit. Connecting with people is one thing. Sucking up all their data, turning into big brother watching everything you do, creating giant files on everybody, selling lists and access, deciding what information gets out there, with no requirement for that information to be vetted, allowing lists of categorized citizens to be used in marketing and political PR misinformation disinformation efforts, all of that is ANOTHER THING. Facebook was never conceived to be big brother, power for sale, profit platform. It was a way for college kids at a school to know who each other was. The rest of it just morphed and got seized by improperly regulated capitalism. Capitalism moved faster than aging lawmakers could keep up with.

Now we have seen the downside to Facebook. And we have seen that no matter how many times Zuckerberg is called to testify, Facebook is not going to do anything to fix this unless we force it to. Or maybe we fix it ourselves. This sharing of your personal information for profit should be illegal. That's not having a right to be secure in one's 'papers and effects, or to 'not be violated.' Rights we are supposed to be guaranteed by the 4th Amendment. Sharing of ANYBODY's personal information should be illegal, whether for profit or not.

I can see having a platform to connect. But all these algorithms that make different people see different pop-ups? That should be illegal. Anything that gives one person one thing when they click needs to give everybody the same thing when THEY click. No more information should be shared about anybody than they want to be shared.

I agree there is a real problem here but most ppl don't care if their info is "$hared", certainly as opposed to having to pay for it..

I was looking @ & bought a kayak a couple years ago & used Goggle in my search, for a month or so AFTER I bought one I was still getting those adds everywhere.. Didn't bother me a bit, I ignore 99.99% of all adds..

IMHO the real prob is the fake accounts & trolls.. There is plenty of evidence they influenced some ppl's political views/motives etc in the last US election & perhaps in the Brexit debates in the UK & who knows what or where else..

I have "friends" on FB of many, many political stripes & I BLOCK all of their stupid political "SHARING" even if I agree w/ the take..

Personally I don't care what their political/social views are moreless some anonymous liars that they so cleverly ((SHARE))... THEY CAN & SHOULD BE HIDDEN~simply HIDE POST &/or UNFOLLOW &/or HIDE ALL from XYZlyingbitch.org that they shared, that will end the bs from them...

Additionally FB is supposedly hiring a bunch of Mods to help spot these trolls out to dupe the unwary, unwise & naive, those thinking they are helping some cause by passing along some gem of info WITHOUT EVER BOTHERING TO VERIFY IT...

 

[Bill]

I don't do Facebook. Never really did except when I joined a group because of a proposed development in my neighborhood.
I saw a lot of stupid stuff posted by stupid people.
Anyway I just don't see what the attraction is. Same with twitter. Why anybody would think I'm interested in what they're thinking at any time of the day is beyond me.
This message board and a few emails a day is about my only connection with a computer .
And I'll let you in on a little secret: not all that I post is honest about myself. Sometimes it's just to agitate to see what reaction I get.

WTF??? I knew you were lying about that hole in one last year in Maui.....

 

[anonymoose]

Elizabeth Warren!

Right on, Elizabeth Warren.

She has called for the breakup of Facebook.

I LIKE her.

I could be open to switching my support from Bernie to Elizabeth Warren.

This is a very interesting campaign season.

She does seem to be more well thought out than the "socialists" and other extremists in her party.
She believes capitalism needs more regulation otherwise it gets out of control.

 

[anonymoose]

WTF??? I knew you were lying about that hole in one last year in Maui.....

You should have PM'd me that! Now the board knows.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Bill,

I agree there is a real problem here but most ppl don't care if their info is "$hared", certainly as opposed to having to pay for it..

I was looking @ & bought a kayak a couple years ago & used Goggle in my search, for a month or so AFTER I bought one I was still getting those adds everywhere.. Didn't bother me a bit, I ignore 99.99% of all adds..

IMHO the real prob is the fake accounts & trolls.. There is plenty of evidence they influenced some ppl's political views/motives etc in the last US election & perhaps in the Brexit debates in the UK & who knows what or where else..

I have "friends" on FB of many, many political stripes & I BLOCK all of their stupid political "SHARING" even if I agree w/ the take..

Personally I don't care what their political/social views are moreless some anonymous liars that they so cleverly ((SHARE))... THEY CAN & SHOULD BE HIDDEN~simply HIDE POST &/or UNFOLLOW &/or HIDE ALL from XYZlyingbitch.org that they shared, that will end the bs from them...

Additionally FB is supposedly hiring a bunch of Mods to help spot these trolls out to dupe the unwary, unwise & naive, those thinking they are helping some cause by passing along some gem of info WITHOUT EVER BOTHERING TO VERIFY IT...

What assurances do we have that Facebook can be trusted to do what they say?

Time and time again we have heard Zuckerberg testify that more needs to be done to address problems, but no action is taken. Or if any action is taken, none of it would compromise FBs zeal for clicks.

 

[anonymoose]

Hello Bill,



What assurances do we have that Facebook can be trusted to do what they say?

Time and time again we have heard Zuckerberg testify that more needs to be done to address problems, but no action is taken. Or if any action is taken, none of it would compromise FBs zeal for clicks.

Repeal the 1st Amendment or maybe amend the 1st Amendment?
The 1st is already being curtailed in practice by the left.

 

[Bill]

You should have PM'd me that! Now the board knows.

My Bad!!!

 

[Bill]

Hello Bill,



What assurances do we have that Facebook can be trusted to do what they say?

Time and time again we have heard Zuckerberg testify that more needs to be done to address problems, but no action is taken. Or if any action is taken, none of it would compromise FBs zeal for clicks.

I guess the same could be asked about having the trump criminal org watching over them???

They are making an effort to deal w/ the problem, IMHO we should allow them to do it, having uncle trump should be a last resort..

Imagine fox news, hannity or conway overseeing something like that....... That is the kinda "oversight" would should expect from the current "organization" in the wht house..