Cartoons of the Week

 

Cathy Wilcox

David Pope

Outages still plaguing social media platform, Twitter Inc. is not paying its California landlords, Elon has a garage sale & announces he is opening the platform up to political advertising in the lead-up to the US presidential election

Twitter, 4 January 2023

Elon Musk's 'faster', smarter, more informative, Twitter social media platform has been displaying the agility of dial-up Internet access in late 1990s rural and regional Australia.

Commencing at around 5am on Wednesday 4 January 2023 the numbers began to build for problems when accessing Twitter via website or app, notifications nowhere to be seen and, problems uploading to the site or having a tweet accepted. The degree of buffering was impressive, as was the alerts that something was wrong and try again.

Twitter's underwhelming performance appeared to be affecting users in Australia and New Zealand.

A Downdetector graph showing the beginnings of the user-reported problem from 2.03pm on Tuesday 3 January up to 1.48pm on Wednesday 4 January 2023 in Australia. 

More people appear to have been reporting problems in New Zealand.

Meanwhile on the morning of 4 January The Guardian newspaper revealed that Twitter Inc. is being sued for over $136,260 in unpaid rent on its California Street branch in San Francisco after Elon Musk's takeover. The landlord of 650 California Street has filed a lawsuit seeking back rent, as well as payment of attorney’s fees and other expenses.

The Guardian went on to say:

The company’s headquarters are located at another San Francisco address, 1355 Market Street, where Twitter has also reportedly fallen behind on rent, according to the New York Times. 

In addition to not paying rent and laying off workers, Musk’s Twitter is also auctioning off high-end office furniture, kitchen equipment and other relics from the past, when Twitter had over 7,500 full-time workers around the world and free lunch and other office perks were common. Some three-quarters of Twitter’s employee base is estimated to have left the company, either because they were laid off, fired or quit. 

Among the items Twitter is auctioning off are a pizza oven, a 40-quart commercial kitchen floor mixer (retails for around $18,000; bidding starts at $25), and high-end designer furniture such as Eames chairs from Herman Miller and Knoll Diamond chairs that retail in the thousands. 

Even a Twitter bird statue (bidding starts at $25) and a neon Twitter bird light display (bidding starts at $50) are up for grabs in this fire sale-style auction reminiscent of the dotcom bust of the early 2000s when failed tech startups were selling off their decadent office wares.

In yet another reversal of Twitter Inc's established policies, Musk announced he will allow political advertising on the ailing platform commencing sometime in 2023. 

It is no coincidence that 2023 will see the contest between candidates seeking party endorsement heat up ahead of the November 2024 US presidential election.

Wall Street Journal, 4 January 2023:

Twitter Inc. plans to expand the political advertisements it allows on the social-media platform after banning most of them in 2019, in the latest policy change by new owner Elon Musk.

The company also said Tuesday that it is relaxing its policy for cause-based ads in the U.S., which are ads that call for people to take action, educate and raise awareness in connection with the following categories: civic engagement, economic growth, environmental stewardship or social-equity causes.

In the coming weeks, the company said it would "align our advertising policy with that of TV and other media outlets," according to tweets from the Twitter Safety account. It didn't specify what that means and said it would "share more details as this work progresses." Twitter didn't respond to a request for comment.

Twitter largely banned political ads in November 2019, taking the opposite approach of social-media competitor Facebook at the time. Jack Dorsey, who was then chief executive of Twitter, said of the decision: "We believe political message reach should be earned, not bought."

The policy came with some exceptions that allowed for ads in support of certain politics-related topics such as voter registration. At the time, political advertising represented only a small portion of Twitter's overall advertising revenue.

Advertising in general has been a heated topic since Mr. Musk completed his $44 billion takeover of the company in October. Like many social-media companies, most of Twitter's revenue comes from advertising -- in 2021, roughly 89% of the $5.1 billion that the business brought in was from ads.

Some companies paused ad spending on the platform after the takeover amid uncertainty over how Mr. Musk planned to run the company…..

But as of Dec. 18, about 70% of Twitter's top 100 ad spenders from before the takeover weren't spending on the platform, according to an analysis of data from research firm Pathmatics…..

Meanwhile, Musk's obsession with morphing Twitter into something other than a global social media platform sees this rumour about his engagement with Tesla Inc. surface.....

The New York Observer, 3 January 2023:

Elon Musk has reportedly named a deputy at Tesla amid shareholder pressure for him to resign as the electric carmaker’s CEO after its stock price tumbled 70 percent in 2022 and deliveries missed expectations. Zhu Xiaotong, who goes by Tom Zhu, is head of Tesla China and was promoted to oversee the company’s U.S. factories and sales operations in all of North America and Europe, Reuters reported today (Jan. 3).

Shareholders didn’t appear to think much of the news, as Tesla shares had fallen 13 percent by mid-afternoon.

An internal organizational chart reviewed by Reuters shows Zhu has retained his title as Tesla’s vice president for Greater China. But the new responsibilities in North America and Europe effectively make him the highest-level executive at Tesla after CEO Musk.

The promotion was confirmed by two anonymous sources who Reuters said had seen the new organizational chart. Tesla did not immediately respond to a request for comment….

Tesla’s China chief is rumored to be Musk’s successor

Zhu, who graduated from university in 2004 and holds a New Zealand passport, according to Chinese tech news site 36kr, joined Tesla in 2014 from an infrastructure background. He was credited for growing production capacity significantly at Tesla’s Shanghai Gigafactory, which opened in 2019 and is now Tesla’s most productive plant in the world….

The New York Observer, 3 January 2023:

Elon Musk has reportedly named a deputy at Tesla amid shareholder pressure for him to resign as the electric carmaker’s CEO after its stock price tumbled 70 percent in 2022 and deliveries missed expectations. Zhu Xiaotong, who goes by Tom Zhu, is head of Tesla China and was promoted to oversee the company’s U.S. factories and sales operations in all of North America and Europe, Reuters reported today (Jan. 3).

Shareholders didn’t appear to think much of the news, as Tesla shares had fallen 13 percent by mid-afternoon.

An internal organizational chart reviewed by Reuters shows Zhu has retained his title as Tesla’s vice president for Greater China. But the new responsibilities in North America and Europe effectively make him the highest-level executive at Tesla after CEO Musk.

The promotion was confirmed by two anonymous sources who Reuters said had seen the new organizational chart. Tesla did not immediately respond to a request for comment….

Tesla’s China chief is rumored to be Musk’s successor

Zhu, who graduated from university in 2004 and holds a New Zealand passport, according to Chinese tech news site 36kr, joined Tesla in 2014 from an infrastructure background. He was credited for growing production capacity significantly at Tesla’s Shanghai Gigafactory, which opened in 2019 and is now Tesla’s most productive plant in the world….

Facebook Inc flouts US state political campaign finance laws yet again

The arrogance of Facebook Inc. apparently includes breaking the law repeatedly. 

Washington State, Office of the Attorney-General, media release, 14 April 2020:

AG FERGUSON SUES FACEBOOK FOR REPEATEDLY VIOLATING WASHINGTON CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW

Facebook violated its own policy and sold more than half a million dollars to Washington political committees — and failed to follow the law 

OLYMPIA — Attorney General Bob Ferguson filed a campaign finance lawsuit today against Facebook for selling Washington state political ads without maintaining information for the public as required by Washington state campaign finance law. The complaint asserts that Facebook intentionally violated the state’s campaign finance disclosure law, which was first adopted by initiative in 1972 and reenacted and amended multiple times since 1976 by the Legislature. 

Ferguson has now twice taken legal action against Facebook for similar violations of Washington’s law on political advertising. Ferguson’s June 2018 lawsuit resolved in December 2018 with Facebook paying $238,000 – a $200,000 penalty and an additional $38,000 to reimburse the state’s legal costs and fees. 

Facebook subsequently announced a new policy that it would no longer sell Washington state political ads. Ferguson did not request Facebook to stop selling ads to Washington state political candidates. Facebook’s voluntary policy was not required by the consent decree signed by the court. Facebook adopted the policy unilaterally rather than comply with state campaign finance law. 

As has been well reported, Facebook continues to sell advertisements to Washington state political committees – contrary to its voluntary policy. When it sells political ads in Washington state, Facebook fails to maintain legally required information about the ads, and make that information available to the public – a violation of state law. 

Since November 2018, Facebook sold hundreds of ads to at least 171 Washington state political committees. The 171 committees paid Facebook at least $525,000 for these ads. Facebook ran these ads without maintaining the legally required information, as our transparency laws require. 

Prior to 2018, the Attorney General had independent authority to enforce campaign finance laws in Washington state. In 2018, the State Legislature amendment that law to remove that independent jurisdiction and require a referral from the state Public Disclosure Commission (PDC). In February, the PDC referred the case to Ferguson after finding the tech company “repeatedly violated” campaign finance law. 

“Whether you’re a tech giant or a small newspaper, those who sell political ads must follow our campaign finance law,” Ferguson said. “Washingtonians have a right to know who’s behind the ads seeking to influence their vote.” 

Today’s lawsuit, filed in King County Superior Court, asserts that Facebook hosted hundreds of ads in violation of state law since the time it announced it would stop accepting Washington state political ads. 

Facebook sells Washington state political ads in violation of its own policy

Two Washingtonians, Eli Sanders and Tallman Trask, reported to the PDC that Facebook had sold a total of 269 political ads to 12 Washington state political committees for approximately $20,000, yet failed to make legally required information about these ads available for inspection to the public. Facebook confirmed these figures. 

State investigators subsequently identified at least an additional 159 Washington state political committees that ran ads on Facebook since November 2018. Facebook collected more than half a million dollars from these committees, which include both candidate and initiative campaigns. Due to Facebook’s widespread failure to comply with the law, it is currently unknown how many total political advertisements or electioneering communications these 159 campaigns or committees sponsored on Facebook with their collective ad buy of more than half a million dollars. 

Facebook’s failure to comply with Washington law 

The PDC adopted specific rules for digital political advertisers in November 2019. These rules carry the force of law. 

Washington campaign finance law requires commercial advertisers like Facebook to collect information on the sources and payments of political advertising and make it available for public inspection within 24 hours of the ad’s publication. 

The law requires Facebook and other commercial advertisers to maintain the following information regarding ads they sell so that the information is available for public inspection: 

• The name of the candidate or measure supported or opposed; 
• The dates the advertiser provided the service; 
• The name and address of the person who sponsored the advertising; and The total cost of the advertising, who paid for it (which may be different than the sponsor) and what method of payment they used. 

Facebook places Washington political ads and information about them in an online, publicly available Ad Library. However, the Ad Library does not include all the information that Washington law requires advertisers to maintain and make available to the public about political ads in the state. 

Specifically, the PDC identified the following required information that Facebook failed to maintain in its Ad Library for Washington political ads: 

• The address of the person who sponsored the advertising; 
• The precise cost and and dates of payment; 
• The name of the person making payment for the advertising; and 
• The method of payment. 

Ferguson’s lawsuit seeks the imposition of a civil penalty, an injunction requiring Facebook to maintain and make available for public inspection all legally mandated information for Washington political ads on its platform; and reimbursement of the state’s legal cost and fees.  

Intentional violation 

Ferguson’s complaint asserts that Facebook intentionally violated Washington campaign finance law. Washington law allows a judge to triple campaign finance penalties if he or she finds the defendant intentionally violated the law. By law, campaign finance penalties go to the State Public Disclosure Transparency Account. 

Assistant Attorneys General Todd Sipe and Zach Pekelis Jones are handling the case against Facebook. 

ENDS

Facebook Inc. reversed its initial decision and removed an unlawful & misleading Trump political advertisement from its Internet platform

IMAGE: BBC News, 5 March 2020

The Washington Post, 6 March 2020: 

Facebook removed Trump campaign ads on Thursday for violating its policy against misleading references to the U.S. census amid criticism that it has given politicians too much leeway to misinform users on its platform. 

The Trump ads urged Facebook users to “take the official 2020 Congressional District Census today,” but despite the look and language of the ad, they were not related to the once-a-decade national count of U.S. citizens happening this year. Instead, the ads linked to a survey on the “Certified Website of President Donald J. Trump,” which collected information and requested a donation. 

Facebook initially said it would permit the ads, ruling that they were clearly not a part of the U.S. census, according to Popular Information, a politically themed online newsletter that first reported on the ads and the company’s refusal to remove them. Facebook announced its policy against misleading references to the census in December.... 

Trump campaign spokesman Tim Murtaugh declined to comment about the ads or Facebook’s decision. The ads were paid for by the Trump Make America Great Again Committee, which raises money for the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee in support of the president’s reelection.... 

Facebook’s handling of the ads frustrated civil rights leaders and Democrats who have warned that the company’s rules against misinformation are too lax. 

“Facebook has demonstrated once again that protecting its users from misinformation is not a priority, and instead that its integrity can be bought by the Trump campaign,” said Rashad Robinson, president of civil rights group Color of Change, in a statement. “While Facebook has now committed to removing the mis-informing post in question, the damage is done.” 

The Trump campaign ads echoed similar surveys the RNC has mailed out that look like census forms but are in fact requests for donations. Congress has passed laws, including one after the 2010 Census, aiming to curb mail that impersonates a federal agency. 

At an Oversight Committee hearing last month, House Democrats pressed Census Bureau Director Steven Dillingham on the matter, asking him to request that the RNC stop sending out fundraising mailers that mimic census forms.....

Republican Super Pac hopes to defeat President Trump and Trumpism at the ballot box - one attack ad at a time

The Lincoln Project states that its mission is to: Defeat President Trump and Trumpism at the ballot box.

A fascinating aspect to this project is that it is a super PAC* which was created by conservative and registered Republican voters.

It has been running strong political attack ads since January 2020.

This one targets Trump and the evangelical Christians who support him.....

https://youtu.be/yoglNFN5-Js

While this ad targets a Republican senator who voted to acquit Trump of both articles of impeachment.......

https://youtu.be/PgmXzmwaDhU

NOTE
* According to the US Federal Election Commission; "Super PACs are independent expenditure-only political committees that may receive unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, labor unions and other political action committees for the purpose of financing independent expenditures and other independent political activity."

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.

Vast majority of Australians (84%) support new laws to ban political parties and candidates from making “inaccurate and misleading” claims

The Guardian, 18 August 2019: 

The vast majority of Australians (84%) support new laws to ban political parties and candidates from making “inaccurate and misleading” claims, according to a new poll for the Australia Institute. 

On Sunday the progressive thinktank released a discussion paper canvassing options for truth in political advertising laws, following reports of widespread misinformation in the 2019 election campaign and calls from MPs including independent Zali Steggall and Liberal Jason Falinski for new minimum standards. 

The paper noted that truth in advertising laws operate in South Australia, where the Electoral Commission can request material be withdrawn and retracted and financial penalties apply, and New Zealand, where the media industry is self-regulated by an advertising standards body. 

It argues that industry bodies including Free TV Australia and the Advertising Standards Bureau could regulate truth in advertising, preventing the Australian Electoral Commission from being drawn into the contentious political process of adjudication. 

“Several models for increasing the truthfulness of election campaigns are available to policymakers,” it said. “They are popular and proven to work in other jurisdictions.” 

The paper includes results from a Dynata survey of 1,464 people conducted in the last week of July, with a margin of error of 3%, that found 84% of all voters want truth in advertising laws, with support in Labor, the Coalition and Greens all above the 84% level. 

Most respondents supported a range of penalties including fines (62%), forcing publications to retract claims (60%) and loss of public funding (54%). Criminal charges were supported by 42% of respondents. 

Respondents were unsure who should be the arbiter of truth, with support split between the judicial system (27%), electoral commissions (26%) and industry bodies (21%), with 15% unsure and 7% suggesting a new panel of experts. 

The survey also found 90% support for the proposition that newspapers, TV channels and social media networks should run corrections if they publish inaccurate or misleading ads.....

Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook Inc failing to protect Australian voters from malicious or false flag sites

 PHOTO: This sponsored post caught the
attention of the AEC due to
it failing to disclose who paid
 for the advertisement on Facebook. 
(Supplied)

ABC News, 26 February 2019:

It became known as Mark Zuckerberg's "apology tour" — a string of contrite appearances before politicians in Washington and Brussels last year, where the Facebook founder vowed to stop the spread of fake news and voter manipulation on his platform.

"From now on, every advertiser who wants to run political or issue ads will need to be authorised. To get authorised, advertisers will need to confirm their identity and location," told a US Senate committee in April last year.

"We're starting in the US and expanding to the rest of the world in the coming months."

But internal documents obtained by the ABC reveal a very different message coming from Facebook's Australian headquarters.

Just months after Mr Zuckerberg's testimony, the social media giant was pushing back against efforts by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) to identify the users behind potentially illegal political ads.

Almost a year later and on the eve of the federal election, Facebook is yet to bring its new authorisation rules for political ads to Australia.

The threat of political interference on social media during the campaign has become so serious that the AEC has warned Facebook and Twitter they face court-ordered injunctions if they cannot remove illegal political ads.

Facebook's attitude revealed in FOI documents

The surprisingly informal, somewhat haphazard, relationship between the AEC and Facebook is laid bare in a series of emails and other documents obtained as part of freedom of information application.

The AEC contacted Facebook after it became concerned about a mysterious group called Hands Off Our Democracy, which was paying for sponsored posts attacking left-wing groups and political parties last year.

On July 4 last year, AEC lawyer Andrew Johnson told Facebook's senior counsel Sophie Malloch in an email that the commission had received a complaint regarding Hands Off Our Democracy's Facebook page, which "does not contain an authorisation to indicate who is responsible for the page".

"Can you please advise who is responsible for the Hands Off Our Democracy Page and their contact details," Mr Johnson wrote.

"If this is not possible, we ask that this Facebook page is blocked or removed until it complies with the authorisation requirements in the Electoral Act."

Under changes introduced to the act last year, all online advertisements that deal with electoral matters must include the name and address of a person responsible for the ad.

The Hands Off Our Democracy Facebook page carried no information about who was behind the group, and a post on its own website made clear that its members had chosen to remain anonymous.

                                                                                                                    

Facebook initially appeared willing to help the AEC make sure those ads carried the required authorisation, but did not provide the AEC with any information about who was behind the page.

"I passed this along to our govt case work team as an urgent escalation to see what can be done about this page, including whether it can be geoblocked until an authorisation is included," Ms Malloch wrote in her reply to Mr Johnson.

But five days later, Ms Malloch sent a follow-up email, brushing aside the AEC's concerns.

PHOTO: Emails obtained by the ABC under FOI show a difference of opinion in exchanges between the AEC and Facebook. (Supplied)

"The Hands Off Democracy page appears to contain organic user content, rather than advertising paid for through Facebook's online advertising process, and does not seem to require authorisation," she wrote.

"If you have a different view please let me know."

Mr Johnson responded by sending a screenshot of a sponsored post by Hands Off Our Democracy, which attacked The Greens and the activist group GetUp! and did not include the correct authorisation.

"The Australian Greens and GetUp! are against laws strengthening our national security. Why? BECAUSE THEY WANT THEIR FOREIGN DONATIONS," the ad reads.

Mr Johnson said the screenshot indicated the group's page "has (or did have) sponsored content".

A series of email exchanges between Mr Johnson and Ms Malloch followed, in which the pair discussed whether the page should carry authorisation information.

But before the AEC's concerns were addressed, Hands Off Our Democracy's page disappeared from Facebook.

Finally, on August 14 — more than a month after the matter was raised with Facebook — Ms Malloch conceded that the page was indeed paying for ads.

"It appears that this page was removed by the administrator before we could take any action, but yes you are correct — the "sponsored" posts were ads," she wrote….

Australians 'interested in Donald Trump' targeted with ads.

PHOTO: Some ads were targeted toward Australians 'interested in Donald Trump.' (Supplied)

PHOTO: The Hands Off Democracy page also sponsored conspiracy posts about US billionaire George Soros. (Supplied)

Newcastle Herald, 27 February 2019:

Facebook is investigating a complaint from Port Stephens Labor MP Kate Washington who has alleged fake accounts are being used to manipulate the electoral process. 

Ms Washington has written to the Clerk of the NSW Parliament calling for an investigation into the four accounts, which she suspects may be controlled by a Liberal Party supporter.

The accounts, which appear to be owned by local constituents, have been posting in sync with Liberal Party announcements in the Port Stephens electorate in recent weeks.

The Newcastle Herald sent direct messages to the accounts on Monday morning seeking to speak with account owners.

After advising a staff member of Port Stephens Liberal Duty MLC Catherine Cusack of Ms Washington's complaint at lunchtime on Tuesday three of the four accounts responded to the Herald within an hour.

None of the profile users was prepared to speak with the Herald.

One of accounts, which appeared to be operated by a woman who said she had campaigned tirelessly for residents in the Red Zone, was deleted on Tuesday afternoon. 

Another account was deleted on Wednesday night.

So-called social media trolling and claims of harassment, from both major parties, have become common place in recent state and federal election campaigns.

Pollie dripping venom at taxpayers' expense

Federal Labor MP for Melbourne Ports since 1998 Michael Danby may have let his website www.nolibirandeal.com lapse on 14 September 2017, however his venom is still dripping at taxpayers’ expense and is now pointedly directed at an ABC journalist.

Australian Jewish News, via Twitter, 1 October 2017, half-page advertisement

Australian Jewish News, 5 October 2017, half-page advertisement

Danby has a history of attacking journalists:

Australian Jewish News, 14 September 2007 via Media Watch

However, the recent increased criticism might be because Mr. Danby may no longer be hopeful of retaining Labor Party preselection ahead of the next federal election.

The Opposition Leader is not the only one deeply unimpressed by Danby’s attack ads.

Perhaps the party’s over for this parliamentarian?

UPDATE

On 16 October 2017 ABC News reported that Danby took a week's sick leave in 2016 but rather than take to his bed he took off for Israel instead.

Wonder if that trip was also at taxpayer expense?

You're not on Facebook? Why not?!

One of the many reasons some people are closing their Facebook accounts and walking away – excessive, obsessive data collection and the uses to which it is put.

News.com.au, 1 May 2017:

FACEBOOK has come under fire over revelations it is targeting potentially vulnerable youths who “need a confidence boost” to facilitate predatory advertising practices.

The allegation was revealed this morning by The Australian which obtained internal documents from the social media giant which reportedly show how Facebook can exploit the moods and insecurities of teenagers using the platform for the potential benefit of advertisers.

The confidential document dated this year detailed how by monitoring posts, comments and interactions on the site, Facebook can figure out when people as young as 14 feel “defeated”, “overwhelmed”, “stressed”, “anxious”, “nervous”, “stupid”, “silly”, “useless”, and a “failure”.

Such information gathered through a system dubbed sentiment analysis could be used by advertisers to target young Facebook users when they are potentially more vulnerable.

While Google is the king of the online advertising world, Facebook is the other major player which dominates the industry worth about $80 billion last year.

But Facebook is not one to rest on its laurels. The leaked document shows it has been honing the covert tools its uses to gain useful psychological insights on young Australian and New Zealanders in high school and tertiary education.

The social media services we use can derive immense insight and personal information about us and our moods from the way we use them, and arguably none is more fastidious in that regard than Facebook which harvests immense data on its users.

The secret document was put together by two Australian Facebook execs and includes information about when young people are likely to feel excited, reflective, as well as other emotions related to overcoming fears.

The Guardian, 3 May 2017:

For two years I was charged with turning Facebook data into money, by any legal means. If you browse the internet or buy items in physical stores, and then see ads related to those purchases on Facebook, blame me. I helped create the first versions of that, way back in 2012.

The ethics of Facebook’s micro-targeted advertising was thrust into the spotlight this week by a report out of Australia. The article, based on a leaked presentation, said that Facebook was able to identify teenagers at their most vulnerable, including when they feel “insecure”, “worthless”, “defeated” and “stressed”.

Facebook claimed the report was misleading, assuring the public that the company does not “offer tools to target people based on their emotional state”. If the intention of Facebook’s public relations spin is to give the impression that such targeting is not even possible on their platform, I’m here to tell you I believe they’re lying through their teeth.

Just as Mark Zuckerberg was being disingenuous (to put it mildly) when, in the wake of Donald Trump’s unexpected victory, he expressed doubt that Facebook could have flipped the presidential election.

Facebook deploys a political advertising sales team, specialized by political party, and charged with convincing deep-pocketed politicians that they do have the kind of influence needed to alter the outcome of elections. 

I was at Facebook in 2012, during the previous presidential race. The fact that Facebook could easily throw the election by selectively showing a Get Out the Vote reminder in certain counties of a swing state, for example, was a running joke.

Express online, 6 January 2017:

FACEBOOK siphons an enormous amount of data from its users – whether it's monitoring your mouse movements, tracking the amount of time you spend on any given post, or the subject of your photographs……

The US social network is constantly tracking information about its users – however, most users will not be aware of just how much data it can siphon from a single photograph.

Facebook hints at how much data it is able to detect when it suggests people who might be in the photograph, prompting you to tag their faces.

But in reality, the California-based social network is tracking much more than just faces.

When you upload a photo on Facebook, the social network scans the image and detects how many people are in the photograph, and whether it was taken indoors or outside.

Facebook is also able to identify humans, animals and inanimate objects.

It is not always accurate, but the social network is able to differentiate between people who are standing, or sitting down.

To find out exactly what Facebook is reading into your photos, software developer Adam Geitgey has created a useful Chrome browser extension that reveals the data Facebook is collecting from your images.

Show Facebook Computer Vision Tags reveals data that Facebook usually keeps hidden from its users.

The free Google Chrome extension can be downloaded from the Chrome extension store.

Facebook has implemented object recognition technology since April 2016, a spokesperson for the company told Metro.co.uk.

The Verge, 27 May 2016:

Facebook will now display ads to web users who are not members of its social network, the company announced Thursday, in a bid to significantly expand its online ad network. As The Wall Street Journal reports, Facebook will use cookies, "like" buttons, and other plug-ins embedded on third-party sites to track members and non-members alike. The company says it will be able to better target non-Facebook users and serve relevant ads to them…

Some of the data Facebook collects to facilitate ad placements, according to The Washington Post on  19 August 2016:

1. Location
2. Age
3. Generation
4. Gender
5. Language
6. Education level
7. Field of study
8. School
9. Ethnic affinity
10. Income and net worth
11. Home ownership and type
12. Home value
13. Property size
14. Square footage of home
15. Year home was built
16. Household composition

As explained on that shiny new portal, Facebook keeps ads “useful and relevant” in four distinct ways. It tracks your on-site activity, such as the pages you like and the ads you click, and your device and location settings, such as the brand of phone you use and your type of Internet connection. Most users recognize these things impact ad targeting: Facebook has repeatedly said as much. But slightly more surprising is the extent of Facebook’s web-tracking efforts and its collaborations with major data brokers.

While you’re logged onto Facebook, for instance, the network can see virtually every other website you visit. Even when you’re logged off, Facebook knows much of your browsing: It’s alerted every time you load a page with a “Like” or “share” button, or an advertisement sourced from its Atlas network. Facebook also provides publishers with a piece of code, called Facebook Pixel, that they (and by extension, Facebook) can use to log their Facebook-using visitors.

While you’re logged onto Facebook, for instance, the network can see virtually every other website you visit. Even when you’re logged off, Facebook knows much of your browsing: It’s alerted every time you load a page with a “Like” or “share” button, or an advertisement sourced from its Atlas network. Facebook also provides publishers with a piece of code, called Facebook Pixel, that they (and by extension, Facebook) can use to log their Facebook-using visitors.

17. Users who have an anniversary within 30 days
18. Users who are away from family or hometown
19. Users who are friends with someone who has an anniversary, is newly married or engaged, recently moved, or has an upcoming birthday
20. Users in long-distance relationships
21. Users in new relationships
22. Users who have new jobs
23. Users who are newly engaged
24. Users who are newly married
25. Users who have recently moved
26. Users who have birthdays soon
27. Parents
28. Expectant parents
29. Mothers, divided by “type” (soccer, trendy, etc.)
30. Users who are likely to engage in politics
31. Conservatives and liberals
32. Relationship status

On top of that, Facebook offers marketers the option to target ads according to data compiled by firms like Experian, Acxiom and Epsilon, which have historically fueled mailing lists and other sorts of offline efforts. These firms build their profiles over a period of years, gathering data from government and public records, consumer contests, warranties and surveys, and private commercial sources — like loyalty card purchase histories or magazine subscription lists. Whatever they gather from those searches can also be fed into a model to draw further conclusions, like whether you’re likely to be an investor or buy organic for your kids.

Wired, 28 December 2012:

In 2010, while researching his thesis, he asked Facebook if it could send him all of the user data the company had relating to his own account. Amazingly, he got a response.

Facebook was, in Schrems' words, "dumb enough" to send him all his data in a 1,200-page PDF. It showed that Facebook kept records of every person who had ever poked him, all the IP addresses of machines he had used to access the site (as well as which other Facebook users had logged in on that machine), a full history of messages and chats and even his "last location", which appeared to use a combination of check-ins, data gathered from apps, IP addresses and geo-tagged uploads to work out where he was.

As Schrems went through the document, he found items he thought he had deleted, such as messages, status updates and wall posts. He also found personal information he says he never supplied, including email addresses that had been culled from his friends' address books. European law is worded vaguely, but says that personal data must be processed "fairly"; people should be given comprehensive information on how it will be used; the data processed should not be "excessive" in relation to the purpose for which it was collected; it should be held securely and deleted when no longer needed. And each person should have the right to access all of their personal data.