Give Peace A Chance.
Warren Challenges Facebook's Political Advertising Policy—With Ad That Falsely Claims CEO Zuckerberg Endorsed Trump
That isn’t necessarily a lie. She should say the FB launders Russian and Saudi money through add buys.
She’s backtracked on M4A and big donor fundraising. How should we phrase it? I’d prefer calling such behavior what it is … lying.
O.K. Bottom line…and you asked for it: You are a paranoid, mind-reading, MORON! You make NO SENSE! You do NOT know me! You need mental help!
Now…no more nonsense attack notes. O.K…?
First Amendment applies to the government, not private businesses.
I certainly won’t argue with you but I will say this: Given the state of news and communication lately, how can anyone EVER know what is truth and what is bullshit.
Nicely stated, Roger. Not that it will get through to him. Ironically, he’s like a Trump supporter who would rather continue the propaganda without stripping it down for a serious inspection for truth.
True enough. But this implies that anyone not-Trump (i.e. with a “D”) will of course address the issues. But that’s a logical fallacy - completely unsupported by the history of recent elections. This is the kind of binary thinking in which I think you’re trapped.
Oh, I pay a lot of attention. I’ve been aware of the Russiagate narratives since their very beginning; and hearing the spin repeated ad nauseam by main stream media, their talking heads and those who prefer belief to facts, one can’t escape it.
They began of course, with HRC campaign pronouncement that the embarrassing, WikiLeaks-published emails had been hacked by the Russians; a claim that was later repeated to willing reporters at WashPost by an “anonymous intelligence source”. That of course was repeated by all the other papers. Then, despite the fact that the server in question was never examined by nor requested by the FBI or other intel agency, this was followed by an “Assessment” that claimed again, without evidence, that Russia had hacked the emails and given them to WikiLeaks to benefit Trump. This despite the insistence by Assange and another principal close to the matter that a) it wasn’t a hack, and b) Russia wasn’t involved; and despite independent analysis by VIPS and “The Forensicator” which made it clear that an internal leak was more likely than an external hack. Mueller later repeated the allegation of a Russian hack to influence the election, even though he also admitted that he had never even gotten an unredacted report from CrowdStrike - the private firm contracted to the DNC which alleged Russian hack.
Of course, the Russian meddling allegations didn’t stop with the hack claims, but extended to allegations about Russia-based troll factories and bot farms. While I wouldn’t discount entirely this possibility, the fact is that only a comparatively minuscule amount of social media politically-themed posting came from such sources; and that most if not all analysis showed little if any measurable impact from them. In fact, the general conclusion was that the messaging was a curious mix of messaging, with no clearly identifiable purpose.
So I suggest that your seeing of a Russian hand behind the posts of some who posted anti-Clinton messages is willful, partisan blindness.
In any case, I do not accept your premise about the only thing that matters and advise you to think more broadly.
To parrot Yogi Berra, this feels like deja vu all over again. During the 2016 primaries Bernie Sanders was fiercely attacked by the ‘new, Clinton, 3rd way, DNC’ Dems along with what was posturing itself as ‘socialists’. The former used their political and financial resources to prevent a Sanders’ nomination by any and all slimy, lying ways they could, while the latter slandered Sanders as not being a true socialist, a faker, a fraud, whose self identification was defaming the name of Eugene Debs. It didn’t take long to smell the troll farms at work.
When Sanders was kept from the nomination and he gave his ‘support’ to Clinton (Bernie’s not a poker player, his discomfort was palpable), which set off another round of anti-Sanders vugarities with him being called a sellout, a phony, a closet DNC type. It was interesting that the right-wing didn’t think it was likely that Sanders’ supports would cross over to Trump (the certitude for that hypothesis came after the election), what they proposed was that Sanders’ supporters should realize the corruption of the whole system and just protest by not voting. See, the propaganda never stops.
After the election and for well over a year, any article on CommonDreams that included Bernie Sanders was immediately assaulted with charges of Sanders being a phony sellout, that his trying to work within the Democratic party was not to reform it (which the ‘critics’ claim was beyond redemption, as if activism at all levels of government was just a fad instead of it being the only godd*** way it’s ever been done, as it’s happening in many domains right NOW) but was just behaving like another DNC Dem. All while Sanders was having the highest polling numbers in the country. Strange that. You do remember all that, don’t you?
Following that period, and perhaps because Trump and his criminal administration made it virtually impossible for even the mainstream Dems to bypass what the criminals were doing, the comment section started to reflect the broad support Sanders has throughout the country. Now nobody has the ‘answer’, the crystal ball. When you say if Sanders isn’t nominated that you’ll vote Green, Socialist or not vote at all. Are you implying that voting for the Greens or the Socialists or doing nothing at all have virtually the same lack of value? Then you are putting your eggs the the basket of reforming the Democratic party. When we people type view governance as a spectator sport, then we are a bunch of dumb **cks. Fortunately, there are those who never sat with their score card making value judgments but jumped onto the playing field. If we do manage to make change, if we can beat the ticking of nature’s clock, then history can look back at those, past, present and into the future, who made it happen. And did so without the benefit and security of a crystal ball.
censor – my bad
You bet I do, eyewitness.
When I stated voting Green, Socialist, or staying home, I was trying to make the case that I do NOT support any damnocrat no matter what and just because they have a “D” after their name. As a matter-of-fact I dislike "D"s as much as I do "R"s. Both are corrupt to the hilt.
I do not believe that the "D"s can be reformed at this point in time. Period.
Yes, Bernie was definitely NOT a poker face when he went through that crap after he was robbed. But, it is my understanding, that he agreed to support whomever won the nomination if he didn’t. This time? Who knows? I see Warren in the “spoiler” role this time. And the team sport "D"s either don’t see it or are ignoring it because, again, it, to them, is a team sport.
Awesome, insightful post, by the way.
Get to the corner, young man, and put on that dunce cap! (-:
I miss Ctrl-Z. He made many comments, not just anti-Clinton comments. From what I could tell, based on the things he said and things other people said to him, he seemed to be here from the beginning of whenever Common Dreams made a switch of some sort - I joined after that.
There were several people whose accounts were suspended around the time (probably just before) we last saw a post from “Ctrl-Z”. I’m not saying Ctrl-Z’s account was suspended, but you don’t know with any certainty what happened to Ctrl-Z.
Seriously, Russians? Whatever they may have done, pales in comparison to what we do to ourselves (or let happen), e.g. propaganda, gerrymandering, questionable voting machines, corrupt/controlling 2-party system, and what those things do to democracy.
I’m an American, not a Russian, who is disappointed and angry with the way our country is being run - by conservatives and neoliberals serving their corporate masters’ agendas. And, I happen to agree with much of what CarlMarks says. Trump is a problem, a disgrace. Warren and Bernie are not interchangeable. If there are negative things about Warren that people are concerned about, people have every right to, and should, discuss those problems. At this time, it’s seems we must fight with all of the information we have, and opinions we have, to get the best candidate nominated - the one it seems most people here agree is the best candidate, Bernie. You wouldn’t start negotiations accepting your second choice from the beginning of the negotiations.
I understand how Fox-heads live in a different world with different facts that can not be verified. Same for Trump who is a total Fox-head.
Do you think any of this will matter when we’re all dust in the wind?
Hmm… If nominated, will Warren allow the DNC to accept donations from Zuckerberg in the general election?
Three questions for you:
Do you believe the MSM’s polling numbers, where Warren is consistently ahead of Sanders?
If it becomes obvious, as during 2016, that DNC shenanigans again keep Sanders from possibly securing the nomination, will you be happy with him if he again opts to support whomever is the nominee, rather than step outside the DNC and run independently against that nominee?
Do you have a reference for your statement that it is a certitude that Sanders supporters, generally, did not cross over to Trump? My unsubstantiated impression was that a significant portion did cross over, rather than vote for HRC.
As I started to read this article, my first concern was that Warren is revealing a propensity for internet political censorship in the vein discussed at the December, 2018, House Judiciary Committee Hearing:
Democrats downplay Google censorship at congressional hearing – 13 Dec, 2018 - Andre Damon - wsws
Throughout the hearing, Republicans repeatedly claimed that the company was censoring search results to the detriment of right-wing viewpoints, while Democrats either denied the company’s censorship or justified it.
The fundamental reality—completely ignored at the hearing—is that the real targets of censorship by Silicon Valley, working with the US intelligence agencies and with the consent of both political parties, are left-wing, anti-war and socialist political organizations.
In April 2017, Google announced that it would implement changes to its search algorithm to promote “authoritative” news sources to the detriment of what it called “alternative” viewpoints. This action led to a massive decline in search rankings and traffic to left-wing, anti-war and progressive websites.
The campaign to implement this censorship regime was spearheaded by the Democratic Party, which, based on claims of Russian “meddling” in the 2016 election, sought to pressure the technology giants to block and suppress left-wing opposition, which it branded as “extremist viewpoints.”
The narrative of both parties is strikingly at odds with reality. Compared to April 2017, the far-right Breitbart.com had its search traffic increase by 25 percent. By contrast, search results for the World Socialist Web Site are down by 76 percent over the same period, and other left-wing sites remain down by 50 percent or more.
I share that concern. If Warren really wants to protect democracy, she would encourage a free flow of information. Her statement that, “If Trump tries to lie in a T.V. ad, most networks will refuse to air it. But Facebook just cashes Trump’s checks.” - is b.s. I quit watching the vast wasteland of misinformation (television) a long time ago.
Ads are money for any medium/business. Her statement:
“…because when profit comes up against protecting democracy, Facebook chooses profit.”
makes it sound like FB needs to censor information to protect us - and she’ll protect us from the profiteers. False or slanted ads are a concern, and I don’t like Zuckerberg anymore than any other billionaire, but the slanted (or in Bernie’s case, under-reported) articles, segments, etc. that appear as “news” (that show a complete lack of journalistic integrity), and the censored internet searches are more disturbing. Is she concerned about how the public is being lied to in that way?
Thanks for the wsws article.
Warren will be like Obama. His goal was to work with the Republicans as partners in corporate government and he referred to progressives as “left wing loonies”. He was better than Trump (much better) but he failed miserably in changing the one percent corporate plutocracy. If voting for Warren makes you feel good, do so, but don’t expect change, real change, with Warren.