Special Opinion to the Mirror by Paul Plante
As we here in the United States of America continue to ponder and explore the question of alleged foreign interference with our supposed “democracy” in this country, and the role the “press,” a very ill-defined term, as is the word “media,” play in that foreign interference, presuming it actually exits, which I believe does based on my own research in the matter, we must step back as citizens ask ourselves, if we truly care about “democracy” in this country, as opposed to merely mouthing an empty, meaningless word, such as “democracy” has become, is it really the “press” that is the true enemy of the American people?
Or is it really corporate control of the press and the media in America today that is the true enemy of the American people?
And more importantly, how exactly is it that that that corporate control of our “media” and “press” is being gained, and by whom?
And truthfully, if one has been taught even rudimentary American history, as we all supposedly were, one knows well from the “Citizen Genet Affair” from back in the days of the presidency of George Washington at the beginning of this nation’s political history that foreign influence in our internal affairs has been with us since we were nothing more than a collection of separate and distinct British colonies,
As to foreign influence in our internal political affairs extending to control of our social media in America today, which is a modern-day version of the “press,” as this very on-line publication well proves, 231 years ago now, on December 19, 1787, a political writer here in America which the nom de plume of “Anti-Cincinnatus” writing in the Northampton Hampshire Gazette posed this question on that very subject as follows, to wit:
The Constitution grants no power more nor less with respect to the liberty of the press; but leaves it just as it found it, in the hands of the several state constitutions: but to enervate this argument, my author sagely observes, “that where general powers are expressly granted, the particular ones comprehended within them must also be granted:” and with keen sagacity discovers a general power granted to Congress “to define and punish offences against the law of nations,” and after a plausible parade or inconclusive argumentation, assumes to have proved, “that the power of restraining the press is necessarily involved in the unlimited power of defining offences against the law of nations, or of making treaties, which are to be the supreme law of the land.”
To clear off the obscurity and confusion which involve the ideas and reasonings of this author, concerning the law of nations and public treaties, and set this matter in a clear convictive point of view, it is needless and would be to no purpose to pursue him through an intricate maze or winding in a pompous declamatory harangue; it is needful, to that end only to consider, that by the law of nations, is intended, those regulations and articles of agreement by which different nations, in their treaties, one with another, mutually bind themselves to regulate their conduct, one towards the other.
A violation of such articles is properly defined an offence against the law of nations: and there is and can be no other law of nations, which binds them with respect to their treatment one of another, but these articles of agreement contained in their public treaties and alliances.
These public treaties become the law of the land in that being made by constitutional authority, i.e. among us, by those whom the people themselves have authorized for that purpose, are in a proper sense their own agreements, and therefore as laws, bind the several states, as states, and their inhabitants, as individuals to take notice of and govern themselves according to the articles and rules which are defined and stipulated in them: as law of the land they bind to nothing but a performance of the engagements which they contain.
How then doth it appear “that a power to define offences against the law of nations, necessarily involves a power of restraining the liberty of the press?”
Have we the least possible ground of fear, that the United States in some future period will enter in their public treaties an article to injure the liberty of the press?
What concern have foreign nations with the liberty or restraint of the American press?
End quotes
What concerns do they have, indeed, people?
And how about control of our political thought and speech, as a starter?
So the question 231 years later, based on developments that “Anti-Cincinnatus” writing in the Northampton Hampshire Gazette 231 years ago, such as the intersection of rise of venture capitalism in America and the development of the internet as a means of mass communication, should be “what concerns should we in America today with foreign nations interfering with our liberty by restraining the American people’s press that the internet in America has become.
To answer that question, this paper seeks to explore the role of so-called “social media” like the Cape Charles Mirror and an internet site known as “The Livyjr Files” on what in participatory democracy in America today, which question was the subject of a scholarly paper entitled “THE ROLE OF SOCIAL MEDIA IN PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY: A CASE STUDY OF THREE FACEBOOK GROUPS” presented in 2018 on the University of Maryland website by author James Gachau, as follows:
As far back as 1918, John Dewey cautioned that democracy should not be identified with “economic individualism as the essence of freedom of action” (Dewey, 1954).
He saw freedom as grounded socially in the human experience of “communicative (not merely economic) exchange through which individuals orient themselves to the world” (Couldry, 2010, p. 133).
These communicative exchanges are necessary for people to live an authentically human life.
In the widely dispersed societies of the twenty-first century, journalism and mass communication are necessary for this communicative exchange.
This dissertation argues that Facebook, through purposefully designed and organized groups, can facilitate such communicative exchanges for social classes that are given short shrift by the mainstream media.
I posit that due to their ability to select, control, and filter media content according to their specified needs and concerns, rather than have media fare dictated to them by the dominant classes, social media users in general, and Facebook groups composed of subordinate classes in particular, have the capacity to cultivate and nurture discourses that challenge the views and opinions of the dominant publics in which these groups are located.
Using counterpublic theory à la Nancy Fraser, Catherine Squires, and Michael Warner, this dissertation analyzes the media content that members of three Facebook groups shared on their groups’ Facebook walls, and how this content helped them articulate oppositional voices and identities.
Based in Kenya, the first group, Freethinkers Initiative Kenya (FIKA), identifies with freethought and atheism in a society that is predominantly Christian.
The second group, Pan-African Network (PAN) promotes the interests of Africans across the globe, campaigning for the advancement of a proud black identity in a world increasingly perceived as hostile to Blacks and people of African descent.
The third group, Women Without Religion (WWR), espouses a feminist atheist identity that opposes “white male supremacy,” and speaks against the perceived oppression of women occasioned by the patriarchal religions of the Judeo-Christian heritage.
End quotes
Such is the political power foreign groups are able to gain in this country through dominant social media sites like Facebook, which was started with venture capital funds from Accel, formerly known as Accel Partners, an American venture capital firm that works with startups in seed, early and growth-stage investments, with offices in Palo Alto, California and San Francisco, California, and with additional operating funds in London, India and China (through a partnership with International Data Group (IDG-Accel)).
Thus is foreign capital and foreign influence infiltrated into American political thought through control and censorship of social media sites in America like Facebook and a corporation named Tapatalk, Inc., which has just gained operational control of an American social media site formerly called Zetaboards, out of the state of Maryland in the United States of America.
According to Wikipedia, Accel has funded technology companies including Facebook, Slack, Dropbox, Atlassian, Flipkart, Supercell, Spotify, Etsy, Braintree/Venmo, Vox Media, Lynda.com, Qualtrics, DJI, Clouder, Jet.com, GoFundMe, Vectra Networks Inc. and BrowserStack.
In 1983, Accel was founded by Arthur Patterson and Jim Swartz.
In addition to Accel’s continued investments in early-stage startups from the Accel early stage fund, the firm announced a $480 million growth fund in December 2008, focused on growth equity opportunities in information technology, the internet, digital media, mobile, networking, software, and services.
In March 2016, Accel raised $2 billion, $500 million for an early stage venture fund and $1.5 billion for growth investments.
In April 2016, Accel raised a separate $500 million fund for investments in Europe and Israel.
In November 2016, Accel’s India arm closed its fifth fund with $450 million, about two years after closing its fourth fund with $325 million.
Accel is a venture capital firm that concentrates on the following technology sectors, to wit: Consumer, Infrastructure, Media, Mobile, SaaS, Security, Customer care services and Investments, which pretty much represents the gamut from soup to nuts, giving them a large amount of control over out lives as American citizens, to our detriment.
With respect to that thought, way back in 1919, United States Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis stated the opinion that suppression of ideas worked a great hardship on society, which happens to be all of us in America, and not just those who happen to be citizens of Facebook.
Another well-respected Supreme Court Justice at that time named Oliver Wendell Holmes rested his First Amendment views on what he called the “marketplace of ideas,” reasoning that because we cannot know immediately which ideas are good and true and useful and which are not, we must let them vie against one another in the faith that after full exposure and discussion, the truth will win out.
But what happens when large social media sites such as Facebook and Tapatalk intentionally skew the playing field so that there is no real discussion, as the censors out there in society would like to see imposed in here, in the pages of the Cape Charles Mirror?
Supreme Court Justice Brandeis saw free speech as an essential aspect of citizenship in America.
According to his view, men and women in America both had the duty in a democracy such as ours is supposed to be, but isn’t, to be good citizens, which means being informed on the issues confronting us.
Mused the Justice, how can individuals make intelligent decisions about those issues without having basic information about them?
How can citizens, which means all of us, and not just some of us who are Facebook citizens, judge which side has the better argument unless we can hear both sides of an argument and then join in the debate, as we can do in here in the Cape Charles Mirror?
Brandeis thus provided a positive justification for protection of speech, that being the necessity for the citizenry, which happens to be all of us here in the United States of America, and not just some of us, regardless of what Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook might think about it, along with a foreign national named Huang Dongri, aka Winter Wong, who was born in Hong Kong, and who now is the CEO of a corporate entity named Tapatalk, Inc., with corporate headquarters located 2051 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica, California 90404, which corporation in 2016 acquired Yuku, and in July 2017 migrated the contents of that service to their own bulletin board platform, and in July 2017, also acquired Zetaboards and zIFBoards (formerly Invisionfree), the forum services operated by Zathyus Networks, to be fully informed about issues and to be aware of all viewpoints.
But when these powerful corporations like Facebook and Tapatalk are using venture capital funds to swallow up social media sites in America like Zetaboards to impose their own corporate rules on the users that serve to limit discussion and debate, can we today be said to be fully informed about all issues, and not just those Mark Zuckerberg and Huang Dongri want discussed, and to be aware of all viewpoints.
Think about it, people, and please stay tuned, for more discussion on this subject is forthcoming.
And thanks to the Cape Charles Mirror for being one of the few social media sites here in America, with the recent demise of Zetaboards, to really take seriously that positive justification for protection of speech set forth by Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis back in 1919.
Paul Plante says
To understand what the political writer with the nom de plume “Anti-Cincinnatus” was on about 231 years ago now, on December 19, 1787, when he posed the question
“(W)hat concern have foreign nations with the liberty or restraint of the American press” in the Northampton Hampshire Gazette, it is necessary to consider the fact that back then, the United States of America was a brand-new nation in a time when the communications technology that exists today, which many take for granted, as if it were always there, simply did not exist, nor did the “trade agreements” with other nations, which in turn give foreign nations access to control of what is now called the IT or Information Technology industry in this country.
As Wikipedia tells us in the section on the “First Party System” in America, a period said to cover from 1792 to 1824, by 1796, both major parties in America at that time, the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans, had a national network of newspapers, which attacked each other vehemently, with the Federalist and Republican newspapers of the 1790s trading vicious barbs against their enemies.
Nationalism was a high priority, and the editors fostered an intellectual nationalism typified by the Federalist effort to stimulate a national literary culture through their clubs and publications in New York and Philadelphia, and through Federalist Noah Webster’s efforts to simplify and Americanize the language.
Back then, there were not the huge corporations controlling the media and press as there are today.
Nor were there political parties in America such as we know them to be today, nor was there really any political experience by the people of America as American citizens, since they had only begun to be American citizens as a result of the American Revolution, while we today are born as American citizens, and young people in America have been born into a time in terms of mass communication that would have fascinated Thomas Jefferson and Jemmy Madison, and probably “Anti-Cincinnatus,” as well.
Thus, our political experience in America today is vastly different than it was at the time of this nation’s beginning.
As Wikipedia tells us under the heading “Inventing campaign techniques” in the section on the “First Party System” in America, given the power of the Federalists, the Democratic Republicans had to work harder to win, so the Jeffersonians invented many campaign techniques that the Federalists later adopted and that became standard American practice.
As Wikipedia tells us, the highly coordinated “get-out-the-vote” drive invented by the Jeffersonians at the time of this nation’s political beginning as a nation would be familiar to modern political campaigners, but it was the first of its kind in world history.
The Jeffersonians of that political era in America were especially effective at building a network of newspapers in major cities to broadcast their statements and editorialize in their favor, a function that is being taken over today by corporate control of our media and press to broadcast their statements, or those they want broadcasted, as well as editorializing in their favor, or more to the point of this paper, keeping editorials they don’t want from being printed in the first place.
Dropping back to the beginning of this nation’s political history, the Federalists, with a strong base among merchants, controlled more newspapers in America at that time than did the Republicans, so that in 1796, the Federalist papers outnumbered the Democratic Republicans by 4 to 1.
Every year after that, more papers began publishing, but in 1800, the Federalists still had a to 1 numerical advantage.
Today, and this is since the 2004 elections here in America, there has been a proliferation of internet sites that serve the same purpose as those early newspapers, the wonderful Cape Charles Mirror being one of them.
My first real political experience or involvement as an American citizen living in a rural area, in fact, was on an internet site called The John Kerry Forum, which site was dedicated to getting John Kerry elected over George W. Bush, and it was a highly partisan site that was quite intolerant of any criticism of John Kerry or any praise of George W. Bush, and to this day, I have to wonder how much that site and its blatant censorship contributed to John Kerry losing that election.
With respect to the role the internet plays in American politics today, right after the November 2004 elections, I was given a book to read on the subject of the intersection of politics and the internet in American politics today entitled “The Power of Many” by an author named Christian Crumlish, who himself had gained experience with the use of the internet as a real professional “tool” for communications among separate and disparate groups of people in the world during the John “Screamer” Dean Campaign, which was the first major political campaign in America to make such use of the internet as a communications tool for political purposes.
So 2004 was truly a watershed year in terms of how politics in America would be conducted from that time forward.
Thomas Jefferson was an American politician for the newspaper age.
Franklin Roosevelt was a politician for the age of radio.
John Fitzgerald Kennedy was a politician for the television age.
And today, we have entered the internet age in American politics, and hence this subject of corporate control of that medium, and especially control by foreign corporations such as this Tapatalk, Inc., which we know from a RECODE article entitled “Having Successfully Made Forums Mobile, Tapatalk Raises $5.8 Million Seed Round” by Liz Gannes on June 16, 2014 originated in Shanghai, which is in China, and was founded by a person named Huang Dongri, who was born in Hong Kong, and who now calls himself Winter Wong, CEO of Tapatalk, which corporation then moved to Los Angeles as part of MuckerLab,
As to Muckerlab, we know from a TechCrunch article “Inside MuckerLab, The Startup Accelerator That’s Amping Up L.A.’s Tech Ecosystem” by Colleen Taylor, @loyalelectron for those who are interested in such trivia on July 23, 2013, as follows:
In the San Francisco Bay Area, there is no shortage of “accelerator” programs that promise to take fledgling technology companies to the next level by providing mentorship, funding, business introductions, and the like.
And as the startup scene a few hundred miles south in Los Angeles continues to heat up, the appetite for accelerators is growing too.
One of the leading new startup accelerators in L.A. is MuckerLab, so while TechCrunch TV was in Southern California recently we stopped by to take a look inside and find out about what makes the program tick.
end quotes
And what makes the Muckerlab program tick, of course, is money and lots of it.
Getting back to our nation’s beginnings, most papers back then, on each side, were weeklies with a circulation of 300 to 1000.
Today, there are internet sites like the Cape Charles Mirror with circulation or readership far in excess of that, which makes them targets for corporate take-over.
Back then, the astute Tommy Jefferson systematically subsidized the editors, and Fisher Ames, a leading Federalist, who used the term “Jacobin” to link Jefferson’s followers to the terrorists of the French Revolution, blamed the newspapers for electing Jefferson, seeing them as “an overmatch for any Government …”
“The Jacobins owe their triumph to the unceasing use of this engine; not so much to skill in use of it as by repetition.”
end quotes
Today, the “engine” in question is now the internet.
As to Ames’ assessment above, a modern historian today agrees as follows:
It was the good fortune of the Republicans to have within their ranks a number of highly gifted political manipulators and propagandists.
Some of them had the ability … to not only see and analyze the problem at hand but to present it in a succinct fashion; in short, to fabricate the apt phrase, to coin the compelling slogan and appeal to the electorate on any given issue in language it could understand.
Outstanding phrasemakers included editor William Duane, party leaders Albert Gallatin and Thomas Cooper, and Jefferson himself.
end quotes
Today, corporate control of our thought on the internet threatens to take all of that away, on the one hand, or to reinforce it on the other by the suppression of our voices raised in dissent.
Is that serious?
Or should we just say “Oh la” and “Ho Hum?”
The candid world would like to know.
Paul Plante says
And as we consider this timely topic of corporate control of speech and thought in America today, courtesy of the Cape Charles Mirror, we have some breaking news on the subject as follows, this from a Fox News story entitled “Justice Dept. to examine social media giants ‘stifling’ free speech” by Adam Shaw on 5 September 2018, to wit:
The Justice Department on Wednesday announced Attorney General Jeff Sessions will convene a meeting with state attorneys general this month to discuss long-standing concerns by conservatives that social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter are “stifling the free exchange of ideas on their platforms.”
The announcement came after a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing involving top officials from Facebook and Twitter, and ahead of a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on alleged bias and lack of transparency, where Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey testified.
“The Attorney General has convened a meeting with a number of state attorneys general this month to discuss a growing concern that these companies may be hurting competition and intentionally stifling the free exchange of ideas on their platforms,” the statement said.
The Senate hearing focused primarily on the use of social media by Russia and other foreign actors in the 2016 election, with executives promising to do more to combat such meddling in the future.
end quotes
But what about the ownership of social media platforms like the former Zetaboards, which once had millions of site owners, according to Zetaboards’ propaganda, which site has been taken over by Chinese firm Tapatalk, Inc.?
Stay tuned, for as today just proved, there is much more yet to come on this story, and you read about it first not in Fox News, not in the NY Times, not in the Washington Post, but in the Cape Charles Mirror.
Paul Plante says
And actually the first notice I had that the Justice Department was going to look into speech being stifled on so-called “social media” platforms here in America came not from Fox News, but from the British publication The Guardian in an article entitled “Twitter’s Jack Dorsey faces more questions as Google snubs Congress” by Julia Carrie Wong @juliacarriew on Wed 5 Sep 2018, as follows:
DoJ announces meeting to discuss social media “intentionally stifling” ideas
Directly after this morning’s hearing ended, the Department of Justice announced that attorney general Jeff Sessions “has convened a meeting with a number of state attorneys general this month to discuss a growing concern that these companies may be hurting competition and intentionally stifling the free exchange of ideas on their platforms.”
end quotes
The hearings in question concern us as well, but for now, I’m still focused on what the AG plans to do, which brings us to a TechCrunch article on that same subject entitled “Justice Dept. says social media giants may be ‘intentionally stifling’ free speech” by Zack Whittaker @zackwhittaker on 5 September 2018, as follows:
The Justice Department has confirmed that Attorney General Jeff Sessions has expressed a “growing concern” that social media giants may be “hurting competition” and “intentionally stifling” free speech and expression.
The comments come as Facebook chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg and Twitter chief executive Jack Dorsey gave testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Wednesday, as lawmakers investigate foreign influence campaigns on their platforms.
Social media companies have been under the spotlight in recent years after threat actors, believed to be working closely with the Russian and Iranian governments, used disinformation-spreading tactics to try to influence the outcome of the election.
“The Attorney General has convened a meeting with a number of state attorneys general this month to discuss a growing concern that these companies may be hurting competition and intentionally stifling the free exchange of ideas on their platforms,” said Justice Department spokesman Devin O’Malley in an email.
It’s not clear exactly if the Justice Department is pushing for regulation or actively investigating the platforms for issues relating to competition — or antitrust.
end quotes
Now, while that is interesting as background, with respect to this subject, the following from that TechCrunch article is quite revealing, to wit:
Social media companies aren’t covered under U.S. free speech laws — like the First Amendment — but have long said they support free speech and expression across their platforms, including for users in parts of the world where freedom of speech is more restrictive.
end quotes
So what happens when social media companies like Tapatalk, Inc. from China where freedom of speech is quite a bit more restrictive gain control of social media companies in this country like Zetaboards where the First Amendment was at least paid lip service to?
And as I leave that question hanging for the moment, we also have a Marketwatch article entitled “Kudlow says White House ‘taking a look’ at regulating Google searches” by Robert Schroeder published Aug. 28, 2018, as follows:
Larry Kudlow, President Donald Trump’s top economic adviser, said Tuesday the administration is “taking a look” at whether Google searches should be regulated, hours after Trump complained on Twitter about search results.
In a pair of morning tweets, the president said Alphabet Inc.’s Google search results for “Trump News” showed only “the viewing/reporting of Fake News Media.”
The origin of the president’s complaints appears to be an article from the right-wing blog PJ Media headlined “96 Percent of Google Search Results for ‘Trump’ News Are from Liberal Media Outlets.”
Google spokesperson Riva Sciuto said “search is not used to set a political agenda and we don’t bias our results toward any political ideology.”
In his tweets, Trump said “Illegal?” and wrote that the company is “controlling what we can & cannot see.”
“This is a very serious situation—will be addressed!”
Neither Trump nor Kudlow gave specifics of how the administration would address the issue.
The White House did not immediately respond to request for comment.
“We’ll let you know,” Kudlow said in a brief appearance outside the White House.
“When Google returns search hits that you don’t like, that doesn’t make it illegal,” Professor Ari Waldman of New York Law School told MarketWatch.
Google’s Sciuto said, “every year, we issue hundreds of improvements to our algorithms to ensure they surface high-quality content in response to users’ queries.”
“We continually work to improve Google Search and we never rank search results to manipulate political sentiment.”
end quotes
So as we can see, this is a story that is just developing.
Where is it going to take us?
All I can say is, please stay tuned, and we shall see.
Paul Plante says
And as we here in the United States of America continue to ponder the question of alleged foreign interference with our supposed “democracy” in this country, and the role the “press” and/or the “media” play in that foreign interference, according to a Wall Street Journal article entitled “Trump to OK sanctions against foreigners who interfere in U.S. elections” by Dustin Volz and Courtney McBride published Sept 11, 2018, President Donald Trump was expected to sign an executive order as soon as Wednesday, September 12, 2018 that would authorize sanctions against foreigners who attempt to interfere in American elections, according to three people familiar with the matter.
According to the Wall Street Journal, the order was described by a U.S. official familiar with its drafting as “another tool in the tool kit” to deter election interference by foreign adversaries.
“This is not a single solution, but it makes a clear statement by the president that this sort of activity will not be tolerated and will be punished,” the official said.
end quotes
But which sort of activity will not be tolerated and will be punished?
And which “foreign adversaries” is Trump referring to with the order authorizing sanctions against foreigners who attempt to interfere in American elections?
And how does Trump measure or define an “attempt to interfere in American elections?”
Many questions, but few answers, or more like no answers, at all.
Does Trump consider foreign corporate control of media in America today to be an attempt to interfere in American elections where social media companies in America regardless of ownership aren’t covered under U.S. free speech laws like the First Amendment?
And what about the ownership of social media platforms like the former Zetaboards here in America which once had millions of site owners, according to Zetaboards’ propaganda, but has since been taken over by Chinese firm Tapatalk, Inc.?
Does Trump consider that take-over to be an “attempt to interfere in American elections?”
Is he even aware of it?
And should he be?
Please stay tuned, and we shall explore those questions further as we head into this year’s mid-term elections.
Paul Plante says
And here I am forced to have to admit that when I read in the Wall Street Journal article entitled “Trump to OK sanctions against foreigners who interfere in U.S. elections” by Dustin Volz and Courtney McBride published Sept 11, 2018, that Trump is going to “authorize sanctions against foreigners who attempt to interfere in American elections,” I find myself clueless as an American citizen as to what Trump might be referring to, or is talking about with the phrase “attempt to interfere in American elections.”
If one considers the word “attempt” as a verb, which is how Trump appears to use the word in his executive order, where “attempt” as a verb means to “make an effort to achieve or complete something, typically a difficult task or action,” as in “Hillary Clinton attempted a comeback in 2016,” what Trump is saying is that he will impose sanctions against foreigners who make an effort to achieve or complete the difficult task or action of interfering in American elections, which is all well and good.
But what foreigners?
Does he mean people in other countries?
Or does he include people who are from a foreign country who happen to be residing here in the United States of America?
And what about foreign money entering this country to influence our thoughts about our elections?
And that thought brings us right back to Facebook, which was started with venture capital funds from Accel, formerly known as Accel Partners, an American venture capital firm that works with startups in seed, early and growth-stage investments, with offices in Palo Alto, California and San Francisco, California, and with additional operating funds in London, India and China (through a partnership with International Data Group (IDG-Accel)).
With respect to Facebook’s corporate control of our thought here in America, and its alleged role in election meddling, I clearly recall a Cape Charles Mirror article some time back which I have been unable to retrieve about Facebook’s corporate censorship of the Sacramento Bee, which takes us to a Sacramento Bee article about Facebook entitled “If Facebook won’t protect privacy, Congress must step in” by the Sacramento Bee Editorial Board on April 09, 2018, as follows:
In a defining moment for Facebook, CEO Mark Zuckerberg goes before Congress on Tuesday to admit the social media giant failed to protect users and American democracy – and to promise significant changes.
end quotes
Now, there we have a real pregnant statement in front of us where we are told that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg was ready to admit to the Congress of the American people that the social media giant failed to protect American democracy.
How so?
How exactly was it that social media giant Facebook failed to protect American democracy?
And what role did corporate of foreign money invested in Facebook have to do with that failure by social media giant Facebook to protect American democracy?
And if Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is acknowledging to Congress that under his management as CEO, Facebook has failed to protect American democracy, and he is then promising significant changes, shouldn’t we, the American people whose democracy Facebook failed to protect know beforehand what those significant cahn ges are going to be?
Which takes us back to the Sacramento Bee article, where essentially the same questions were raised, as follows:
But given all the damage already done and the past lack of disclosure, can we still trust Facebook to protect our privacy?
And are the fixes too little, too late?
end quotes
As someone who came to appreciate the power of the internet in American politics, especially presidential politics, way back in 2004, when John Kerry was running against George W. Bush, and had a public website called the John Kerry Forum associated with his campaign, I think these are very serious questions being raised in here that are still begging for lucid and rational answers.
Meanwhile, with the takeover of the website or internet platform Zetaboards by Chinese company Tapatalk, Inc, which came to America from Shanghai, China, we are seeing more corporate censorship, not less.
And for those unfamiliar with Zetaboards, according to the internet, it is a forum software created by Zathyus Network, created by Brandon Kopetzky, the same guy who brought America Invisionfree.
According to its terms of service, which no longer apply since the Tapatalk takeover, ZetaBoards stated that they did not restrict forums based on the number of posts, topics, or members, or bandwidth, and never deleted forums for inactivity.
Zetaboards was made public in March 2006, and ceased to exist as an internet platform on 20 August 2018.
Which takes us back to the corporate control aspects at Facebook as discussed by the Sacramento Bee, to wit:
Facebook is facing severe blowback.
Its stock is taking a pounding, losing more than $100 billion in market value since Feb. 1.
end quotes
Think of that, people – corporate control of speech and thought by citizens in America today is a big and quite lucrative business, which takes us back to th Sacramento Bee article as follows:
Still, the world’s 2.2 billion Facebook users are getting a rude awakening: They’re not the customer; they – and their personal information – are the product.
The real customers are the advertisers, or the firms that use that data.
Given that business model, how much can Facebook really limit access to all that information?
Indeed, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg said last week that even if the option were available, users who want to completely opt out of having their data used by advertisers would have to pay.
That’s one of many questions Congress should demand that Zuckerberg answer.
After years of resisting calls to appear, he is to testify Tuesday before a joint meeting of the Senate Commerce and Judiciary committees, whose leaders he met privately Monday.
Wednesday, he is set to appear before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which released his prepared statement in advance.
In it, Zuckerberg says Facebook is “an idealistic and optimistic company” that focused on the good that can come from connecting people, such as organizers of the #MeToo movement and the student-led marches against gun violence.
But it’s clear now, he says, that Facebook didn’t do enough to prevent harm, including fake news, Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, hate speech and privacy violations.
“We didn’t take a broad enough view of our responsibility, and that was a big mistake,” Zuckerberg plans to say.
end quotes
Oh, really, Mark, do tell!
So what does Mark Zuckerberg plan on doing about his failure to protect American democracy and to prevent harm, including fake news and Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election?
According to the Sacramento Bee, Zuckerberg is pledging to add 5,000 more staffers who work on security and content review, which is to say, Mark Zuckerberg is going to make up for his abject failure to take a broad enough view of his responsibility, which was a big mistake, by adding more corporate censors to control what can be said on Facebook.
Is that a step forward, America?
Or a huge step back?
Stay tuned, more on that thought is yet to come.
Paul Plante says
It is interesting that as we consider in here Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg going before Congress to admit the social media giant failed to protect American democracy, that the Cape Charles Mirror is running another story entitled “Leftist Scum: Leaked Video, Emails Exposes Google’s Real Bias” by Wayne Creed on September 16, 2018 wherein is stated “(W)hile there has been widespread angst, accompanied by a bogus special investigation involving Russian involvement with the Trump campaign, actual collusion between left-wing tech giants such as Google, Twitter and Facebook, and the Clinton campaign is appearing to be more the case,” and more to the point of this thread, “(T)hese corporations control so much of what we see and hear.”
Indeed, they do, and beyond that, and perhaps of more importance yet, they control what it is we as citizens are allowed to say on so-called “social media,” which is a real failure to protect American democracy, if we are to believe as American citizens what was expressed in a 1919 opinion of United States Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis that suppression of ideas worked a great hardship on society.
If we do believe that as American citizens, and why should we not, then we can see that by limiting our speech on these so-called “social media” sites, which really exist as cash cows raising money for investors by selling advertising, to include Google, Twitter, Facebook and Chinese company Tapatalk, they are working a great hardship on our society here in America, which is to our detriment as American citizens.
While Google, Twitter and Facebook are all well known to most American citizens, this Chinese company Tapatalk which has entered the United States only recently to take over other “social media” sites in this country to our detriment has largely been beneath the radar.
On a website devoted to the administration of such sites known as The Admin Zone in a post dated May 8, 2018, one site administrator posted this comment, to wit:
Seems Tapatalk are getting hold of most free forum systems, as they have also previously merged FreeForums and one or two others I believe.
end quotes
That was followed up on May 8, 2018 with this comment:
Yeah, Tapatalk bought up Yuku (was ezBoard) and Network54 recently.
They are aggressively acquiring forum hosts.
end quotes
And not only are they aggressively acquiring forum hosts, at the same time, they are imposing corporate censorship where before there was freedom of speech, as I personally learned when Tapatalk took over Zetaboards and imposed those corporate rules on a site I had been following on Zetaboards since 2010.
Getting back to the failure to protect American democracy by limiting our speech on social media sites, another well-respected Supreme Court Justice at that time named Oliver Wendell Holmes rested his First Amendment views on what he called the “marketplace of ideas,” reasoning that because we cannot know immediately which ideas are good and true and useful and which are not, we must let them vie against one another in the faith that after full exposure and discussion, the truth will win out.
Except when corporate censorship is imposed on our speech, then the marketplace of ideas breaks down, with the result that the truth is suppressed and can no longer “win out,” which again is to our detriment as American citizens.
Supreme Court Justice Brandeis saw free speech as an essential aspect of citizenship in America, but these corporate censors see it otherwise..
According to the view of Justice Brandeis, men and women in America have the duty in a democracy such as ours is supposed to be to be good citizens, which means being informed on the issues confronting us.
Mused the Justice, how can individuals make intelligent decisions about those issues without having basic information about them?
How can citizens, which means all of us, judge which side has the better argument unless we can hear both sides of an argument and then join in the debate with facts?
Justice Brandeis thus provided a positive justification for protection of speech, that being the necessity for the citizenry, which happens to be all of us here in the United States of America, to be fully informed about issues and to be aware of all viewpoints.
And that thought takes me back in time to Friday, November 23, 1787, and Federalist No. 10, “The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection” from the New York Packet, an early version of the Cape Charles Mirror, by Virginia’s James Madison to the People of the State of New York, where Jemmy states as follows:
AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction.
The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice.
The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations.
end quotes
It can well be said that the Cape Charles Mirror thread “Leftist Scum: Leaked Video, Emails Exposes Google’s Real Bias” by Wayne Creed on September 16, 2018 is a modern, up-to-date look at exactly what James Madison was talking about 231 years ago at the birth of this nation when he said the friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice called faction, which is exactly what the Hillary Clinto campaign was – faction in America that considered other American citizens to be a “basket of deplorables.”
In Federalist 10, written in 1787, James Madison stated that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.
Two hundred thirty-one years later, here we are finding ourselves once again saying the same exact things, especially with regard to the public good being disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, especially when those conflicts are made one-sided with the aid of these corporate social media sites controlling and filtering our speech, so that only certain viewpoints and perspectives are allowed to be heard.
So what did James Madison mean by “factions” in Federalist No. 10?
Here is his answer, to wit:
By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.
end quotes
With that thought of James Madison expressed, here I will pause for the moment, because in Federalist No. 10, Madison stated there are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.
There is where we will head next, so please, stay tuned.
It is the future of your nation at issue in here, afterall, just as it was back in 1787 when James Madison wrote those words to the people of the State of New York to convince them it was to their benefit to join the union which we see being split asunder in our times today.
Paul Plante says
Continuing with this discussion of corporate control of our speech and thought in this country, which is to our detriment as American citizens, on Friday, November 23, 1787, in Federalist No. 10, “The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection” from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York, Virginia’s James Madison stated as follows with respect to removing the causes of faction in America, to wit:
There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.
end quotes
With respect to the role of “social media” in our politics, especially our presidential politics, which is a fairly recent development, my first experience of it was in 2004, with the John Kerry Forum, and that was most definitely an attempt by the over-aggressive “moderators” of that site, if not the Kerry campaign itself, to give to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests by the expedient of removing their speech if it did not please the Kerry Forum moderators, and by banning the offenders.
Personally, I think that forum was a large factor in helping Kerry to lose that contest because of that tactic, which offended a lot of American citizens and turned them off on John Kerry himself.
Such is the power of the internet in presidential politics in America today, which is the subject of an article on a website called Tedium entitled “The Internet’s First Election – The web wasn’t common in 1992, but presidential candidates notably took baby steps toward the internet that year—Ross Perot in a bigger way than most” by Ernie Smith on 18 Oct 2016, to wit:
For the past 20 years, a familiar trend has exposed itself with the turn of every U.S. presidential election cycle: Each one is ever-slightly more defined (heck, even redefined) by technology, particularly online trends that have come along in the three years prior.
In 1996, it was a coming-out party for the web.
In 2000, the growth of online news began to have an impact on how we researched candidates.
In 2004, it was all about Meetup, as well as suddenly prominent individual bloggers like Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs, whose dogged work in debunking a questionable report changed the shape of Dan Rather’s career.
In 2008, fairly new outlets like YouTube and Politico became immensely influential.
Twitter was around back then, but it wasn’t until 2012 when it came into its own, along the big data campaign.
This year, in many ways, has brought the messy culmination of all these trends, along with a few others (Facebook Live, anyone?).
end quotes
And here we are 2 years later in 2018, with a mid-term election facing us, and another presidential election set to take place in 2 more years, and the culmination of all those trends seems to be getting not only messier, but murkier, as well, with the apparent political biases of these large corporate entities like Facebook and Chinese company Tapatalk gaining more and more control over what can be said on the internet in terms of political speech.
The 2016 Tedium articles then lists five interesting ways technology influenced the 1992 presidential election, to wit:
1 Prodigy, the early online service that directly competed with AOL for a time, launched a 1992 campaign database for users to track candidates.
The effort came about thanks to a collaboration with the League of Women Voters.
Even better, Prodigy allowed you to write your representative electronically.
“If you want to get your view across and write to your representative, you can write a letter on the computer screen,” The Washington Post noted in February of 1992.
“Prodigy will print and mail it for a fee of $2.50.”
end quotes
By 2004, there was a site which no longer exists that allowed you with the click of your mouse to contact every senator and representative in the federal government, as well as TV stations, newspapers and radio stations all across America.
I believe it no longer exists because it did its job all too well.
Getting back to the Tedium article:
2 For his 1992 primary campaign, current California Gov. Jerry Brown innovated by using a 1-800 number to solicit donations.
Sound kind of quaint?
Don’t be fooled: This was a Big Deal in 1992, as it hadn’t properly been utilized by candidates previously.
As the San Francisco Chronicle learned back in 2013 (and I just confirmed), the widely disseminated number, (800) 426-1112, is still active and still owned by Brown, though it’s no longer accepting donations.
end quotes
Young people today with their “personal handheld devices” their faces are always stuck into don’t realize there was a time in America, and it is not all that long ago, when the voices of common, everyday Americans simply were not heard, because no venue existed for those voices to be heard, as is the case today.
And back to the Tedium article:
3 Jerry Brown also used Compuserve to reach voters, but so, too, did the Lincoln Chafee of the 1992 campaign, former Irvine, California, mayor Larry Agran.
Agran, who didn’t last beyond New Hampshire, held online Q&A sessions on the early online network, with Bloomberg noting that Agran would speak out answers to the online questions out loud, while a transcriptionist would type the answers into the computer.
end quotes
By 2004, when I first started using the internet for citizenship purposes related to presidential politics, that process of question and answer was much more sophisticated, although Kerry did himself no favors by not speaking for himself, but instead, relying on his internet surrogates to do that for him.
And once again, back to the Tedium article, to wit:
4 Usenet!
The 1992 campaign was a hot topic on Usenet, the decentralized newsgroup system which is best described to those who never experienced it in person as the Reddit of its day.
There were groups for all of the major candidates, as well as ample evidence that people didn’t like Bill Clinton even back then, and Ross Perot was a hot topic way back when.
(Side note: Many newsgroups from the era are still active, including one for Rush Limbaugh.)
5 MIT-programmed mailing lists: In 1992, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology ran a number of email-driven bots on the campaign92.org domain, allowing users to request position papers for any campaign on the ballot in at least half of U.S. states—which meant Libertarian Party candidate Andre Marrou and Natural Law Party candidate John Hagelin got mailing lists, too.
(Not that Hagelin got any respect—the MIT press release at the time called him “Larry.“)
MIT estimated that the in the days before the 1992 election, it was sending out 2,000 emails a day through the accounts.
end quotes
Not having a computer back then, and knowing nothing of the internet, or e-mail, I missed out on those early days of the internet revolution with respect to American presidential politics, which revolution is detailed further in the Tedium article as follows:
“One little-noticed development that illustrates the interactive nature of modern technology is the use of electronic mail.”
“During the general election campaign, the text of all Bill Clinton’s speeches as well as his daily schedule, press releases, and position papers were made available through on-line computer services, such as Compuserve and Prodigy.”
— Dee Dee Myers, Bill Clinton’s first White House press secretary, discussing in The American Behavioral Scientist, an academic journal, how the Clinton campaign pioneered the use of online communications during the 1992 campaign.
Myers characterized the endeavor as democratizing what would have previously been private pool reports.
“For the first time, ordinary citizens had an easy way to obtain information that was previously available only to the national press corps,” she noted.
“Instead of seeing an 8-second sound bite chosen by a network producer, voters could read an entire speech.”
Clinton later became the first president to launch an official email address—president@whitehouse.gov, of course—and website.
(In case you’re wondering, George H.W. Bush’s use of the internet during the 1992 campaign was much more, uh, conservative—limited, according to the Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics, to emailing policy statements and speech transcripts to bulletin boards.)
end quotes
So all these years later, after Bill Clinton democratized what would have previously been private pool reports so that for the first time, ordinary citizens had an easy way to obtain information that was previously available only to the national press corps with the result that instead of seeing an 8-second sound bite chosen by a network producer, voters could read an entire speech, are we going forward?
Or are we being driven backwards?
Has the internet proven itself to be too efficient with respect to communications between citizens concerning who is running for office and why they should or should not be elected?
Stay tuned, more on that is yet to come.
Getting back to Jemmy Madison in Federalist No. 10:
It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease.
Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires.
But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.
The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise.
As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed.
As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves.
The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests.
The protection of these faculties is the first object of government.
From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.
The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society.
A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good.
So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts.
end quotes
Anyone doubting that has only to come to the Cape Charles Mirror each day to read the comments, and the truth of Jemmy’s statement from 1787 will be very apparent, which is to our benefit.
Paul Plante says
And as we head into the mid-term elections, which are now looming large on the horizon, we have some huge news coming to us in the form of a FORBES article entitled “Facebook Opens A War Room To Fight Election Interference and Bad PR” by Lee Mathews on 19 October 2018, where we learn as follows:
There’s a new room in Facebook’s Menlo Park, California headquarters.
It’s not one of those fantastical lounge spaces or over-the-top cafeterias you’ve heard are the norm in Silicon Valley.
This new room is purpose-built to protect Democracy.
end quotes
HOLY COW, people, now isn’t that something – FACEBOOK is becoming the guardian of democracy here in America!
That sure is something to make us all feel warm and squishy inside – the thought that this giant corporation thinks enough of us as a people that it would spend some of its own money protecting the democracy in America that we all have come to know and love.
Getting back to the FORBES article, it describes Facebook’s war room as being a run-of-the-mill rectangular office space about 25 feet long and wide with its walls covered in displays that stream topics being shared on Facebook, Instagram and public Whatsapp chats.
20 employees — software engineers, threat intelligence and security, data scientists, researchers, lawyers and policy experts — keep their eyes glued to smaller screens.
All are coiled tightly and waiting to spring into action when something untoward is spotted on the network.
end quotes
Now, there is something that should have us all sleeping sound at night – the thought that some Facebook lawyers aren’t going to let us have to see something that they know is untoward, because they are lawyers, and lawyers are equipped to be able to deal with that kind of stuff by virtue of being lawyers, whereas the rest of us are not, and so we might be led astray by something Facebook doesn’t think we should be allowed to see, all in the name of protecting Democracy, which takes us back to the FORBES article as follows:
That actual goings-on in the War Room aren’t a new thing at Facebook.
The social networking giant has been multiple massive teams of employees around the globe handling these same tasks for several years.
What is new is putting representatives from those teams in a single location so they can share, analyze, and respond to situations more quickly than ever before.
War rooms aren’t unheard of in the business world.
Facebook’s war room is the nerve center where the company will wage a potentially never-ending battle against disinformation and election interference.
end quotes
Sing hallelujah, say amen, people, because Facebook is going to make sure that we are never exposed to any disinformation ever again!
To conclude, FORBES continued as follows with respect to the disinformation that Facebook is going to shield us from, to wit:
Facebook has another foe that the war room will help it fight: public relations disasters.
The company has been hit hard in recent years.
Facebook is still trying to close the book on the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
And even as it worked to do that, there was another incident.
Someone exploited a bug and stole private data from tens of millions of Facebook users.
The investigation into that incident is still ongoing.
The company announced this week that it believes organized spammers — not state-sponsored hackers — were behind the attack.
Facebook once again found itself in the headlines for all the wrong reasons.
Then came more.
A group of advertisers is now suing the company.
The allegation: that Facebook inflated statistics about ad views on its network more than 900% to encourage to advertisers to buy in.
From a peak of $215 per share in July, Facebook stock closed the day trading at just under $155.
It’s pretty clear that the company needs to go on a winning streak.
The war room is a step in the right direction.
It’s infinitely more important that Facebook is making strides in the battle against election interference… but stepping up its efforts — and giving the world a behind-the-scenes look — is a much-needed PR win.
end quotes
And there we have it, people – corporate control over what we read about and think about, which is how Facebook is going to protect democracy here in our America!
As I say, sing hallelujah and say amen because it is a brand new day in America, and no longer do we have to worry about some Russian stealing our precious democracy away from us now that Facebook is on guard to prevent it from happening.
Ray Otton says
Kinda funny when you fill up pages and pages of prime Mirror space with quotes from a website called “Tedium”.
Just sayin’, a little less sayin’ wouldn’t be such a bad thing.
But, well, there’s that ole 1st amendment.
What WERE they thinking?????
🙂
Paul Plante says
You do say that a lot, Ray Otton, to the point of where you have that line pretty well polished by now, about saying less, to the point of saying nothing at all, which will reduce the Cape Charles Mirror to just another mindless TWITTER.
GOO GOO UGH OOGA BOOGA!
As to the first amendment, I have researched that very carefully, and I can find no requirement therein that actually requires someone to have to read what someone else has written.
Thus, if someone reads something, even if they find it tedious, being more than say, three words long, like “see Dick run” or “hear Ray rant,” it is an act of free will.
And if you think I waste space here in the Cape Charles Mirror, which happenes to be virtual, think of all the space Alexander Hamilton and Jemmy Madison wasted in the Independent Journal back when with all of their Federalist Papers!
Just saying!
And stop yelling at me about walking on your lawn!
I was on the sidewalk!
If you used the weed whacker more often, your grass wouldn’t be growing over the sidewalk where I would have to step on it to get by!
Paul Plante says
Every morning, I read another of the Federalist Papers of Alexander Hamilton and Jemmy Madison from 1787 and 1788, and I must say, they are a slog, talk about tedious, even though this is my second time around, not only because there are a lot of words, but also, the sentence structure and words used are such that discerning the meaning is sometimes difficult, given that they are writing at the end of a Revolution both had experienced first hand, so their context is markedly different from our present day context.
As to difficult sentence structure, here is a vivid example from FEDERALIST No. 36, “Concerning the General Power of Taxation,” from the New York Packet, an early version of the Cape Charles Mirror, to the People of the State of New York by Alexander Hamilton on Tuesday January 8, 1788, to wit:
The quantity of taxes to be paid by the community must be the same in either case; with this advantage, if the provision is to be made by the Union that the capital resource of commercial imposts, which is the most convenient branch of revenue, can be prudently improved to a much greater extent under federal than under State regulation, and of course will render it less necessary to recur to more inconvenient methods; and with this further advantage, that as far as there may be any real difficulty in the exercise of the power of internal taxation, it will impose a disposition to greater care in the choice and arrangement of the means; and must naturally tend to make it a fixed point of policy in the national administration to go as far as may be practicable in making the luxury of the rich tributary to the public treasury, in order to diminish the necessity of those impositions which might create dissatisfaction in the poorer and most numerous classes of the society.
end quotes
With respect to being brief, and corporate censorship and control of our thoughts in America today, where we have been presented above with the absurd premise that of all corporate entities out there in America, the smarmy Mark Zuckerberg is going to use his FACEBOOK to protect OUR democracy here in America, that one sentence alone from FEDERALIST No. 36 is 173 words long.
Now, consider that here to the north of you, the Hearst publication The Albany Times Union only allows us one occasional response to a news item, maybe one every couple of weeks, if we are lucky, and that response is limited to 250 words, so if the Hearst Corporation was controlling the New York Packet back then, that one sentence alone from FEDERALIST No. 36 would have used up most of Alexander Hamilton’s quota, and when you add the following companion statement that adds some clarity to what Hamilton was saying there about making it a “fixed point of policy in the national administration to go as far as may be practicable in making the luxury of the rich tributary to the public treasury, in order to diminish the necessity of those impositions which might create dissatisfaction in the poorer and most numerous classes of the society,” that takes it up to 212, which would mean Hamilton would only have 38 more words allowed to him to make his point:
Happy it is when the interest which the government has in the preservation of its own power, coincides with a proper distribution of the public burdens, and tends to guard the least wealthy part of the community from oppression!
end quotes
All of the rest of FEDERALIST No. 36, some 2515 words, would have to be scrapped!
But thankfully, Hearst Corporation was not in charge of the New York Packet back then, so the whole of FEDERALIST No. 36 did get printed, which serves to make those of us who have disciplined ourselves to read something longer than a TWEET on TWITTER, or a haiku that much wiser about the fact that the founders back when did not intend the federal government to be transferring wealth up to the ONE PERCENT from the poorer and most numerous classes of the society, which is a clear failure of the federal government to guard the least wealthy part of the community from oppression!
And if the Hearst Corporation was to take over the Cape Charles Mirror and institute that 250-word limit in here, God forbid, we, the people would end up being a lot more stupid and uninformed, as a result!
Paul Plante says
What WERE they thinking, indeed, Ray Otton!
Here’s what Jemmy Madison had to say about the subject in FEDERALIST No. 37, Concerning the Difficulties of the Convention in Devising a Proper Form of Government, from the Daily Advertiser, another early version of the venerable Cape Charles Mirror, to the People of the State of New York by Jemmy Madison on Friday, January 11, 1788, to wit:
The use of words is to express ideas.
Perspicuity, therefore, requires not only that the ideas should be distinctly formed, but that they should be expressed by words distinctly and exclusively appropriate to them.
end quotes
Perspicuity in that sense is taken to mean “clearness or lucidity, as of a statement.”
But then, in his wisdom, Jemmy continues as follows:
But no language is so copious as to supply words and phrases for every complex idea, or so correct as not to include many equivocally denoting different ideas.
Hence it must happen that however accurately objects may be discriminated in themselves, and however accurately the discrimination may be considered, the definition of them may be rendered inaccurate by the inaccuracy of the terms in which it is delivered.
And this unavoidable inaccuracy must be greater or less, according to the complexity and novelty of the objects defined.
When the Almighty himself condescends to address mankind in their own language, his meaning, luminous as it must be, is rendered dim and doubtful by the cloudy medium through which it is communicated.
end quotes
If the Almighty him or herself has trouble making his or her points, luminous as they must be, clear to humankind when addressing them, as I try to do in here, in what is supposed to be their own language, which is rapidly descending, thanks to FACEBOOK and TWITTER into a form of pure gibberish, it would have to be considered by rational folks such as yourself that I would be similarly afflicted in my efforts.
If I were to start leaving out words because my fellow countrymen and women have become too ******* ignorant to be able to read and comprehend words of more than one syllable, or more than maybe three or four letters, there would come a point of where I might as well join the crowd and just GRUNT to get my points across.
Is that what the 1st Amendment is supposed to be about, do you think – to produce a nation of idiots whose only means of verbal or written communication is a series of grunts and squeals and chitterings?
If so, it has succeeded!
And God help the nation for that, is my thought.
Barbara Harris says
Social Media and Plastic slabs of Crack. I am so sick of seeing humans, years 8-80, staring at their plastic crack, as they drive, as they eat, as they walk, as they shop, as they ride bikes, as they sit quietly, while trying to hold a conversation….ect.
Do they realize just how ignorant they look? I would not have a facebook, instagram, or twiter account for love nor money.
You Ants just keep marching…
Paul Plante says
So very true, Barbara Harris, except I never see them trying to hold a conversation.
Rather, it seems they are so focused on the palm of their hand that they keep scratching at with the finger of their other hand that they are unaware of where they are, and who they might be with.
I have seen groups of people, all apparently with each other, or perhaps simply part of the same flock, all focused on the palm of their hands, scratching away with their other finger, trying to scratch whatever itch seems to be afflicting them..
And their posture is terrible, with their head bent forward and shoulders hunched.
There will be a price to pay for that, given the importance of posture to health.
And their minds are being controlled by Facebook or TWITTER of Instagram, or whomever, but certainly not themselves, by the lost look on their faces, anyway, as they paw away with their one hand at the palm of the other – “OH M Y GOD WHAT AM I MISSING, WHAT HAVE I MISSED, DID SOMEBODY TRY TO CONTACT ME, DID SOMEONE SAY SOMETHING ABOUT ME, DID THEY EVEN NOTE MY EXISTENCE?”
As to that Tapatalk I mention above, from the messages I get from that site by e-mail, it took Zetaboards, a professional site where there was an excellent news aggregator site https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/the_livyjr_files/the-daily-news-t5.html along the lines of the yearbooks that used to come with encyclopedia sets back when, the news on a daily basis that was actually printed, and it has turned it into a juvenile gibberish site as can be seen from this message from that site, to wit:
Please remove frown face from private board log in
Tapatalk Support Group – SueR429 I just logged in to my private board, and a frown face has been added to the log in screen by TTalk.
Please remove it.
It looks dumb and new members are going to think it’s not a very grownup group with something like that.
end quotes
I think that says a lot as to where these corporate overseers of these so-called “social media sites” are taking God knows how many people here in America – over to thumb-sucking idiots land!
When Tapatalk took over that Livyjr site I was using to follow developments in the world, especially since Zetaboards had a good search engine, it totally screwed up the formatting, so it now looks like the work product of an idiot, something I as a user of that site certainly did not appreciate.
Corporate control of our thoughts is literally making fools out of the American people.
And no, Barbara Harris, they do not realize just how ignorant they look, because they would argue that it was you without the hand-held device who was the ignorant one.
Paul Plante says
And getting back to this FORBES article entitled “Facebook Opens A War Room To Fight Election Interference and Bad PR” by Lee Mathews on 19 October 2018, where we learn there’s a new room in Facebook’s Menlo Park, California headquarters which is not one of those fantastical lounge spaces or over-the-top cafeterias you’ve heard are the norm in Silicon Valley, but instead is purpose-built to protect Democracy, where 20 Facebook employees — software engineers, threat intelligence and security, data scientists, researchers, lawyers and policy experts — keep their eyes glued to smaller screens, and all are coiled tightly and waiting to spring into action when something untoward is spotted on the network, with Facebook’s war room being the nerve center where the company will wage a potentially never-ending battle against disinformation and election interference, has anyone wondered, besides me, how Facebook can be trusted to protect democracy by waging a potentially never-ending battle against disinformation, when Facebook itself was engaging in an alleged disinformation campaign by inflating statistics about ad views on its network more than 900% to encourage to advertisers to buy in?
Aren’t those kind of shaky hands to be putting protection of democracy in?
I thought so, anyway, but hey, that is just me.
Paul Plante says
Getting back on topic, Ray Otton, may we surmise that you are for Facebook exerting corporate control over what we are allowed to see and hear in order to protect our supposed democracy?
Would you be in favor of this Chinese company Tapatalk buying up the Mirror and imposing its rules on us as to what we can say in here?
Just curious, is all.
Paul Plante says
With respect to the corporate control of social media in America, in this case by a Chinese company named Tapatalk, which is gaining control over “social media sites” here in the United States of America, and its impact on what it is we can be exposed to here in America as a result of the resulting corporate censorship, in FEDERALIST No. 37, “Concerning the Difficulties of the Convention in Devising a Proper Form of Government,” from the Daily Advertiser, another early version of the venerable Cape Charles Mirror, to the People of the State of New York by Jemmy Madison on Friday, January 11, 1788, Jemmy made it very clear that the purpose of FEDERALIST No. 37 was to respond to public comments made by others with respect to the proposed U.S. Constitution, this at a critical juncture in OUR U.S. history, not Chinese history, as follows:
To those who have been led by experience to attend to this consideration, it could not appear surprising, that the act of the convention, which recommends so many important changes and innovations, which may be viewed in so many lights and relations, and which touches the springs of so many passions and interests, should find or excite dispositions unfriendly, both on one side and on the other, to a fair discussion and accurate judgment of its merits.
In some, it has been too evident from their own publications, that they have scanned the proposed Constitution, not only with a predisposition to censure, but with a predetermination to condemn; as the language held by others betrays an opposite predetermination or bias, which must render their opinions also of little moment in the question.
In placing, however, these different characters on a level, with respect to the weight of their opinions, I wish not to insinuate that there may not be a material difference in the purity of their intentions.
It is but just to remark in favor of the latter description, that as our situation is universally admitted to be peculiarly critical, and to require indispensably that something should be done for our relief, the predetermined patron of what has been actually done may have taken his bias from the weight of these considerations, as well as from considerations of a sinister nature.
The predetermined adversary, on the other hand, can have been governed by no venial motive whatever.
The intentions of the first may be upright, as they may on the contrary be culpable.
The views of the last cannot be upright, and must be culpable.
But the truth is, that these papers are not addressed to persons falling under either of these characters.
end quote
As I read those words of Jemmy Madison from the Daily Advertiser to the People of the State of New York on Friday, January 11, 1788, I can’t help but wonder what would have happened if the Daily Advertiser had been under the control of this Chinese company Tapatalk that has bought up Zetaboards and imposed corporate censorship on that site, as follows:
CODE OF CONDUCT – SITE/COMMUNITY RULES
This Code of Conduct – Site/Community Rules (“Rules”) is incorporated by reference into Tapatalk’s Terms of Service (“TOS”), and also governs your use of the Service.
Unless otherwise stated in these Rules, defined terms herein have the meanings provided in the TOS.
Tapatalk may modify these Rules from time-to-time without notice.
We encourage you to frequently check these Rules for changes.
end quotes
Note that those rules are being imposed on us American citizens by a Chinese company.
And note as well that when it was Zetaboards, these new rules did not exist, and each separate site owner on Zetaboards, which was a web-hosting service, was responsible for his or her site and the content posted on it.
Being a web-hosting service, Zetaboards did not exert corporate censorship, but when it was taken over by Chinese company Tapatalk, that changed as follows:
Any material that in our judgment or the judgment of the applicable moderator violates these Rules may be removed from the Service, with or without notice.
The Sites are communities of individuals who share a common interest, and are a great way for enthusiasts to exchange information and learn from one another.
Like any community, the Sites are at their best when everyone treats each other with respect and courtesy.
We want the Sites to be friendly, informative, appropriate, and fun for all users.
end quotes
Note well that last sentence, especially the word “appropriate,” which is defined as “suitable or proper in the circumstances.”
So we American citizens here in the United States of America, and pardon me here if I happen to sound like a “nationalist,” as an American citizen should be, as opposed to a “globalist,” that being one who feels there are no national borders, anymore, so that it is entirely reasonable that our American standards and values be determined by people in other countries like Zimbabwe, or Kenya, or China, are now to be told what it is “appropriate” for us to discuss on what used to be Zetaboards, so it can be “fun,” i.e. “what provides amusement or enjoyment,” for all users, although Merriam-Webster tells us there is another definition for “fun,” that being “violent or excited activity or argument,” as in “insults were exchanged and then the fun began.”
So which is it?
And expecting someone from China who does not understand the use of our language the way a natural-born American does to provide a rational explanation without a bunch of “ums,” and stutters would be an act of futility, especially since Tapatalk does not deign to talk to the “users” except through the rules.
They and their corporate censors are now the masters, and the users the mere servants, all of which has me wondering whether Tapatalk would have allowed FEDERALIST No. 37 to see the light of day for the following reasons, to wit:.
The rules and guidelines listed below explain what behavior is expected of you and what behavior you can expect from other users of the Sites.
end quotes
Again. notice that it is a Chinese company here telling American citizens how it is that we are now supposed to “behave” in our country according to standards the Chinese impose on their subjects in their country, where “behavior” is defined as “the way in which one acts or conducts oneself, especially toward others.”
As an aside, I must wonder here how Jemmy Madison would have reacted back when if a Chinese subject were to have confronted him with his behavior in daring to write the Federalist Papers in the first place as an example of “bad behavior” on the part of Jemmy, because the Federalist Papers most definitely are not intended, as I read them, anyway, and I have, to be “fun,” since citizenship in America, which is the reason I use “social media,” is responsibility, not fun.
My thoughts, anyway, and here for the moment I will rest, but there is more to this story of corporate control of our thoughts in America to be told, so please, stay tuned.
Paul Plante says
So that what happened vis-à-vis our use of “social media” for citizenship purposes, as opposed to “amusement,”, or “fun,” when this Chinese company Tapatalk literally took over web-hosting service Zetaboards and took possession of all the intellectual property that was stored in the Zetaboard servers and made it their property, severely degrading it in the process of stealing it from the Zetaboards servers, while Zetaboards looked the other way and facilitated it happening by giving Tapatalk access to the intellectual content stored on its servers pursuant to its own Terms of Service, which were as follows:
Registering a Board
The first step in preparing to manage a board is to register one.
To do this, you must successfully fill out the registration form here.
Note: Be sure to read the Terms of Service carefully before agreeing that you have read them.
end quotes
Now, as an American citizen, those words and that language are quite clear to me, without the need for a bevy of lawyers to intervene to try to winkle out various arcane meanings that really come from out their ***** – on Zetaboards, before Tapatalk, the Chinese company that now holds hostage the intellectual property that was stored on Zetaboards, the “board,” or “platform” that you signed out from Zetaboards was your exclusive property.
Tapatalk “communized” Zetaboards by making all of that formerly exclusive property on Zetaboards into their exclusive property, and in the process, reducing them from being citizens using Zetaboards for citizenship purposes, into subjects of Tapatalk, and by extension, China, who can only speak as the Chinese master Tapatalk wants them to speak, and when and how, as well, not to many how many times one can speak on a subject, which on Tapatalk is but once.
As to the Zetaboards Terms of Service, they were as follows:
Terms of Service
Definitions:
User: A registered or unregistered person accessing a page on ZetaBoards.
Member: A registered person on ZetaBoards.
Account: A set of data tied to a username created after a user has registered on a forum.
Content: Posts, messages, links, email, uploaded files, usernames, or any other user created data.
Service: A message board (forum) provided by ZetaBoards.
Owner Account: The original member account available when a forum is first registered.
All references to “owner”, “forum owner”, “you”, or “your” refer to the person who accepts these Terms of Service.
end quotes
Now, clearly from the words “Owner Account,” which you don’t need a Harvard Law School degree to comprehend, if someone registered a board with Zetaboards, they owned the intellectual content posted on that board that they had registered, which is readily apparent from this part of the same Terms of Service, to wit:
Content: Posts, messages, links, email, uploaded files, usernames, or any other user created data.
end quotes
And where the Zetaboards Terms of Service defined a “User” as “A registered or unregistered person accessing a page on ZetaBoards,” it is quite clear and readily apparent that all intellectual property put there in connection with that site was simply stored by Zetaboards, which again is readily apparent from these words from the Zetaboards Terms of Service, to wit:
Service: A message board (forum) provided by ZetaBoards.
end quotes
And when we go further into the Zetaboards Terms of Service, the language concerning site ownership becomes even more clear, as follows:
1 Accepting the Terms of Service:
By creating a forum or using an Owner Account, you agree to be bound by these terms and conditions as well as the Terms of Use at all times and to any changes made to these terms thereafter.
14 Forum Ownership:
The user that registers a forum is considered the owner of the forum, unless that ownership is subsequently transferred.
Ownership can be transfered to another user by providing the login information to the Owner Account, or in the event of an inactive account, under the terms of our Ownership Transfer Policy.
When the login information is given to another user you must provide a link to these Terms of Service.
Only the Owner Account is considered the owner of a forum with full privileges.
end quotes
With the literal Communist takeover of Zetaboards by Chinese company Tapatalk, there are no more site owners, period.
Private property is now not allowed!
By Tapatalk decree.
They can go visit their former property, of course, but not with the privileges they formerly enjoyed as a Zetaboards site owner.
Now, they are just another tenant, and the landlord, Tapatalk, now sets the rules, as those rules are in China!
So welcome to the new world order in America!
Out with the old, and in with the new!
Do those Chinese rules imposed on us by Tapatalk favor our so-called “democracy” in this country?
Of course, they don’t.
Is this a case of foreign influence being exerted on our internal political affairs as a nation?
As an American citizen who was adversely impacted by this takeover of Zetaboards by Tapatalk, I would most assuredly say yes.
My thoughts, anyway.
Paul Plante says
Getting back to the Tapatalk Rules now being imposed on the former site owners on Zetaboards, those rules continue as follows:
Please note that the following Rules are not exhaustive, and instead, provide a framework to help ensure that the Sites are fun and informative.
end quotes
And there were are back to that word, “fun.”
Be of good cheer, People of America, Tapatalk is now here in the United States of America to ensure, through the vehicle of corporate censorship, that your internet experience on Tapatalk is fun and nothing but fun, as we see from this following, to wit:
As such, we and each Site moderator have full discretion to address any behavior that we or the moderator feel is inappropriate.
end quotes
And in what country are these Tapatalk “site moderators?”
Are they in China?
And what standards are they employing to address any behavior the Tapatalk corporate “site moderators” feel is in appropriate?
Standards of behavior the government of China feels is appropriate for Chinese subjects in China?
Which takes us back to the Tapatalk Rules, as follows:
Your access to the Sites is a “privilege” and not a “right”.
We and the each moderator reserve the right to suspend your access to any Site for reasons that include, your failure to abide by these Rules.
end quotes
Now, keep in mind that these sites mentioned above were in fact the intellectual property of the site owners on Zetaboards by the wording of the contract between Zetaboards and the site owners upon registering a site with Zetaboards, so before Tapatalk took over the files stored on the Zetaboards servers, the site owner’s access to his or her site was in fact a right, if a contract still has meaning here in the United States of America.
Now, with the takeover of Zetaboards by Chinese company Tapatalk, that rights has been stripped from the American citizens who were the site owners on Zetaboards, which again takes us back to the Tapatalk rules, as follows:.
By accessing or using the Sites, you agree to the following Rules:
User Content – Posting
· Be respectful. No personal attacks.
end quotes
Now, there is one rule Jemmy Madison would have violated with his Federalist papers as is made clear from FEDERALIST No. 38, “The Same Subject Continued, and the Incoherence of the Objections to the New Plan Exposed” from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York on Tuesday, January 15, 1788, as the use of the word “incoherence,” defined as “the quality of being illogical, inconsistent, or unclear,” or the “inability to speak intelligibly,” in the title makes clear – not being respectful to the opponents of the proposed Constitution, and making personal attacks on them for their opposition, as follows:
This one tells us that the proposed Constitution ought to be rejected, because it is not a confederation of the States, but a government over individuals.
Another admits that it ought to be a government over individuals to a certain extent, but by no means to the extent proposed.
A third does not object to the government over individuals, or to the extent proposed, but to the want of a bill of rights.
A fourth concurs in the absolute necessity of a bill of rights, but contends that it ought to be declaratory, not of the personal rights of individuals, but of the rights reserved to the States in their political capacity.
A fifth is of opinion that a bill of rights of any sort would be superfluous and misplaced, and that the plan would be unexceptionable but for the fatal power of regulating the times and places of election.
An objector in a large State exclaims loudly against the unreasonable equality of representation in the Senate.
An objector in a small State is equally loud against the dangerous inequality in the House of Representatives.
From this quarter, we are alarmed with the amazing expense, from the number of persons who are to administer the new government.
From another quarter, and sometimes from the same quarter, on another occasion, the cry is that the Congress will be but a shadow of a representation, and that the government would be far less objectionable if the number and the expense were doubled.
A patriot in a State that does not import or export, discerns insuperable objections against the power of direct taxation.
The patriotic adversary in a State of great exports and imports, is not less dissatisfied that the whole burden of taxes may be thrown on consumption.
This politician discovers in the Constitution a direct and irresistible tendency to monarchy; that is equally sure it will end in aristocracy.
Another is puzzled to say which of these shapes it will ultimately assume, but sees clearly it must be one or other of them; whilst a fourth is not wanting, who with no less confidence affirms that the Constitution is so far from having a bias towards either of these dangers, that the weight on that side will not be sufficient to keep it upright and firm against its opposite propensities.
With another class of adversaries to the Constitution the language is that the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments are intermixed in such a manner as to contradict all the ideas of regular government and all the requisite precautions in favor of liberty.
end quotes
And that brings us to another rule that Jemmy would have violated, to wit:
· Political Baiting. Be respectful.
end quotes
Clearly, in the Federalist Papers, both Alexander Hamilton and Jemmy Madison were engaged in political baiting.
So would that have gotten them banned from Tapatalk, and their political content in the form of the Federalist Papers removed?
And that brings us to yet more Tapatalk rules Jemmy Madison and Alexander Hamilton would be in violation of on the Tapatalk site if they tried to use that platform to post the Federalist Papers, to wit:
Behavior
· Be nice. Don’t be rude. Be mindful of others.
end quotes
Yes, it is nice to be nice, and it is nice to not be rude, and it is certainly nice to be mindful of others, but it is better, when dealing with citizenship issues to be firm and assertive, and sometimes, that simply makes people feel bad about themselves, because their position has no merit when examined in the clear light of day, which is what the Federalist Papers are all about, and such it is.
When that ends up causing people like James Madison to be denied access to “social media,” then we have some real serious problems with our “democracy” here in America.
And that takes us to these Tapatalk Rules, to wit:
· Forum Gangs. You won’t start or participate in one.
· Board Wars. Don’t engage in them.
end quotes
Clearly, such American political hotheads such as Thomas Jefferson would not last long on Tapatalk, nor would Jemmy Madison or Alexander Hamilton, who ended up being the second-best shot in a two-person shooting match, precisely because he was not nice and mindful of the dude who shot him, Aaron Burr, by name, which once more takes us back to the Tapatalk Rules, where we have the following:.
Site Management ands User Concerns
If we or a Site moderator feel these rules are violated, we or the moderator may remove, edit or delete posts, and if necessary restrict access to the Site(s).
Repeatedly violating these Rules may result in permanent banishment from the Sites.
Abuse towards us or the moderators may also result in suspension of your account or banishment from the Sites.
Do not complain about our or a moderator’s decision regarding your post in a post.
end quotes
Thank God Jemmy Madison and Alexander Hamilton got the Federalist Papers published before Tapatalk came to town in America is my last thought on that subject.