Thursday 2 August 2018
Just how lazy is US President Donald J Trump?
On 30 July
2018 US President Donald J. Trump
decided to share with the world at a prodigious rate.
Ten ranting tweets in
two and a half hours about people, newspapers and law enforcemnt agencies on his personal enimies list.
When the media - driven
insane by their Trump Derangement Syndrome - reveals internal deliberations of
our government, it truly puts the lives of many, not just journalists, at risk!
Very unpatriotic! Freedom of the press also comes with a responsibility to
report the news...
...accurately. 90% of
media coverage of my Administration is negative, despite the tremendously positive
results we are achieving, it’s no surprise that confidence in the media is at
an all time low! I will not allow our great country to be sold out by
anti-Trump haters in the...
...dying newspaper
industry. No matter how much they try to distract and cover it up, our country is
making great progress under my leadership and I will never stop fighting for
the American people! As an example, the failing New York Times...
...dying newspaper
industry. No matter how much they try to distract and cover it up, our country is
making great progress under my leadership and I will never stop fighting for
the American people! As an example, the failing New York Times...
...dying newspaper
industry. No matter how much they try to distract and cover it up, our country is
making great progress under my leadership and I will never stop fighting for
the American people! As an example, the failing New York Times...
...dying newspaper
industry. No matter how much they try to distract and cover it up, our country is
making great progress under my leadership and I will never stop fighting for
the American people! As an example, the failing New York Times...
...and the Amazon
Washington Post do nothing but write bad stories even on very positive
achievements - and they will never change!
There is No Collusion!
The Robert Mueller Rigged Witch Hunt, headed now by 17 (increased from 13,
including an Obama White House lawyer) Angry Democrats, was started by a
fraudulent Dossier, paid for by Crooked Hillary and the DNC. Therefore, the
Witch Hunt is an illegal Scam!
Is Robert Mueller ever
going to release his conflicts of interest with respect to President Trump,
including the fact that we had a very nasty & contentious business
relationship, I turned him down to head the FBI (one day before appointment as
S.C.) & Comey is his close friend..
....Also, why is Mueller
only appointing Angry Dems, some of whom have worked for Crooked Hillary,
others, including himself, have worked for Obama....And why isn’t Mueller
looking at all of the criminal activity & real Russian Collusion on the
Democrats side-Podesta, Dossier?
This is a man who has been on Twitter for almost the entire 559 days of his presidency, on the golf course for about 24 per cent of those days and has also attended approximately 21 self-promotional rallies since his inauguration.
Where is he finding time to do the job he was elected to do?
On an average day he reportedly doesn't start his working day until 11am, takes an hour of private time before sitting down to an hour long lunch hour and is back in his residence by 6pm - that's just five hours a day at his desk on days he is not golfing or attending rallies.
Labels:
Donald Trump,
US politics
Wednesday 1 August 2018
Turnbull Government prepares an end run around the Australian electorate?
In 1986 the Federal
Government couldn’t get the national electorate to accept the Australia
Card, a national identity card to be carried by all citizens.
Likewise in 2007 the wider electorate rejected the proposed Access Card, a national identity card with a unique personal identification number, which was to be linked to a centralised database expected to contain an unprecedented amount of personal and other information.
Federal Government also failed to have everyone embrace the idea of MyGov, a data sharing, one-stop digital portal for access to government services created in 2013. To date only 11.5 million people out of a population of over 24.9 million hold an account with MyGov.
Likewise in 2007 the wider electorate rejected the proposed Access Card, a national identity card with a unique personal identification number, which was to be linked to a centralised database expected to contain an unprecedented amount of personal and other information.
Federal Government also failed to have everyone embrace the idea of MyGov, a data sharing, one-stop digital portal for access to government services created in 2013. To date only 11.5 million people out of a population of over 24.9 million hold an account with MyGov.
When after three and a half years the
populace did not register in sufficient numbers for the so-called Personally Controlled Electronic Health
Record (PCEHR), an intrusive opt-in data retention system, government
changed tack.
It relabelled
PCEHR as My Health Record (MHR) in 2016 and broadened the number of agencies
which could access an individual’s personal/health information. Decreeing it would become
a mandatory data collection system applied to the entire Australian population,
with only a short an opt-out period prior to full program implementation1.
However, it
seems that the Turnbull Federal Government expects around 1.9 million people to
opt-out of or cancel their My Heath
Record in the next two months. Possibly with more cancellations to occur in
the future, as privacy and personal safety become issues due to the inevitable
continuation of MHR data breaches and the occurrence of unanticipated software vulnerabilities/failures.
So Turnbull
and his Liberal and Nationals cronies have a backup in place in 2018 called the Data
Sharing and Release Bill, which Introduces legislation to improve the
use and reuse of public sector data within government and with private
corporations outside of government, as well as granting access to and the
sharing of data on individuals and businesses that is currently otherwise prohibited.
The bill
also allows for the sharing of transaction, usage and product data
with service competitors and comparison services. An as yet unrealised provision which is currently being wrapped up in a pretty bow and called a consumer right - but one that is likely to be abused by the banking, finance, insurance, electricity/gas industry sectors.
The bill appears to override the federal privacy act where provisions are incompatible.
The bill appears to override the federal privacy act where provisions are incompatible.
This is a
bill voters have yet to see, because the Turnbull Government has not seen fit
to publish the bill’s full text. Only an
issues paper is available at present.
Notes:
1. Federal Government may have succeeded in retaining the personal details of every person who filled in the 2016 Census by permanently retaining these details and linking this information to their future Census information in order to track people overtime for the rest of their lives, but this win for government as Big Brother was reliant on stealth in implementation and was limited in what it could achieve at the time.
Because not everyone ended up with a genuine unique identification key as an unknown number of individual citizens and permanent residents (possibly well in excess of half a million souls) as acts of civil disobedience deliberately filled in the national survey forms with falsified information or managed to evade filling in a form altogether.
About water and belonging
Clarence River, New South Wales Far North Coast. Image at visitnsw.com |
Virginia Marshall, February 2017, Overturning Aqua Nullius: securing Aboriginal water rights, excerpt:
Water
landscapes hold meaning and purpose under Aboriginal laws. After thousands of
years, the spiritual relationship of being part of Country remains integral,
and despite the significant political and social change heaved upon the lives
of Aboriginal communities the sacredness of water shapes the identity and
values of Aboriginal peoples.
The
creation story that opens this chapter recognises the relationship of Nyikina
peoples to the river system, the land and the liyan (spirit) in its peoples and
all things on Nyikina Country. Nyikina peoples have a name for the river,
mardoowarra (the Fitzroy River), and yimardoowarra means Nyikina peoples
‘belong’ to the lower part of the mardoowarra. Underground water, which travels
through neighbouring Aboriginal land, creates a joint responsibility.
Aboriginal
water management, as discussed in a Northern Territory study of water values
and interests in the Katherine Region, represents a complex web
of relationships:
Every aspect of water as a phenomena
and physical resource as well as the hydro morphological features it creates is
represented and expressed in the languages of local Aboriginal cultures: mist,
clouds, rain, hail, seasonal patterns of precipitation, floods and floodwater,
river flows, rivers, creeks, waterholes, billabongs, springs, soaks,
groundwater and aquifers, and the oceans (saltwater).
The
inherent relationships of Aboriginal peoples with land and water are regulated
by traditional knowledge. For generations Aboriginal peoples have developed
significant water knowledge for resource use. Aboriginal water knowledge,
traditional sharing practices, climate and seasonal weather knowledge underpin
water use knowledge. Aboriginal customary water use cannot be decoupled from
the relationship with the environment and water resources because Aboriginal
water concepts are central to community and kinship relationships. Unlike
Western legal concepts, water cannot be separated from the land because
Aboriginal creation stories have laid the foundations for Aboriginal water
values.
Labels:
indigenous culture,
Native Title,
water
Tuesday 31 July 2018
Pacific Highway Upgrade 2018: the saga of the unwanted Woombah asphalt batching plant continues
In its latest letterbox drop to Woombah and Iluka communities on 30 July 2018 NSW Road and Maritime Services (RMS) has admitted that, despite a commitment to review the proposed site of the Woombah temporary asphalt plant servicing the Iluka to Devil’s Pulpit section of the Pacific Highway upgrade, it still intends to place 4,000 tons of asphalt on this site by Christmas 2018.
As if from these photographs below locals could not already tell that the plan to use the site for asphalt batching remains active - despite strong community opposition based on road safety, air quality, health and environmental concerns.
Photographs supplied anonymously |
This turnoff is the temporary Pacific Highway-Garrets Lane intersection created in March 2018 by NSW
Roads and Maritime Services and Pacific
Complete as the highway upgrade proceeds along a 27 kilometre stretch.
It is also the intersection now used by heavy vehicles accessing the proposed site of the temporary
asphalt batching plant.
It
is an intersection and road Pacific Complete is assuring local residents has been
designed and built in accordance with the design criteria.
As the Iluka and Woombah communities were not supplied
with a detailed traffic audit for the road design or the change to road design
which is set to occur in 2019, they have to take the consortium's word that this is so.
If the complaints by some local residents of being harried by impatient construction truck drivers as they attempt to negotiate the Pacific Highway-Garrets Lane turnoff are any indication, between now and Christmas there may be another collision there.
RMS and Pacific Complete have promised to hold information sessions with the two communities again - one version states sessions commence on 30 July 2018 and another rather obscure document states they commence on 30 August 2018.
July 30 has come and gone without that particular information session taking place.
The deadline for submissions on the temporary asphalt batching plant is 10 August 2018.
Given that deadline, either RMS and Pacific Complete are the most appalling managers of the community consultation process or they are trying to limit the ability to submit fully informed written responses by10 August.
The suspicion that National Party cronyism has played a part in the choice of site is starting to be quietly muttered under the breath as well. It seems Lower Clarence River folk have long memories.
This botched Iluka to Devil's Pulpit highway construction planning and community consultation is likely to be on the minds of quite a few Woombah and Iluka residents as they cast their votes at the NSW state election in March next year.
RMS and Pacific Complete have promised to hold information sessions with the two communities again - one version states sessions commence on 30 July 2018 and another rather obscure document states they commence on 30 August 2018.
July 30 has come and gone without that particular information session taking place.
The deadline for submissions on the temporary asphalt batching plant is 10 August 2018.
Given that deadline, either RMS and Pacific Complete are the most appalling managers of the community consultation process or they are trying to limit the ability to submit fully informed written responses by10 August.
The suspicion that National Party cronyism has played a part in the choice of site is starting to be quietly muttered under the breath as well. It seems Lower Clarence River folk have long memories.
This botched Iluka to Devil's Pulpit highway construction planning and community consultation is likely to be on the minds of quite a few Woombah and Iluka residents as they cast their votes at the NSW state election in March next year.
Labels:
#BerejiklianGovernmentFAIL,
environment,
Iluka,
Pacific Highway,
roads,
safety,
Woombah
A trio of Great Barrier Reef Foundation directors decline to appear before a senate committee inquiry
On 19 June
2018, the Senate referred the 2018-19 Budget measure Great Barrier Reef 2050
Partnership Program to the Environment and Communications
References Committee for inquiry and report on 15 August 2018.
The Great Barrier Reef Foundation made a written submission on 2 July 2018.
Yesterday it sent one of it newest directors (who apparently joined the board in the second half of 2017) and its managing director to give evidence before the inquiry.
However, three directors are seeking to avoid attending this inquiry - John
M Schubert (Chair), Grant
King and Paul
Greenfield.
This unwillingness is likely to be less about scheduling problems and more about close associations with petroleum, gas, mining* and finance industries, the foundation's membership list as well as the identity of donors who gave over $1.4 million to the foundation in 2017.
The
Sydney Morning Herald,
27 July 2018:
Three directors of a
Great Barrier Reef charity entrusted with almost half a billion dollars in
public money have refused to give evidence to a Senate inquiry scrutinising the
controversial deal, raising the prospect they will be forced to appear.
Confidential Senate
committee documents seen by Fairfax Media show that despite being offered five
dates at which to attend the inquiry, the directors of the Great Barrier Reef
Foundation say they are unavailable for questioning, variously citing overseas
travel commitments, medical appointments, board meetings and other unspecified
engagements.
The inquiry was launched
following the Turnbull government’s decision to grant the small,
business-focused charity $443 million to help rescue the reef. The
foundation has previously said it would “fully co-operate” with the probe.
The contentious Great
Barrier Reef Foundation grant is to be spent on projects such as water quality
improvements.
The Senate committee had
specifically requested their attendance. The trio comprises the organisation’s
chair John Schubert and board members Grant King and Paul Greenfield. Mr King
is president of the Business Council of Australia and Dr Greenfield chairs the
foundation’s scientific committee.
The foundation has
advised that managing director Anna Marsden and another director, John Gunn,
will give evidence.
The grant was awarded
without a tender process and the government’s own expert agencies were not
invited to apply.
The foundation plans to
use the grant to leverage additional funds from the private sector.….
Fairfax Media
understands the committee will ask the directors to find suitable dates to give
evidence and advise them that the committee has the power to summon witnesses.
According to the Parliament website, Senate committees rarely need to exercise
such powers as witnesses are “normally very willing to place their views and
the information they possess before the Senate to assist in an understanding of
issues”…..
details of the deal show
the foundation will receive almost $45 million to cover administration costs
incurred by disbursing the funds. Fairfax Media previously
reported the foundation would receive an upfront payment of $22.5
million plus interest. The recently published grant agreement shows the
interest will be capped at $22 million, and any additional interest will be
spent on reef projects.
The agreement also shows
many aspects of the deal will remain confidential, including the strategy used
by the foundation to attract private sector funds.
Greens oceans spokesman
Peter Whish-Wilson criticised the secrecy and questioned the influence
businesses would exert over how the grant was spent.
“How much of it is going
to be used to promote the companies and essentially greenwash some of these
businesses that are key polluters?” he said.
Businesses involved in
the foundation include heavy polluters such as AGL, Peabody Energy, Shell, Rio
Tinto and Qantas.
In a statement, the
department said it accepted that the foundation “does not wish information
about who it might approach or the strategies it might employ in its
fundraising to be made public”.
The administration costs
were “ reasonable given the scale of the grant” and any entity, including a
government agency, would need adequate funds for such purposes, it said.
The department said the
attendance at Senate hearings "is a matter for the foundation".
* The Great Barrier Reef Foundation classes Rio Tinto's RTFM Wakmatha (a Post Panamax bulk carrier on the Weipa to Gladstone run) as the foundation's research vessel in its so-called mission to save the reef.
UPDATE
As of 7.35pm 31 July 2018 the transcript of yesterday's public hearing has not been published.
However, mainstream media is reporting that Ms. Marsden gave evidence that in April 2018 Prime Minister Malcolm Bligh Turnbull and Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg met privately with the Chair of the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, John Schubert.
At this meeting an unsolicited and unscrutinised offer of over $45 million as a lump sum grant was made to Schubert as chair of the foundation.
This private meeting goes a long way towards explaining Schubert's reluctance to be questioned during this Senate inquiry.
Three former bankers meeting to carve out a large chunk of taxpayer dollars, probably felt comfortable enough to speak freely on a number of subjects.
UPDATE
As of 7.35pm 31 July 2018 the transcript of yesterday's public hearing has not been published.
However, mainstream media is reporting that Ms. Marsden gave evidence that in April 2018 Prime Minister Malcolm Bligh Turnbull and Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg met privately with the Chair of the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, John Schubert.
At this meeting an unsolicited and unscrutinised offer of over $45 million as a lump sum grant was made to Schubert as chair of the foundation.
This private meeting goes a long way towards explaining Schubert's reluctance to be questioned during this Senate inquiry.
Three former bankers meeting to carve out a large chunk of taxpayer dollars, probably felt comfortable enough to speak freely on a number of subjects.
Monday 30 July 2018
July 2018 was not a good month for Zuckerberg and Facebook Inc - Channel 4 undercover investigation, a lawsuit, falling user numbers, sudden 19% drop in company value & US$12 billion hit to personal fortune
As the fall-out from manipulated US presidential campaign and UK Brexit national referendum continues try at it might Facebook Inc just can't give a cursory apology for its part in these events and mover on - users and mainstream media won't cease scutiny of its business practices.
News.com.au, 27 July 2018:
Shares in Facebook plummeted 19 per cent to $US176.26 at the end of trading on Thursday, wiping out some $US120 billion ($A160 billion) — believed to be the worst single-day evaporation of market value for any company....
Founder Mark Zuckerberg, who has a 13 percent stake in Facebook, saw his fortune dropped by more than $US12 billion ($A16 billion) in less than 24 hours, to around $74 billion ($A100 billion).
The fall came after the social media giant revealed three million European users had closed their accounts since the Cambridge Analytica data scandal. The record decline pushed the tech-heavy Nasdaq more than one per cent lower.
CNet, 27 July 2018:
It began Wednesday with Facebook, which announced that daily active user counts had fallen in Europe, to 279 million from 282 million earlier this year. Facebook also indicated it was no longer growing in the US and Canada, two of the most lucrative advertising markets. Just as Facebook was working through its second year of nearly nonstop scandals over unchecked political meddling and data misuse, it was becoming clear that the days of consistent and relatively easy growth were fading.
Reuters, 28 July 2018:
NEW YORK (Reuters) -
Facebook Inc (FB.O)
and its chief executive Mark Zuckerberg were sued on Friday in what could be
the first of many lawsuits over a disappointing earnings announcement by the
social media company that wiped out about $120 billion of shareholder wealth.
The complaint filed by
shareholder James Kacouris in Manhattan federal court accused Facebook,
Zuckerberg and Chief Financial Officer David Wehner of making misleading
statements about or failing to disclose slowing revenue growth, falling
operating margins, and declines in active users.
Chanel4.com, news release, 17 July 2018:
Dispatches
investigation reveals how Facebook moderates content
An undercover investigation by Firecrest Films for Channel 4 Dispatches
has revealed for the first time how Facebook decides what users can and can’t
see on the platform. (Inside Facebook: Secrets of the Social Network, Channel 4 Dispatches, 9pm, 17 July).
Dispatches’ investigation reveals:
*Violent content such as graphic images and videos of assaults on children, remaining on the site, despite being
flagged by users as inappropriate and requests to have it removed.
· *Thousands of reported posts remained
unmoderated and on the site while we were filming, beyond Facebook’s stated aim
of a 24-hour turnaround, including potentially posts relating to suicide
threats and self-harm.
· * Moderators told not to take any
action if content shows a child who is visibly below Facebook’s 13-year-old age
limit, rather than report it as posted by underage users, even if the content
includes self-harming.
· *Allegations from an early Facebook
investor and mentor to Mark Zuckerberg, that Facebook’s business model benefits
from extreme content which engages viewers for longer, generating higher
advertising revenue.
· *Pages belonging to far-right groups,
with large numbers of followers, allowed to exceed deletion threshold, and
subject to different treatment in the same category as pages belonging to
governments and news organisations.
· * Policies allowing hate speech towards
ethnic and religious immigrants, and trainers instructing moderators to ignore
racist content in accordance with Facebook’s policies.
Dispatches sent an
undercover reporter to work as a content moderator in Facebook’s largest centre
for UK content moderation. The work is outsourced to a company called Cpl Resources plc in Dublin which has worked with Facebook since 2010. The
investigation reveals the training given to content moderators to demonstrate
how to decide whether content reported to them by users, such as graphic images and videos of child abuse, self-harming, and violence should be allowed to remain on the site or be deleted. Dispatches also films day-to-day moderation
of content on the site, revealing:
Violent content:
One of the most sensitive areas of Facebook’s content rulebook is about
graphic violence. When dealing with graphic violence content, moderators have
three options – ignore, delete, or mark as disturbing which places restrictions
on who can see the content.
Dispatches’ undercover reporter is seen moderating a video showing two
teenage schoolgirls fighting. Both girls are clearly identifiable and the video
has been shared more than a thousand times. He’s told that Facebook’s rules say
that because the video has been posted with a caption condemning the violence
and warning people to be careful about visiting the location where it was
filmed, it should not be deleted and instead should be left on the site and
marked as disturbing content. Dispatches speaks to the mother of the girl
involved who tells the programme the distress and impact the video had on her
daughter. She struggles to understand the decision to leave the video up on the
site. “To wake up the next day and find out that literally the whole world is
watching must have been horrifying. It was humiliating for her, it was
devastating for her. You see the images and it’s horrible, it’s disgusting.
That’s someone’s child fighting in the park. It’s not Facebook entertainment.”
Facebook told Dispatches that the child or parent of a child featured in
videos like this can ask them to be removed. Richard Allan, VP of Public Policy
at Facebook said, “Where people are highlighting an issue and condemning the
issue, even if the issue is painful, there are a lot of circumstances where
people will say to us, look Facebook, you should not interfere with my ability
to highlight a problem that’s occurred.
Online anti-child abuse campaigner Nicci Astin tells Dispatches about
another violent video which shows a man punching and stamping on a toddler. She
says she reported the video to Facebook in 2012 and received a message back
saying it didn’t violate its terms and conditions. The video is used during the
undercover reporter’s training period as an example of what would be left up on
the site, and marked as disturbing, unless posted with a celebratory caption.
The video is still up on the site, without a graphic warning, nearly six years
later. Facebook told Dispatches they do escalate these issues and contact law
enforcement, and the video should have been removed.
One moderator tells the Dispatches undercover reporter that “if you start censoring too much then people lose interest in the platform….
It’s all about making money at the end of the day.”
Venture Capitalist Roger McNamee was one of Facebook’s earliest
investors, a mentor to CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and the man who brought Sheryl
Sandberg to the company. He tells Dispatches that Facebook’s business model
relies on extreme content:
“From Facebook’s point of view this is, this is just essentially, you
know, the crack cocaine of their product right. It’s the really extreme, really
dangerous form of content that attracts the most highly engaged people on the
platform. Facebook understood that it was desirable to have people spend more
time on site if you’re going to have an advertising based business, you need
them to see the ads so you want them to spend more time on the site. Facebook
has learned that the people on the extremes are the really valuable ones
because one person on either extreme can often provoke 50 or 100 other people
and so they want as much extreme content as they can get.”
Richard Allan told Dispatches: Shocking content does not make us more
money, that’s just a misunderstanding of how the system works …. People come to
Facebook for a safe secure experience to share content with their family and
friends. The vast majority of those 2 billion people would never dream of
sharing content that, like that, to shock and offend people. And the vast
majority of people don’t want to see it. There is a minority who are prepared
to abuse our systems and other internet platforms to share the most offensive
kind of material. But I just don’t agree that that is the experience that most
people want and that’s not the experience we’re trying to deliver.
Underage users:
No child under 13 can have a Facebook account. However, a trainer tells
the undercover reporter not to proactively take any action regarding their age
if the report contains an image of a user who is visibly underage, unless the
user admits to being underage: “We have to have an admission that the person is
underage. If not, we just like pretend that we are blind and we don’t know what
underage looks like.” Even if the content contains images for self-harm for
example, and the image is of someone who looks underage the user is treated
like an adult and sent information about organisations which help with
self-harming issues, rather than being reported for being underage: “If this
person was a kid, like a 10-year-old kid we don’t care, we still action the
ticket as if they were an adult.” Facebook confirmed to Dispatches that its
policy is not to take action about content posted by users who appear to be
underage, unless the user admits to being underage.
Hate speech:
Hate speech:
Dispatches’ undercover reporter is told that, while content which
racially abuses protected ethnic or religious groups violates Facebook’s
guidelines, if the posts racially abuse immigrants from these groups, then the
content is permitted. Facebook’s training for moderators also includes a post
including a cartoon comment which describes drowning a girl if her first
boyfriend is a negro, as content which is permitted. Facebook confirmed to
Dispatches that the picture violates their hate speech standards and they are
reviewing what went wrong to prevent it from happening again.
“Shielded Review” – Popular pages kept up despite violations:
Our undercover reporter is told that if any page is found to have five or more pieces of content that violate Facebook’s rules, then the entire page should be taken down, in accordance with the company’s policies. But we have discovered that posts on Facebook’s most popular pages, with the highest numbers of followers, cannot be deleted by ordinary content moderators at Cpl. Instead, they are referred to the Shielded Review Queue where they can be directly assessed by Facebook rather than Cpl staff. These pages include those belonging to jailed former English Defence League leader Tommy Robinson, who has over 900,000 followers, and who has been given the same protected status as Governments and news organisations. A moderator tells the undercover reporter that the far-right group Britain First’s pages were left up despite repeatedly featuring content that breached Facebook’s guidelines because, “they have a lot of followers so they’re generating a lot of revenue for Facebook. The Britain First Facebook page was finally deleted in March 2018 following the arrest of deputy leader Jayda Fransen.
Our undercover reporter is told that if any page is found to have five or more pieces of content that violate Facebook’s rules, then the entire page should be taken down, in accordance with the company’s policies. But we have discovered that posts on Facebook’s most popular pages, with the highest numbers of followers, cannot be deleted by ordinary content moderators at Cpl. Instead, they are referred to the Shielded Review Queue where they can be directly assessed by Facebook rather than Cpl staff. These pages include those belonging to jailed former English Defence League leader Tommy Robinson, who has over 900,000 followers, and who has been given the same protected status as Governments and news organisations. A moderator tells the undercover reporter that the far-right group Britain First’s pages were left up despite repeatedly featuring content that breached Facebook’s guidelines because, “they have a lot of followers so they’re generating a lot of revenue for Facebook. The Britain First Facebook page was finally deleted in March 2018 following the arrest of deputy leader Jayda Fransen.
Facebook confirmed
to Dispatches that they do have special procedures for popular and high profile
pages, which includes Tommy Robinson and included Britain First.
They say Shielded
Review has been renamed ‘Cross Check’. Lord Allen told Dispatches: “if the
content is indeed violating it will go….I want to be clear this is not a
discussion about money, this is a discussion about political speech. People are
debating very sensitive issues on Facebook, including issues like immigration.
And that political debate can be entirely legitimate. I do think having extra
reviewers on that when the debate is taking place absolutely makes sense and I
think people would expect us to be careful and cautious before we take down
their political speech.”
Delays in moderating content:
Facebook’s publicly stated aim is to assess all reported content within
24 hours. However, during the period of the undercover filming, Dispatches
found a significant backlog. Moderators told the undercover reporter that due
to the volume of reports, or tickets, they are supposed to moderate, they are
unable to check up to 7,000 reported comments on a daily basis. At one point
there is a backlog of 15,000 reports which have not been assessed, with some
tickets are still waiting for moderation up to five days after being reported.
Facebook told Dispatches that the backlog filmed in the programme was cleared
by 6 April.
…/ends
[my yellow highlighting]
Labels:
censorship,
election campaigns,
ethics,
Facebook,
free speech,
hate speech,
violence
Sunday 29 July 2018
Trump World this week
Labels:
#TrumpFAIL,
alternate universe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)