Tag Archives: Mark Zuckerberg

The Military Origins of Facebook, by Whitney Webb

Few people realize that Facebook was conceived as a conduit of information to the government and intelligence agencies from inception. From Whitney Webb at unlimitedhangout.com:

Facebook’s growing role in the ever-expanding surveillance and “pre-crime” apparatus of the national security state demands new scrutiny of the company’s origins and its products as they relate to a former, controversial DARPA-run surveillance program that was essentially analogous to what is currently the world’s largest social network.

In mid-February, Daniel Baker, a US veteran described by the media as “anti-Trump, anti-government, anti-white supremacists, and anti-police,” was charged by a Florida grand jury with two counts of “transmitting a communication in interstate commerce containing a threat to kidnap or injure.”

The communication in question had been posted by Baker on Facebook, where he had created an event page to organize an armed counter-rally to one planned by Donald Trump supporters at the Florida capital of Tallahassee on January 6. “If you are afraid to die fighting the enemy, then stay in bed and live. Call all of your friends and Rise Up!,” Baker had written on his Facebook event page.

Baker’s case is notable as it is one of the first “precrime” arrests based entirely on social media posts—the logical conclusion of the Trump administration’s, and now Biden administration’s, push to normalize arresting individuals for online posts to prevent violent acts before they can happen. From the increasing sophistication of US intelligence/military contractor Palantir’s predictive policing programs to the formal announcement of the Justice Department’s Disruption and Early Engagement Program in 2019 to Biden’s first budget, which contains $111 million for pursuing and managing “increasing domestic terrorism caseloads,” the steady advance toward a precrime-centered “war on domestic terror” has been notable under every post-9/11 presidential administration.

This new so-called war on domestic terror has actually resulted in many of these types of posts on Facebook. And, while Facebook has long sought to portray itself as a “town square” that allows people from across the world to connect, a deeper look into its apparently military origins and continual military connections reveals that the world’s largest social network was always intended to act as a surveillance tool to identify and target domestic dissent.

Continue reading→

Re The Lefty Twit Called Zuck, by David Stockman

He looks like a twit, sounds like a twit, and acts like a twit. Mark Zuckerberg is assuredly a twit, and he can’t buy himself out of that. From David Stockman at davidstockmanscontracorner via lewrockwell.com:

We have no use for Donald Trump, but even less for the arrogant lefty twit, Mark Zuckerberg, who joined a conspiracy of Silicon Valley Robber Barons on January 6th to ban a then sitting president of the United States from their social media platforms.

Yes, we know they are private companies. So they can do anything they damn will please, including thanking the Donald for the $160 million of ads his campaign bought from Facebook in 2020 by kicking him off the platform.

But this isn’t really about free speech narrowly; it’s about the malign societal impact of free money from the Fed and the manner in which the vastly overvalued companies in the tech space have enabled the callow wokesters who run them to subordinate profit-maximization to left-wing virtue-signalling.

After all, there is not a snowball’s chance in hell that YouTube, Twitter or Facebook were losing customers, revenue and profits owing to the Donald’s massive presence in social media. The Trump haters were always free to not follow or unfollow him, or to trash his posts if that’s what got their jollies off; and the Trump lovers in their tens of millions actually brought massive incremental traffic to these platforms, and therefore positive ad metrics, revenues and profits.

The abrupt, nearly simultaneous canceling of the Donald’s privileges by all three platforms on the afternoon of January 6th, therefore, is surely a trifecta of the dumbest business decisions of all time. And if it weren’t for the political correctness of the matter, it would make for a classic Harvard Business School case study (which won’t happen) on the corporate harm that results from elevating the extraneous divertissements of corporate executives over the dollars and cents of business advantage.

Continue reading→

Congress, in a Five-Hour Hearing, Demands Tech CEOs Censor the Internet Even More Aggressively, by Glenn Greenwald

Jack Dorsey raised himself up one rung in hell by displaying the indifference to the congressional inquisitors that they deserve. From Glenn Greenwald at greenwald.substack.com:

The repressive objective of the Democratic-controlled Congress is to transfer the power to police and censor political discourse from these tech giants to themselves.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, and Google/Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai testify before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Mar. 25, 2021

Over the course of five-plus hours on Thursday, a House Committee along with two subcommittees badgered three tech CEOs, repeatedly demanding that they censor more political content from their platforms and vowing legislative retaliation if they fail to comply. The hearing — convened by the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Chair Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ), and the two Chairs of its Subcommittees, Mike Doyle (D-PA) and Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) — was one of the most stunning displays of the growing authoritarian effort in Congress to commandeer the control which these companies wield over political discourse for their own political interests and purposes.

As I noted when I reported last month on the scheduling of this hearing, this was “the third time in less than five months that the U.S. Congress has summoned the CEOs of social media companies to appear before them with the explicit intent to pressure and coerce them to censor more content from their platforms.” The bulk of Thursday’s lengthy hearing consisted of one Democratic member after the next complaining that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Google/Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey have failed in their duties to censor political voices and ideological content that these elected officials regard as adversarial or harmful, accompanied by threats that legislative punishment (including possible revocation of Section 230 immunity) is imminent in order to force compliance (Section 230 is the provision of the 1996 Communications Decency Act that shields internet companies from liability for content posted by their users).

Continue reading→

Facebook Blocking Ron Paul Shows Censorship Is Not About Trump, It’s About Suppressing Dissent, by Matt Agorist

When Facebook cancels the foremost liberty-oriented politician in America and a consistent advocate of peaceful change through the political system, it’s nothing more than an unprincipled display of pure totalitarian muscle. From Matt Agorist at thefreethoughtproject.com:

Dr. Ron Paul who has been a champion of peace and liberty for decades was unceremoniously blocked from his own page on Facebook Monday. Facebook claimed Ron Paul, who has long promoted everyone getting along, civil liberties, police accountability, and ending US wars, was repeatedly going “against our community standards.”

With no explanation other than “repeatedly going against our community standards,” Facebook has blocked me from managing my page. Never have we received notice of violating community standards in the past and nowhere is the offending post identified,” Ron Paul tweeted out Monday afternoon.

This happens to be the exact same notice the Free Thought Project received at the end of last year. We never once got a warning. We never once published anything false, and we always promote peace and liberty. Coincidentally, despite not supporting Trump and calling out his crimes and the deceptive tactics of Qanon for four years, nearly every single person involved with the Free Thought Project received a 30 day ban on Friday as part of the mass purge of Trump supporters on Twitter and Facebook.

Continue reading→

The Greatest Electoral Heist in American History, by Ken Blackwell

Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, have laid out a lot of money to make sure Donald Trump isn’t reelected. From Ken Blackwell at theburningplatform.com:

 

AP Photo/Morry Gash, File

The pieces are finally coming together, and they reveal a masterpiece of electoral larceny involving Big Tech oligarchs, activists, and government officials who prioritize partisanship over patriotism.

The 2020 election was stolen because leftists were able to exploit the coronavirus pandemic to weaken, alter, and eliminate laws that were put in place over the course of decades to preserve the integrity of the ballot box. But just as importantly, it was stolen because those same leftists had a thoroughly-crafted plan, and because they were rigorous in its implementation and ruthless in its execution.

Let’s not forget that liberals have been consumed by a fixation with removing Donald Trump from office for longer than he’s actually been in office. The sordid story of the 2020 election heist begins all the way back in January 2017, when Barack Obama’s former campaign manager and senior advisor, David Plouffe, took a job leading the policy and advocacy efforts of the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, a “charitable” organization established by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan.

Earlier this year, just as it was becoming clear that Joe Biden would be the Democratic Party’s nominee for president, Plouffe published a book outlining his vision for the Democrats’ roadmap to victory in 2020, which involved a “block by block” effort to turn out voters in key Democratic strongholds in the swing states that would ultimately decide the election, such as Philadelphia, Milwaukee, Detroit, and Minneapolis.

Continue reading→

Did Mark Zuckerberg Really Create Facebook? by Richard Enos

This is one of the more intriguing conjectures we’ve seen lately. From Richard Enos at collective-evolution.com:

IN BRIEF
  • The Facts:A letter alleged to be written by a Facebook insider who was Mark Zuckerberg’s lover from their freshman year at Harvard brings into question the notion that Mark Zuckerberg was the creator of Facebook.
  • Reflect On:Can we feel that larger and larger revelations from insiders, challenging our mainstream perception of what is real and true, are starting to awaken us from a controlled illusion put in place by powers that do not have our best interests at heart?

An explosive letter alleged to be written by a Facebook insider who was Mark Zuckerberg’s lover from their freshman year at Harvard was hand-delivered to a member of the Anonymous Patriot’s Conclave a few days ago and published on their American Intelligence Media website (aim4truth.org).

For those with any interest in knowing whether or not Mark Zuckerberg is really the boy-genius founder of Facebook and author of the essential computer source code that anchors today’s social media giants, calling this letter ‘explosive’ may even be an understatement.

In terms of its authenticity, AIM said this as a preamble to the letter:

American Intelligence Media has been able to quickly verify that many of the claims insinuated in this “Zuckerberg Dossier” are true and this leads us to conclude that the document is authentic and exactly what it appears to be. The true authorship of this Zuckerberg Dossier is evident to members of the Conclave, but that supposition is speculation and the Conclave does not deal in speculation. Though, if one were to listen carefully to the admission of guilt by Sean Parker (a long-time executive of Facebook) which he made repeatedly before the press, you will hear that Sean knew all about the true creation of the social media giant and its evil intents and fingers the culprits.

Therefore, it is not hard at all to figure out who may have written this expose on Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook evil. You can even see the true motivation for writing this “tell all” about Zuckerberg at this time in history, just as Facebook is facing all kinds of charges, including  anti-trust violations.

From my perspective, I have tried to establish the credibility of this letter in terms of its consistency and its coherence with established facts, as well as with many of the other allegations surrounding this matter. Piecing together many aspects of this story, let’s see if we can arrive at a cohesive whole that appears to be the likeliest of explanations for what is going on now at Facebook and in the social media arena in general.

Continue reading→

 

Complicity, by Eric Peters

You don’t have to be on Facebook. From Eric Peters at theburningplatform.com:

Government, that supposedly necessary evil, is very hard to get rid of. You’re allowed to vote for the lesser of two evils. Never allowed to vote for no evil at all.

But it would be very easy to get rid of some unnecessary evils – among them Facebook.

We can’t vote Mark Zuckerberg out of an office he was never elected to – one he is trying very hard to assume – that of Decider of our thoughts… should we dare to express them… by making us afraid toexpress them.

However, we can decide we don’t “like” him – or his digital authoritarianism – and stop using the mechanism by which he was acquired so much power over us. It’s the most powerful form of voting there is – and at least for now, we have this franchise and would be fools not to use it while there is still time.

We are in a position analogous to the moment which existed beforethe 16th Amendment – or the passage of the equally odious “Patriot” Act. Better positioned, because this time, our fate is directly in our own hands.

We can get rid of Facebook – or at least, put it in its proper place.

If only we will act . . .

It is hard to avoid dealing with Facebook, certainly.

The thing has weirdly and probably not coincidentally penetrated almost every nook and cranny of our lives. It is interesting to speculate how it came to be that so many modern transactions demand – though they still lack the power to require – “signing up” on Facebook in order to proceed. Even dating apps try to make you “sign in” via Facebook, though they are separate businesses and have no other connection with Facebook.

Continue reading

Dangerous People, by Eric Peters

The first question to ask is to which people are dangerous people dangerous? In most instance its to the government and its toadies. From Eric Peters at theburningplatform.com:

You’ve likely been following the suppression of speech by the big tech companies and may have noticed collusion – the real thing, unlike the asserted thing directed at the Orange Man.

The suppression is coordinated and even deploys the same verbiage against its targets. For example, Paul Joseph Watson has just been deleted from Gesichterbuch and labeled – here it comes – “dangerous.”

Just as I have been.

It’s unlikely this is coincidental.

And as in my case, what makes Paul “dangerous,” exactly, is never specified. That would enable him to at least respond, to defend himself and – what cannot be allowed – refute the charge.

Instead, a vague blanket indictment. Which is purposefully intended to be impossible to directly challenge.

The Jews are Our Misfortune.

Anyone remember that one?

It amounts to the same thing, in principle. People anathematized for no specific reason but just because they’re not liked.

Continue reading→

3 Reasons Why Facebook’s Zuckerberg Wants More Government Regulation, by Ryan McMaken

Business people love regulation when they can use it to their advantage. From Ryan McMaken at mises.org:

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg wants more government regulation of social media. In a March 30 op-ed for The Washington Post, Zuckerberg trots out the innocent-sounding pablum we’ve come to expect from him:

I believe we need a more active role for governments and regulators. By updating the rules for the Internet, we can preserve what’s best about it — the freedom for people to express themselves and for entrepreneurs to build new things — while also protecting society from broader harms.

But what sort of regulation will this be? Specifically, Zuckerberg concludes “we need new regulation in four areas: harmful content, election integrity, privacy and data portability.”

He wants more countries to adopt versions of the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation.

Needless to say, anyone hearing such words from Zuckerberg should immediately assume this newfound support for regulation is calculated to help Facebook financially. After all, this is a man who lied repeatedly to his customers (and Congress) about who can access users’ personal data, and how it will be used. He’s a man who once referred to Facebook users as “Dumb F-cks.” Facebook lied to customers (not to be confused with the users) about the success of Facebook’s video platform. The idea that Zuckerberg now voluntarily wants to sacrifice some of his own power and money for humanitarian purposes is, at best, highly doubtful. (Although politicians like Mark Warner seem to take it at face value.)

Continue reading

Shocking NYT Expose Reveals Facebook’s Scramble To Label Liberal Critics Soros-Operatives While Trashing Google And Apple, by Tyler Durden

Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg have no discernible principles. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

The New York Times has painted a 5,300 word picture of an out-of-control Facebook’s desperate and incompetent damage control measures in the wake of multiple scandals.

Based on interviews with over 50 current and former company executives, lawmakers, government officials, lobbyists and congressional staff members – most of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity – the Times illustrates how Facebook resorted to mercenary tactics when it came to combatting criticism over everything from Russian ad-spending during the 2016 US election, to the Cambridge Analytica scandal, to the platform’s blind eye towards corrupt governments using the social network to commit atrocities around the world.

as evidence accumulated that Facebook’s power could also be exploited to disrupt elections, broadcast viral propaganda and inspire deadly campaigns of hate around the globe, Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Sandberg stumbled. Bent on growth, the pair ignored warning signs and then sought to conceal them from public view. –NYT

Continue reading