Watch Mark Zuckerberg lie in the 2009 BBC TV Interview

Watch the short clip here.

He says Facebook will never sell your user information. “No, of course not,” he answers. “They [users] want to share it with, um, with only a few people.”

The BBC interview reiterates the questions and Zuckerberg again lies with a straight face.

You are not going to restore trust in Facebook when the CEO is a liar.

Bingo: “If Facebook wants to protect user data, it needs to disclose what it has and let people opt out”

The company says it’s ‘outraged’ over Cambridge Analytica’s actions, but it doesn’t want to stop selling access to your information

In fact, all Zuckerberg said was “sorry”, made “mistakes”, and we take it “seriously”. Not a single action item indicates he has a clue. Indeed, FB is spending $1 million to fight a California initiative that would require European like data transparency from tech companies.

Source: If Facebook wants to protect user data, it needs to disclose what it has and let people opt out

Zuckerberg: It was someone else’s fault, kinda

“I started this when I was so young and inexperienced,” the 33-year-old Zuckerberg said. “I made technical errors and business errors. I hired the wrong people. I trusted the wrong people,” he said.

Source: Mark Zuckerberg apology: ‘I’m really sorry that this happened’ – Mar. 21, 2018

His official statement, posted on Facebook, and the various interviews he is now doing, all sounds like they were scripted by his public relations team – because, duh, that’s how these things work.

Zuckerberg is “really sorry”. We made “mistakes”. He takes the problems “seriously” but gives no specifics, other than hand waving, as to how the root cause problems will be fixed.

That’s all PR speak, not solution-speak.

Here are some ideas that he could discuss:

  • FB will enable all users to see the data collected by Facebook *and* how it has been interpreted in terms of the conclusions they have drawn about us. We can currently download the original raw posts, photos that we’ve uploaded but we know nothing about how Facebook has characterized us.
  • Explain to us who has access to our information, how is it stored securely, and how it is destroyed when no longer needed. Or is it ever destroyed?
  • How Facebook will provide tools for users to control their own data. At this time, it is nearly impossible to delete your posts, comments, likes, shares and photos. Many of us have years of content on Facebook but the only way to delete them or change privacy settings is to review the Activity line and select each item, one by one, and change settings, which various takes several mouse clicks for every single item. If Zuckerberg understood the issues and cared, Facebook would provide users the ability to readily control their own data with features like Flickr for bulk editing or deleting of photos.
  • Do like Twitter and enable us to download the full dossier, including the assumptions being made about us, and a list of the advertisers who have our contact information.

Until Facebook puts users in control of their own data, we should all be extremely careful about posting anything on Facebook. You should never, ever Like a post or comment or page as this is the primary way they trick us into sharing our interests. Once you’ve liked something, even if you unlike it later, there is no way to take back the information you once provided to Facebook.

Facebooks calls itself a victim

That’s a lie:

One, it escalates the emotional tone of Facebook’s response — on Friday, it called Cambridge Analytica’s actions “unacceptable”; today they are an outrage. Two, the statement frames the story as a deception in which Facebook was not the bad actor but the victim. Three, it buys the company time amid growing demands to hear from Zuckerberg himself.

Source: Mark Zuckerberg is ‘working around the clock’ on the Cambridge Analytica controversy, Facebook says – The Verge

One of the co-founders of Cambridge Analytica is now an employee of Facebook.

The medium is the problem, not the messages.

Am guessing we never hear another word about “Russia hacked the election” after today

Cambridge Analytica:

  • The full scale of their pivotal work in Trump’s election win

  • How they avoid Congressional investigations into their foreign clients

  • Setting up proxy organisations to feed untraceable messages onto social media

  • Using a secret email system where messages self-destruct and leave no trace

  • Cambridge Analytica’s involvement in the “Defeat Crooked Hilary” brand of attack ads

Source: Exposed: Undercover secrets of Trump’s data firm – Channel 4 News

Cambridge Analytica is claiming they threw the election for Trump, using potentially stolen personal data on 50 million Americans and social media propaganda.

I am thinking a very large number of Americans may want to consider deleting their Facebook accounts.

That’s a lie: Facebook says you own and control all of your data

The reality is: Your data actually belongs to Facebook, and the company will enrich itself by doing with it whatever it pleases, as the scandal involving the Trump campaign shows.

And you do not have any control over what they have collected, including who they share it with and how it is used.

Source: Facebook says you ‘own’ all the data you post. Not even close, say privacy experts

Cambridge Analytica is a sophisticated, social media-based propaganda operation

Cambridge Analytica is a very sophisticated, social media-based, propaganda operation:

The plot thickened when I learned that a company called Cambridge Analytica secretly registered in 2013 to influence U.S. elections. They sent a psych student named Aleksandr Kogan to buy Kosinski’s and Stillwell’s information gathering techniques. But when Kogan was turned down, he moved to Singapore and changed his name to Dr. Spectre, while Cambridge Analytica copied the inventors’ highly efficient people search engine model and used it for sinister use.

Instead of blanket advertising, Cambridge Analytica individually and covertly targeted voters of a precise age, opinion, preference, and voting district with “dark post” newsfeed messages specifically designed to sway their votes, according to an article titled “The Secret Agenda of a Facebook Quiz,” which appeared in the New York Times. Its mother company, Strategic Communication Laboratories (SCL), was the foremost election management agency. They conducted “psyops,” psychological operations of mass propaganda aimed at people’s emotions, to “manage” elections and refine their operations in Nigeria, Nepal, the Ukraine, Eastern Europe, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.


Source: The key to the kingdom: psychometrics – The Mountain Times

Fake web site and social media alleges new Spectre/Meltdown-like security holes in computer processors; but it is a hoax

The hoaxers largely copied the original Spectre and Meltdown web sites, changed a few things, and then put out a release that new security problems were found in computer processors, with details embargoed until patches were available.

Source: TaoSecurity: Lies and More Lies

The Internet, with the help of social media, is becoming so overrun with nonsense, hype and hoaxes that our ability to distinguish good information from bad is becoming challenged.

It’s the medium, not the message that is the problem

Hoaxers impersonate legitimate reporters

In the first incident, a perpetrator used a software tool to create two fake tweets that looked like they came from the account of Alex Harris, a Herald reporter preparing tributes to the slain students. One fake tweet asked for photos of dead bodies at the school and another asked if the shooter was white.

The reporter almost immediately began getting angry messages.

Source: Hoax attempts against Miami Herald augur broader information wars | McClatchy Washington Bureau

Hoaxers also created a fake Miami Herald news story that got shared online. Read the whole story.

“I think it’s part of this larger evolving system of misinformation,” said Aviv Ovadya, chief technologist at the Center for Social Media Responsibility at the University of Michigan’s School of Information. “This is sort of the very, very beginning of something that could be much darker.”

The future will bring hoaxes that far surpass fake tweets and screenshots of fake stories, Ovadya said, noting that “fake video is just about here,” with tools that will make it easy even for amateurs to create images that are totally false but look real.

It’s the medium, not the message that is the problem.

This is social media.

Interesting example of how propaganda messaging lives forever and is recycled

The senator [Sanders] from Vermont says 40 percent of guns are sold without a background check.

The Washington Post notes the figure came from a small survey in 1993/1994 before major changes in gun laws. The latest data indicate it is 13%, not 40%. But remember, the first propaganda message someone hears is the one that sticks – undoubtedly this figure has stuck with Sanders for a quarter century.

Source: Bernie Sanders resurrects a ‘zombie’ claim on gun sales without background checks – The Washington Post

This works as propaganda due to its “Appeal to Authority” (Bernie Sanders says) and its quotation of numbers. Quoting numbers lends legitimacy to messaging. They do not even need to be correct. A friend who once worked in sales said he frequently made up numbers while meeting with potential customers: 70% of our customers see increased productivity!

Bernie Sanders has done this before too – using old data that is no longer true to assert his point. He does this because this is an effective way to propagandize targets – it combines assertion, appeal to authority, and lying. The lie has plausible deniability because the claim was at least true once upon a time in the past. Because targets may remember the old, but no longer correct number, the assertion sounds believable.

Disclaimer: This post is not pro- or anti-gun control efforts. This post is about a common propaganda method using assertion, appeal to authority, the use of a number to lend authenticity and using out of date data. An online political survey I took in 2016 said  Sander’s campaign platform mostly closely matched the issues of interest to me. I did not vote for him because I did not belong to a political party and was not eligible to vote in the 2016 primary election.