Mark Zuckerberg called to account in Sorkin open letter

The more outrageous the lie, the better it is for Facebook’s bottom line'" [Los Angeles Times, 9 Novemer 2019]

The New York Times, 31 October 2019:

Mark,

In 2010, I wrote “The Social Network” and I know you wish I hadn’t. You protested that the film was inaccurate and that Hollywood didn’t understand that some people build things just for the sake of building them. (We do understand that — we do it every day.)

I didn’t push back on your public accusation that the movie was a lie because I’d had my say in the theaters, but you and I both know that the screenplay was vetted to within an inch of its life by a team of studio lawyers with one client and one goal: Don’t get sued by Mark Zuckerberg.

It was hard not to feel the irony while I was reading excerpts from your recent speech at Georgetown University, in which you defended — on free speech grounds — Facebook’s practice of posting demonstrably false ads from political candidates. I admire your deep belief in free speech. I get a lot of use out of the First Amendment. Most important, it’s a bedrock of our democracy and it needs to be kept strong.

But this can’t possibly be the outcome you and I want, to have crazy lies pumped into the water supply that corrupt the most important decisions we make together. Lies that have a very real and incredibly dangerous effect on our elections and our lives and our children’s lives.

Don’t say Larry Flynt. Not even Larry Flynt would say Larry Flynt. This isn’t the same as pornography, which people don’t rely upon for information. Last year, over 40 percent of Americans said they got news from Facebook. Of course the problem could be solved by those people going to a different news source, or you could decide to make Facebook a reliable source of public information.

The tagline on the artwork for “The Social Network” read, in 2010, “You don’t get to 500 million friends without making a few enemies.” That number sounds quaint just nine years later because one-third of the planet uses your website now.

And right now, on your website, is an ad claiming that Joe Biden gave the Ukrainian attorney general a billion dollars not to investigate his son. Every square inch of that is a lie and it’s under your logo. That’s not defending free speech, Mark, that’s assaulting truth. 

You and I want speech protections to make sure no one gets imprisoned or killed for saying or writing something unpopular, not to ensure that lies have unfettered access to the American electorate.

Even after the screenplay for “The Social Network” satisfied the standards of Sony’s legal department, we sent the script — as promised over a handshake — to a group of senior lieutenants at your company and invited them to give notes. (I was asked if I would change the name of Harvard University to something else and if Facebook had to be called Facebook.)

After we’d shot the movie, we arranged a private screening of an early cut for your chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg. Ms. Sandberg stood up in the middle of the screening, turned to the producers who were standing in the back of the room, and said, “How can you do this to a kid?” (You were 26 years old at the time, but all right, I get it.)

I hope your C.O.O. walks into your office, leans in (as she suggested we do in her best selling book), and says, “How can we do this to tens of millions of kids? Are we really going to run an ad that claims Kamala Harris ran dog fights out of the basement of a pizza place while Elizabeth Warren destroyed evidence that climate change is a hoax and the deep state sold meth to Rashida Tlaib and Colin Kaepernick?”

The law hasn’t been written yet — yet — that holds carriers of user-generated internet content responsible for the user-generated content they carry, just like movie studios, television networks and book, magazine and newspaper publishers. Ask Peter Thiel, who funded a series of lawsuits against Gawker, including an invasion of privacy suit that bankrupted the site and forced it to close down. (You should have Mr. Thiel’s number in your phone because he was an early investor in Facebook.)

Most people don’t have the resources to employ a battalion of fact checkers. Nonetheless, while you were testifying before a congressional committee two weeks ago, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez asked you the following: “Do you see a potential problem here with a complete lack of fact-checking on political advertisements?” Then, when she pushed you further, asking you if Facebook would or would not take down lies, you answered, “Congresswoman, in most cases, in a democracy, I believe people should be able to see for themselves what politicians they may or may not vote for are saying and judge their character for themselves.”

Now you tell me. If I’d known you felt that way, I’d have had the Winklevoss twins invent Facebook.  [my yellow highlighting]

Aaron Sorkin is a playwright and screenwriter. He won an Academy Award for “The Social Network” and, most recently, adapted “To Kill a Mockingbird” for the stage.

Tweet of the week

“It's just such high velocity bollocks”@murpharoo says the Prime Minister @ScottMorrisonMP “is trying to pretend… that carbon risk isn't an actual thing,” when he vowed to outlaw "secondary boycotts" against Australian companies in the coal industry. #Insiders #auspol pic.twitter.com/H6JFXxFqX4

— Insiders ABC (@InsidersABC) November 2, 2019

Every time Australian lobby groups supporting the fossil fuel industry open their mouths just remember this video

4mins that you *must* watch.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez grills former Exxon scientists on Exxon’s startlingly accurate climate change predictions from late 70s & early 80s...

... and Exxon’s subsequent campaign to seed climate change doubt/denial.

pic.twitter.com/Wo9T5Ep6t0

— Mike Galsworthy (@mikegalsworthy) October 26, 2019

Burke on why facts matter

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0bXuv1Amck&feature=youtu.be

Australia 2019: freedom of speech and the citizen's right to know

In 2019 it is not hard to hear and read evidence of politicians and industry leaders publicly telling blatant lies or deliberately misleading in an effort to deceive the general public and voters in particular.

Often this evidence of lying comes straight from the horse's mouth so to speak - via live radio or to camera interviews. 

Other times the veil of secrecy is lifted by mainstream and social media.

It has become so increasingly common over these last twenty years that it seems that the majority of those who are elected to govern on our behalf at federal, state and local government level now see deception and deceit as being the pattern card of a successful politician.

Indeed, even certain industry and ideological lobby groups are apparently contaminated by this warped pattern card.

The ability for media or private individuals to fact check all the fake news currently in the public domain falters before its sheer volume.

Checking veracity is complicated by the fact that News Corp (through its online/print newspapers & televised news outlets such as Sky News and Fox News) as well as social media giant Facebook Inc (which has a company policy of allowing politicians to lie repeatedly and unchecked on its digital platform) derive considerable income from disseminating demonstrably false information supplied by vested interests.

Thus in Australia, along with the U.K. and U.S.A., we are now beginning to drown in all that fakery and lying - our democratic processes are threatening to become highly dysfunctional.

Whilst freedom of speech is implied in the Australian Constitution it is not clearly spelt out - leaving a great deal of wriggle room for governments of the day to bully both the media and the private citizen whenever they have the temerity speak out against deceit or corruption.

This bullying, which often begins as an abuse of parliamentary privilege, appears to be an attempt to protect those perpetrating ongoing deceit and whatever is the political malfeasance or financial fraud cover-up of the day.

When 'doxing' an individual, phone calls from ministerial aides, emails expressing displeasure or legal letters threatening defamation do not work, these days the next step is for governments to use the federal police to raid media or union offices and the homes of journalists/whistleblowers in a further effort to intimidate.

A growing pile of legislation now exists at federal and state level which establishes a 'right' for government to bully, intimidate, coerce and ultimately silence those journalists, whistleblowers and ordinary citizens who do speak up.

Rather belatedly mainstream media is beginning to express its concerns about the path government is now treading.....

The Singleton Argus, 28 October 2019, excerpt from Voice of Real Australia: 

Meanwhile, elsewhere in Scotty Morrison's Chamber of Secrets, everyone's been donning invisibility cloaks in the all-seeing-no-talking halls of the magical-mystery castle of Hogwash:

Home Affairs is being investigated for its failure to process Freedom of Information requests within the legally required time limits.

Australia's cyber security agency has confirmed it pressured organisers of a major conference to drop two speakers, one a noted whistleblower.

And a report into a computer hack at Parliament House might not be released, even in redacted form.

A week after the unprecedented all-media #righttoknow campaign was launched with the front pages of the nation's daily newspapers symbolically censored with a redacted government document, Coalition MPs and Senators have for the most part lined up behind the Prime Minister and his "no one is above the law" rhetoric, while Labor has used the press freedom push to bash the government (despite its earlier support for some of the laws in question).

Thankfully, there have been some independent voices speaking up, and sensibly, from the cross-bench. And, yes, that includes Senator Jacquie Lambie.

The front pages of ACM's 14 daily newspapers featured an example of a "redacted" government document to highlight to increasing restrictions being placed by government and goverment agencies on the release of information the public has a right to know.

Here's what some of Australian Community Media's leading journalists and columnists have had to say on the issue over the past week:

Newcastle Herald journalist Joanne McCarthy:

"I've spent more than 13 years challenging powerful Australians, including churchmen, who thought they were above the law. Too many politicians, for too long, stayed mute.

"I know hundreds of quiet Australians - women abused and abandoned by our health system, and people sexually abused and betrayed by churches and other institutions. Many were betrayed again when they sought help from powerful churchmen who counted prime ministers as friends.

"The quiet Australians I know were the silenced Australians. Until they spoke to the media and found their voices."

Read Joanne's opinion here.

Canberra Times commentator Jack Waterford:

"The problem is bigger than excessive secrecy and inadequate accountability in matters loosely connected with national security.

"Once we have agreed to restrict our liberties by increasing the powers of those in the national security state, the slippage begins.

"Soon cops and others will have access to bugging, tapping, interception and coercive powers - extending all the way down to parking fines."

Read Jack's full analysis here.

The Border Mail columnist Zoe Wundenberg:

"If you see something, say something. Or so we are told by our government in the fight against terror on our home soil. Dob in your neighbour. Report your colleague. Be the eyes and ears of the government.

"Unless, of course, you aim your telescope at Parliament House."

Read Zoe's comments here.

Australian Community Media is part of Australia's Right To Know, the coalition of 20 media organisations and industry groups leading the #righttoknow campaign. Read more here.

James Joyce

Executive Editor, Australian Community Media

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison caught misrepresenting climate change facts to the United Nations

The Australian, 24 October 2019:

At the United Nations during his US trip, Scott Morrison said that when it came to per capita investment in clean energy, Australia spent more than “anywhere in the world”. Not a lot of ambiguity there. He repeated the claim last week in parliament, but instead of referring to clean energy the PM narrowed the description down to renewables.

Both claims are false, the latter more so than the first.

The Australia Institute decided to look into the claim, which was based on a Bloomberg study which revealed yes, Australia has the highest per capita investment in clean energy of 14 countries it looked at. The Prime Minister’s office confirmed to me that was the source for his UN claim.

Where to start …

I suspect most readers, along with the PM, realise that there are more than 14 countries in the world. Quite a few more actually. You don’t have to be Einstein to know that. Which means relying on a 14 country study to make the wild claim that we spend more per capita on clean energy (we’ll forget when the PM misspoke in the parliament about “renewables”) than “anywhere in the world” is pretty silly. Yet that’s what Morrison did, on the world stage. It’s rather Donald Trump like.

It turns out beyond the 14 countries in that study there are other nations that invest more per capita than we do — in clean energy broadly and in renewables more specifically……

But if the PM wants to crow about something his government has criticised in the domestic political setting that’s his choice.

However it was plain wrong to claim we are first. And unnecessary, given we do so well despite not being first.

When I first flagged this inaccuracy by the PM last Friday in a news package for Network Ten his office were quick to accuse me of being misleading and complained that when calling out the inaccuracy I didn’t specifically refer to the report which showed we were number one.

Never mind that the PM didn’t refer to the 14 country study either in his 15 minute speech. Apparently I should have done so in my one minute ten seconds package. Weird to expect me to cite a source the PM didn’t cite when making a claim the source didn’t make…….

The next tactic in the PMO complaints was to attack the credibility of the Australia Institute — which yes we can categorise as a left leaning think tank. Reminiscent of John Howard’s “who do you trust” campaign in 2004, I was asked (though it wasn’t really a question) which organisation do I trust more: the highly credible Bloomberg which did the 14 country study, or the ideologically compromised Australia Institute.

But the Australia Institute report didn’t contradict the Bloomberg study. It accepted it, simply pointing out it only examined 14 countries. The criticism for inaccuracy was levelled at the PM, who misused that study to claim first place over every single country across the globe, not Bloomberg. So which organisation anyone thinks is more or less credible just isn’t relevant. It is a red herring.

This is just one example of the way political spin doctors try and challenge entirely fair and reasonable reporting and commentary. Or the way some do, anyway. The funny thing is they become like the boy who cried wolf when they do so this way. Of course journalists and commentators make mistakes and misjudgements. Meaning that there is always a place for the media guardians of a PM or any politician to (politely) complain or correct.

But when they do so on flimsy ground, or no grounds like in this example, they make journalists and commentators instantly cynical of the next time they whinge, just like the boy who cries wolf.

Climate Council calls Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison a colossal bullshitter

Climate Council, media release, 26 September 2019:

Morrison's Colossal Bullshit

Prime Minister Scott Morrison has taken to the global stage delivering a speech to the United Nations in New York which was long on spin and short on fact. 

“Scott Morrison’s speech and his claim that Australia was doing enough on climate change was colossal bullshit,” said the CEO of the Climate Council, Amanda McKenzie. 

“Over the winter we saw bushfires burning across Australia while the Amazon rainforest and the Arctic were on fire. A major new report shows that suburbs in Sydney, Perth and Melbourne could experience serious sea level disasters every year on our current trajectory. Meanwhile, on this government’s watch, Australia’s pollution is rising year on year. To suggest we are doing enough is ludicrous and dangerous,” she said. 

“Mr Morrison is out of touch with what is happening all around us. He is also out of touch with Australians who are really worried,” said Ms McKenzie. 

“Mr Morrison told the United Nations that our children have a right to optimism. Perhaps they would feel more optimistic if he started to take the problem of climate change seriously,” she said. 

FACT-CHECKING MORRISON’S SPEECH: 

Morrison statement: “Now, Australia is also taking real action on climate change and we are getting results. We are successfully balancing our global responsibilities with sensible and practical policies to secure our environmental and our economic future.” 

Fact-check: Australia’s Paris target is to reduce our emissions by 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2030. This is one of the weakest targets amongst developed countries. If other countries adopted Australia’s target the world would be heading for catastrophic climate damage. Rising emissions and worsening climate impacts are placing Australian lives, our economy and the natural environment at risk. 

Morrison statement: “Australia is responsible for just 1.3 per cent of global emissions. Australia is doing our bit on climate change and we reject any suggestion to the contrary.” 

Fact-check: Australia is the 17th largest polluter in the world, bigger than 175 countries. We are the third largest exporter of fossil fuels in the world. 

Morrison statement: “By 2020 Australia will have overachieved on our Kyoto commitments, reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by 367 million tonnes more than required to meet our 2020 Kyoto target. Now there are few member countries, whether at this forum or the OECD who can make this claim.” 

Fact-check: The reason for this is that Australia’s Kyoto targets were the second weakest in the world for the first commitment period (a target to increase emissions by 8% above 1990 levels) and the weakest in the world for the second commitment period (a target to reduce emissions by just 5% below 2000 levels by 2020). It isn’t hard to overachieve on dismal targets. The reality is today our emissions are going up and up – according to the government’s own data. 

Morrison statement: “Our latest estimates show both emissions per person and the emissions intensity of the economy are at their lowest levels in 29 years.” 

Fact-check: Australia has the highest emissions per capita in the developed world. It is true that Australia’s emissions per capita have fallen more than most countries, but this is from an extraordinarily high baseline, and has largely been driven by rapid population growth. Even with this drop, we still have the highest per capita emissions in the developed world. Our emissions per capita are higher than Saudi Arabia, a country not known for its action on climate change. Ultimately, our international targets are not based on per capita emissions. 

Morrison statement: “Australia’s electricity sector is producing less emissions. In the year to March 2019, emissions from Australia’s electricity sector were 15.7% lower than the peak recorded in the year to June 2009.” 

Fact-check: This is cherry picking. There are 47 sectors in the Australian economy, almost all of them are going up. This figure of 15.7% is only correct for the electricity sector in the east coast of Australia, not all of Australia. While emissions from electricity are down, and this is good news, this is despite the best efforts of the Federal Government to undermine the renewable energy sector. Also, emissions from electricity production account for only 33% of our total emissions. Overall, there has been a rise in emissions from other sectors such as transport. Australia’s emissions are increasing and have been for five years in a row. 

Morrison statement: “…it is important to note that Australia only accounts for around 5.5 per cent of the world’s coal production.” 

Fact-check: This is spin, as it makes Australia’s contribution to climate change seem much smaller than it is. In reality, if you include Australia’s fossil fuel exports, we are the fifth largest emitter on the planet, after the US, China, EU and India. Australia is the world’s second largest coal exporter. 

Morrison statement: “We are committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030.” 

Fact-check: This is woefully inadequate and not aligned to what the science says is necessary to tackle climate change. Australia’s emissions have risen every year for the past five years, across almost every sector of the economy. The Government’s commitment on paper might be 26-28%, but cheating with Kyoto credits effectively reduces our emissions reduction target to just 15%. 

Morrison statement: “And our Great Barrier Reef remains one of the world’s most pristine areas of natural beauty. Feel free to visit it. Our reef is vibrant and resilient and protected under the world’s most comprehensive reef management plan.” 

Fact-check: In 2016 and 2017, the Great Barrier Reef was severely damaged through back-to-back bleaching events which killed half of all corals on the planet’s largest living structure. Australia’s current goal, if followed by other countries, would sign the death warrant of the Great Barrier Reef.

END

Australian PM Scott 'Liar from the Shire' Morrison caught manipulating and misleading the electorate yet again - this time over the cashless welfare card

"In these trials, we have seen 48% of drug takers using fewer drugs, 41% of drinkers drinking less, and 48% of gamblers gambling less." [Liberal Party of Australia, Our Plan, April 2019]

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison and the Liberal Party are living up to their reputations as a politician and party who rarely speak the truth.

One social media user called Morrison out over his misuse of statistics, as he pushes forward with his plan to control and penalise all wefare recipients by restricting access to Centrelink cash transfer payments (pensions, benefits, allowances etc) by placing these payments on the Indue Limited Cashless Debit Card.

Turns out that hidden in his misuse of statistics is the fact that of those Ceduna and Kununurra cashless debit card trial participants surveyed in 2017 only est. 8 people self-reported a reduction in the use of alcohol.

[https://twitter.com/AusGovSlave/status/1173505356317655041]

The 2017 final trial evaluation report itself notes that there was a risk that participants may only have reported lower alcohol consumption, illicit drug use or gambling because they believed that: a) to claim a reduction in use was the more socially acceptable answer; and/or b) this is what the questioner wanted to hear.

It noted that some existing data sets relied on were for broader areas than the trial sites and could not be reliably narrowed to those sites and, that there was no adequate time series data available to perform robust preTrial and post-Trial comparisons.

The final report also notes that survey did not necessarily gain a statistically representative random sample of the underlying population due to unequal selection probabilities.

Morrison Government's aged bonus just a political shell game

The New Daily, 9 September 2019:

It was billed as an $800 aged bonus, with a million pensioners promised a cash splash under Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s deeming rate change.

But documents released under freedom of information laws to The New Daily have revealed that seniors will secure just $5 a week on average for singles.

The average windfall for aged pensioners is just $249 a year for singles – a fraction of the $800 pensioner bonus heralded across front pages in July.

For couples, the average payment under the deeming rate changes is $3 a week and $156 a year.

Thousands of pensioners not affected by the deeming rate changes because they don’t have investments will get nothing.

Nearly half of all pensioners who receive the couples rate – 46 per cent – will secure less than $130 a year.

Social Services Minister Anne Ruston has repeatedly refused to provide the breakdown of how many pensioners will secure the $800 maximum payout.

The FoI documents reveal that the percentage of pensioners who will secure the $800 aged bonus promised in front-page newspaper reports is indeed a rare breed.

According to the department’s data, they represent just less than 1 per cent of the one million pensioners who are better off under the changes.

The number of pensioners on the couples rate who will secure $780 to $910 under the deeming rate changes total just 191 couples across Australia.

Source: Department of Social Services

National Seniors Australia chief advocate Ian Henschke said it was clear only a tiny fraction of the community will receive the $800 spruiked by the government.

Mr Henschke said because the changes are backdated, the first payment will be more generous in September. It will then shrink back to $3 a week on average.

“They will be tricked because when they open up their payment they will get a lump sum,” Mr Henschke said.

“Nobody has actually got the money yet. What we’ve got here is a classic case of a government not doing the right thing.”

The government uses an income and asset test to determine aged pension payments and the deeming rate is part of the income test.

Seniors have claimed the deeming rate is unfair because it assumes some pensioners are getting a better return from savings deposits than they do because interest rates are low......

On July 23, Ms Ruston’s office emailed The New Daily claiming the data did not exist to explain how many people got the maximum amount of $800......

The FoI documents provided to The New Daily outlining the exact data requested, not including redacted documents, runs to more than 30 pages.

Previous freedom of information requests lodged by The New Daily revealed hundreds of pages of emailed correspondence back and forth between the minister’s office and the department over the original request for the information on how many pensioners get the $800.

Scott Morrison and News Corp need fact checking - again!

The Australian Labor Party released its dividend imputation policy in 2018 and began to come under sustained political attack by the Morrison Government and News Corp with claims that there was a $10 billion dollar hole in Labor’s costing of its policy.

On 18 June 2018 the Parliamentary Budget Office issued a media release:

Imputation credits policy costing

Earlier today, comments have been made about the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) estimates of the gains to revenue that may flow from the Australian Labor Party’s (ALP’s) policy to make imputation credits non-refundable.

“The PBO brings our best professional judgement to the independent policy costing advice we provide.  We have access to the same data and economic parameters as The Treasury and draw upon similar information in forming our judgements,” Parliamentary Budget Officer Jenny Wilkinson stated today.

“We stand behind the PBO estimates that have been published by the ALP in relation to this policy, noting that all policy costings, no matter who they are prepared by, are subject to uncertainty.”  In its advice, the PBO is explicit about the judgements and uncertainties associated with individual policy costings.

The PBO confirms that it always takes into account current and future policy commitments, as well as behavioural changes, in its policy costings.  In this case, as outlined at the recent Senate Estimates hearings, these included the superannuation changes announced in the 2016–17 Budget and the scheduled company tax cuts.  In addition, the PBO explicitly assumed that there would be significant behavioural changes that would flow from this policy, particularly for trustees of self-managed superannuation funds. 

The PBO was established as an independent institution in 2012 with broad support from the Parliament.  A key rationale for the formation of the PBO was to develop a more level playing field, by providing independent and unbiased advice to all parliamentarians about the estimated fiscal cost of policy proposals.  The purpose of establishing the PBO was to improve the public’s understanding of, and confidence in, policy costings and enable policy debates to focus on the merits of alternative policy proposals. 

Ten months later on 25 April 2019 News Corp’s The Daily Examiner ran an article on page 8 concerning Labor’s dividend imputation policy which stated:

The independent Parliamentary Budget Office has estimated Labor’s plan would save $7 billion less over a decade than the party expects and that it would affect 840,000 individuals, 210,000 self-managed super funds (SMSFs) plus some bigger funds.

Now the Parliamentary Budget Office publishes the requests for information it receives, including requests for policy implications and costings, however there appears to be no new request for information and costings on Labor’s dividend imputation policy on its website.

Morrison & Co have been caught out misrepresenting the source of their costings before and even flat out lying on occasion, so one has to suspect the veracity of their latest attack on this particular policy.

It's just as likely costings and other figures were done on the back of an envelope by Morrison or Frydenberg.

PROPAGANDA: When Murdoch media asset joins with a hard right lobby group & inhouse commentator to run a line from the Liberal-Nationals election campaign playbook

“It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.” [Attributed to Joseph Goebbels, German Third Reich Minister for Propaganda 1933-1945]

Daniel Wild: I think the Greens are much more extreme and a much greater threat to the Australian way of life than One Nation. Why hasn’t anyone from the Labor Party come out saying the Greens are a threat and they will preference them last?

MORE: https://t.co/SHDZ2CeIUB pic.twitter.com/Pil7kKm0pC

— Sky News Australia (@SkyNewsAust) March 29, 2019

.@GemmaTognini: The Greens are drunk on their own urine. Thousands of jobs would be lost if their renewable energy targets were met. They are reckless and so ideologically driven that they don’t care about the implications of their policies.

MORE: https://t.co/eus3trsWJH pic.twitter.com/nsHtgUixMI

— Sky News Australia (@SkyNewsAust) March 29, 2019