web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu

Mark Zuckerberg Is Meeting In Secret With Conservatives Discussing Free Speech

Westlake Legal Group AP_18100671669782-300x184 Mark Zuckerberg Is Meeting In Secret With Conservatives Discussing Free Speech white house washington D.C. warren Social Media progressives President Trump Media Mainstream Media Front Page Stories facebook Elizabeth Warren donald trump democrats Cybersecurity Culture & Faith Courts Cory Booker Conservatives Congress California Bipartisanship Allow Media Exception 2019

 (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

Well, what do you know?

Seems that CEO of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, has been sitting down in secret with conservative pundits, writers and even a congressperson as of late. Maybe he realizes that Elizabeth Warren and her merry bunch of zealots are worse than dealing with people he opposes politically.

According to Politico this has been going on for a short time…

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has been hosting informal talks and small, off-the-record dinners with conservative journalists, commentators and at least one Republican lawmaker in recent months to discuss issues like free speech and discuss partnerships.

The dinners, which began in July, are part of Zuckerberg’s broader effort to cultivate friends on the right amid outrage by President Donald Trump and his allies over alleged “bias” against conservatives at Facebook and other major social media companies. “I’m under no illusions that he’s a conservative but I think he does care about some of our concerns,” said one person familiar with the gatherings, which multiple sources have confirmed.

Some of the people who have been rumored to have attended the meetings are Mary Katharine Ham, Ben Shapiro, Matt Continetti, Guy Benson, and Brent Bozell. Byron York confirmed he attended one of the dinners but refused to discuss what was talked about.

The article does say that this outreach was to try and ease some of the fears of those that might have some influence with the Trump administration in the hope to quiet some of the saber-rattling.

Trump is not your problem Mark.

Elizabeth Warren is on the warpath (PUN FULLY INTENDED) and she is coming for your monopoly buddy.

This is a classic example of liberals wanting to claim the higher ground while shutting down any discussion of any ground under the rules of feelings being hurt. Zuckerberg is part of this mindset no matter how many dinners he holds to try a charm offensive and act otherwise.

All you have to do is treat both sides equally.

In this case, what that means is to let the words fly. Don’t referee to any side and you will not have any issue. The notion that Facebook has been treating all sides fairly is ludicrous. Just go and google how many grievances people that are “right” leaning have been banned as opposed to “left” leaning. The complaints are numerous on the right. If you think the left doesn’t like to complain when they get axed I have a bridge to sell you in Chappaquiddick.

Hopefully, these meetings do show Mark that conservatives are not that scary and these concerns should be dealt with going from the top down.

Otherwise, you will have to deal with Elizabeth Warren and no one rational wants to do that.

Check out my other posts here on Red State and my podcast Bourbon On The Rocks plus like Bourbon On The Rocks on Facebook and follow me on the twitters at IRISHDUKE2 

The post Mark Zuckerberg Is Meeting In Secret With Conservatives Discussing Free Speech appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group AP_18100671669782-300x184 Mark Zuckerberg Is Meeting In Secret With Conservatives Discussing Free Speech white house washington D.C. warren Social Media progressives President Trump Media Mainstream Media Front Page Stories facebook Elizabeth Warren donald trump democrats Cybersecurity Culture & Faith Courts Cory Booker Conservatives Congress California Bipartisanship Allow Media Exception 2019   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Why Are the Same People Irate About the NBA’s Hong Kong Stance Silent About the Same Thing Happening to Americans

Westlake Legal Group hong-kong-protesters-620x317 Why Are the Same People Irate About the NBA’s Hong Kong Stance Silent About the Same Thing Happening to Americans twitter Pro-Life Politics North Carolina NBA Hong Kong Google Front Page Stories Featured Story facebook Conservatives Censorship Business & Economy bathroom bill Allow Media Exception

A protester waves a U.S. flag as hundreds of protesters gather outside Kwai Chung police station in Hong Kong, Tuesday, July 30, 2019. Protesters clashed with police again in Hong Kong on Tuesday night after reports that some of their detained colleagues would be charged with the relatively serious charge of rioting. (AP Photo/Vincent Yu)

The outrage du jour is over the NBA and a gaming company, Blizzard Entertainment, following the old adage of “money talks and bullsh** walks” and forbidding players or, in the case of the NBA, fans from making any overt gesture of support for the demonstrators in Hong Kong.

I don’t have a particular dog in the geopolitical part of this argument. Hong Kong, since the Brits pulled out in 1997, has been part of Communist China. They may not like it, but there it is and the odds of Beijing just letting it go approaches zero. While I have sympathy for their cause, I don’t have enough sympathy to get Americans killed over it. I’m also doubtful that egging on demonstrators when you have zero intention of doing anything but clucking over the massacre videos streamed into your home is a particularly ethical thing to do (see East Germany 1953 an Hungary 1956 for examples of what that looks like). I certainly don’t fault China for bringing to bear whatever power it has to shut down sympathy for the demonstrators because we, ourselves, are the ones who’ve given them that power and they, like most governments, will act in their own interests.

What I’m sort of at a loss to understand is why I’m supposed to feel outraged by the NBA, a private company, engaging in suppression of speech that it doesn’t like.

For at least three years now, ever since it has become obvious that the large tech companies like Facebook and Twitter and Google were actively suppressing conservative viewpoints and ever since Trump was elected, I’ve been lectured by TrueConservativesWestlake Legal Group 2122 Why Are the Same People Irate About the NBA’s Hong Kong Stance Silent About the Same Thing Happening to Americans twitter Pro-Life Politics North Carolina NBA Hong Kong Google Front Page Stories Featured Story facebook Conservatives Censorship Business & Economy bathroom bill Allow Media Exception   and VichyConsWestlake Legal Group 2122 Why Are the Same People Irate About the NBA’s Hong Kong Stance Silent About the Same Thing Happening to Americans twitter Pro-Life Politics North Carolina NBA Hong Kong Google Front Page Stories Featured Story facebook Conservatives Censorship Business & Economy bathroom bill Allow Media Exception   (though it is getting increasingly hard to separate the two groups in any meaningful way so great is the overlap in that Venn Diagram) on how “muh private company” can’t engage in censorship and how if I don’t like being suspended from Twitter for suggesting some sloppy fat goober laid off from BuzzFeed learn a useful occupation that I could just start my own social media company and my problems would be solved.

Over and over, conservative viewpoints, whether they are pro-biology, pro-traditional-family, or pro-life are being overtly crushed via demonetization or by having access to their materials deliberately restricted. The most recent example of this is Facebook refusing to let the pro-life group Live Action distribute its videos to followers of its Facebook page because professional pro-aborts who double as “fact checkers” for Politifact didn’t like the content. Twitter has forbidden Live Action from showing ultrasound images of babies in utero.

Back in 2016, when the NBA went to war with the state of North Carolina over the “bathroom bill,” a commonsense measure that ensure adult men were not going to be hanging out in women’s bathrooms, outlets, such as National Review, posted articles like A Conservative Defense of Transgender Rights. Few people on the right said boo about the NBA using its economic power to coerce the government of North Carolina into abandoning its defense of common decency and Western Civilization.

Why is it any more odious for the NBA to follow the money their autocratic impulses and shut down support of the Hong Kong demonstrators in their venues than for it to follow the money and their autocratic impulses and shut down opposition to trans activists in North Carolina? In both cases, the NBA is telling people how to live their lives. In both cases, it is refusing to lend its economic support to political causes that it disagrees with on the merits or perceives to be a financial loser. How is security at an NBA game evicting pro-Hong-Kong protesters any different than YouTube or Facebook or Twitter blocking pro-life or pro-actual-marriage or pro-Second-Amendment information? It really isn’t.

The bottom line is that you either believe corporations, particularly large monopolistic ones, either have an obligation to observe what we, in America, perceive to be basic human rights or you don’t. You don’t get to choose what the cause is. It is binary. If your position is that the difference is the Chinese government calling the tune, does that mean you’d only oppose corporate thuggery if the current administration was behind it? If you are trying to shame the NBA into changing policy, then I’d submit the hundreds of millions of dollars they get from China is going to prove more influential that a lot of media saying meany-pants things. In other words, you’re engaging in nothing more than the most grotesque form of virtue signaling. You could take action, like have Congress outlaw this dumbf***ery, but then you’d just be a poseur with very malleable principles.

So, while I have a great deal of sympathy for the people in Hong Kong, I can’t in good conscience sign onto some kind of selective outrage over a corporation silencing speech it dislikes. When all of you folks who are outraged about the NBA and Hong Kong decide you’re outraged by Facebook and Twitter and Google and you’re ready to go to war with them and the NBA to end this bullsh**, well, give me a call. If you want me to get exercised over something happening in China while telling me that the same exact thing directed at conservative causes taking place in the US (and in Europe) is just the private sector at work, sorry, I don’t want to be bothered. I’ll be clipping my toe nails or taking a dump or doing something else that is actually meaningful.

As a parting note, my colleague Brad Slager discussed this topic on KLRNRadio last night in the second half of the show.



=========
=========
Like what you see? Then visit my story archive.

I’m on Facebook. Drop by and join the fun there.
=========
=========

The post Why Are the Same People Irate About the NBA’s Hong Kong Stance Silent About the Same Thing Happening to Americans appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group hong-kong-protesters-300x153 Why Are the Same People Irate About the NBA’s Hong Kong Stance Silent About the Same Thing Happening to Americans twitter Pro-Life Politics North Carolina NBA Hong Kong Google Front Page Stories Featured Story facebook Conservatives Censorship Business & Economy bathroom bill Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

While Policing Fraudulent News Facebook Settles Lawsuit Over Fraudulent Advertising Data

Westlake Legal Group fake-news-620x349 While Policing Fraudulent News Facebook Settles Lawsuit Over Fraudulent Advertising Data lawsuits Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post fake news facebook Allow Media Exception Advertising

 

In a dose of heavy irony the social media outlet paid handsomely once it has been accused of ‘Fake Views’.

A number of separate cases involving a number of advertisers were combined into a class action lawsuit against FaceBook for reporting false viewing data of video views affecting ad rates. After three years the suit, which requested a jury award of $100 million was eventually settled by FaceBook for $40 million.

The case involved the media site manipulating the playback success rates of advertising videos viewed by users. What was in dispute was the choice of FaceBook to not count any video playback that was under 3 seconds. What was discovered to have been the result is by culling these limited views the site could report vastly larger playback times.

What this led to was FaceBook touting playback rates that were estimated to be 900% larger than in actuality. While not a case of overcharging based on playbacks it was accused it led to higher base rates for advertisers. The site made the announcement that it had used these contrived metrics over a period in 2015-16.

What makes this admission so glaring is that FaceBook has taken on a strident stance against what it deems to be false reporting in regards to news sites. At the same time however it was content to issue false reports regarding advertisement playback. This actually follows a pattern of the site following policies based on revenues.

SEE ALSO: “Look at the facts behind the Snopes/FaceBook Divorce

It was this past February when it was announced that the fact-checking outlet Snopes would be severing ties with FaceBook. Snopes had been one of the verification partners that was brought on by FaceBook to vet problematic news reports and decide what was to be flagged or removed from FB over what was considered false reporting. Snopes considered a number of factors in making the decision to break away from the FB mission.

Among those was a claim made by a former Snopes editor that FaceBook was either steering the fact checkers to do work that would favor its advertisers, or even discount fact checks that might adversely affect an advertiser.

This makes the lawsuit settlement all the more revealing. The site that gives lip service to the importance of fact checking will possibly manipulate the news vetting in accordance to benefit advertising, and at the same time it shows a willingness to deliver false reports to deceive advertisers. Then cries of “fake news” will only fall on more deaf ears.

The post While Policing Fraudulent News Facebook Settles Lawsuit Over Fraudulent Advertising Data appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group fake-news-300x169 While Policing Fraudulent News Facebook Settles Lawsuit Over Fraudulent Advertising Data lawsuits Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post fake news facebook Allow Media Exception Advertising   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Bad News for Warren: Mark Zuckerberg Calls Her Policies an Existential Threat

Westlake Legal Group warren Bad News for Warren: Mark Zuckerberg Calls Her Policies an Existential Threat warren Social Media Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story facebook Elizabeth Warren democrats Congress Campaigns 2020 campaign 2020

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has been supportive of Democratic candidates in the past and liberal candidates.

But there’s one Democratic candidate who he doesn’t view as a good choice, at least not for Facebook.

According to audio leaked by The Verge, Zuckerberg revealed that the company would probably sue the government, if Warren were to win the presidency and try to break up Facebook. He termed Warren as an “existential” threat.

From Fox News:

“You have someone like Elizabeth Warren thinks that the right answer is to break up the companies … I mean, if she gets elected president then I would bet that we will have a legal challenge, and I would bet that we will win the legal challenge,” Zuckerberg was quoted as saying in two Q&A sessions with Facebook employees during July.

“And does that still suck for us? Yeah. I mean, I don’t want to have a major lawsuit against our own government. I mean, that’s not the position that you want to be in when you’re, you know, I mean … It’s like, we care about our country, and want to work with our government and do good things. But look, at the end of the day, if someone’s going to try to threaten something that existential, you go to the mat and fight.”

Zuckerberg acknowledged that the comments were indeed his and encouraged people to read all his comments on the subject.

Warren has promised to try to break up Big Tech companies if she is elected, including companies like that Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple.

She reiterated that promise after Zuckerberg’s comments about her were revealed.

The problem is that while she’s disturbed about the companies’ control of the tech, she would replace it with the government’s control and dictating rules for social media. Government control would be far worse.

Zuckerberg’s opinion reveals part of the great Democratic divide on Warren.

While she has adherents on the left, those more toward the middle and any remaining Democrats receptive to business and desirous of keeping their own money are very uneasy about her.

Some big donors have even said that if she gets the nomination, they may defect to President Donald Trump.

From CNBC:

In recent weeks, CNBC spoke to several high-dollar Democratic donors and fundraisers in the business community and found that this opinion was becoming widely shared as Warren, an outspoken critic of big banks and corporations, gains momentum against Joe Biden in the 2020 race.

“You’re in a box because you’re a Democrat and you’re thinking, ‘I want to help the party, but she’s going to hurt me, so I’m going to help President Trump,’” said a senior private equity executive, who spoke on condition of anonymity in fear of retribution by party leaders.

That could spell ruin for her campaign and the Democrats.

The post Bad News for Warren: Mark Zuckerberg Calls Her Policies an Existential Threat appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group warren-300x169 Bad News for Warren: Mark Zuckerberg Calls Her Policies an Existential Threat warren Social Media Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story facebook Elizabeth Warren democrats Congress Campaigns 2020 campaign 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Facebook CEO: Would a Warren election “suck for us? Yeah”

Westlake Legal Group warren-happy Facebook CEO: Would a Warren election “suck for us? Yeah” The Blog Mark Zuckerberg facebook Elizabeth Warren breaking up big tech 2020 Democratic primaries

Welcome to the club. The Verge got leaked audio from two of Mark Zuckerberg’s internal meetings with Facebook employees reviewing the challenges faced by the Internet giant, one of which is the upcoming presidential election. With candidates calling for the breakup of the tech giants, Zuckerberg predicted that the worst outcome might be a victory by Elizabeth Warren. If that happens, Zuckerberg told his employees, expect to go to the mattresses:

“You have someone like Elizabeth Warren who thinks that the right answer is to break up the companies … if she gets elected president, then I would bet that we will have a legal challenge, and I would bet that we will win the legal challenge. And does that still suck for us? Yeah. I mean, I don’t want to have a major lawsuit against our own government. … But look, at the end of the day, if someone’s going to try to threaten something that existential, you go to the mat and you fight.” …

“It’s just that breaking up these companies, whether it’s Facebook or Google or Amazon, is not actually going to solve the issues. And, you know, it doesn’t make election interference less likely. It makes it more likely because now the companies can’t coordinate and work together.”

Alert the Federal Elections Commission, because this might just be an in-kind donation to Warren’s campaign, if perhaps inadvertent.  Warren herself certainly recognized opportunity when it dropped into her lap. She wasted no time promoting the quote as evidence that she is best positioned to lead the progressive fight against the only-slightly-less-progressive tech giants:

Warren followed that up with a link to her breakup plan:

That may sound laudable for conservatives plagued by online platforms’ habits of silencing or curtailing their voices on these systems, but make sure to read Warren’s plan first. Rather than just breaking up these platforms and allowing real competitive pressures to incentivize more responsiveness and openness, Warren would replace their current biased leadership with government-managed regulatory regimes.

Warren’s plan has only two main components, the second of which is fairly anodyne. Warren proposes, as most do when proposing breakups of tech giants, to unwind previous mergers and acquisitions — in Facebook’s case, WhatsApp and Instagram would be the obvious choices. It’s her first component that would “suck” not just for Facebook but for everyone:

First, by passing legislation that requires large tech platforms to be designated as “Platform Utilities” and broken apart from any participant on that platform.

Companies with an annual global revenue of $25 billion or more and that offer to the public an online marketplace, an exchange, or a platform for connecting third parties would be designated as “platform utilities.”

These companies would be prohibited from owning both the platform utility and any participants on that platform. Platform utilities would be required to meet a standard of fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory dealing with users. Platform utilities would not be allowed to transfer or share data with third parties.

For smaller companies (those with annual global revenue of between $90 million and $25 billion), their platform utilities would be required to meet the same standard of fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory dealing with users, but would not be required to structurally separate from any participant on the platform.

To enforce these new requirements, federal regulators, State Attorneys General, or injured private parties would have the right to sue a platform utility to enjoin any conduct that violates these requirements, to disgorge any ill-gotten gains, and to be paid for losses and damages. A company found to violate these requirements would also have to pay a fine of 5 percent of annual revenue.

“Platform utilities”? We regulate utilities on the basis of physical monopolies for access — electricity, gas, water, and local telephone and cable service in some areas. That’s because it’s physically impossible for other providers to dig cables and/or pipes into each residence to allow for physical choice. We undid the Ma Bell monopoly nearly forty years ago, although it took technology twenty years or more to eclipse that “last mile” threshold.

That physical monopoly doesn’t exist with the tech giants. Consumers have choices of other platforms, or the choice not to use any at all. Electricity, gas, and water are necessities for maintaining a basic quality of life, whereas Facebook and Google most decidedly are not. If the federal government sees them as monopolies, then break them apart and leave the components to sink or swim on their own against start-ups that emerge as the markets open up. Turning them into “utilities” will only perpetuate their status as monopolies, as the necessary regulation needed to deal with that will all but kill any start-ups that might challenge them.

This knee-jerk plan to put government in charge of tech giants as “utilities” is one reason a Warren victory would “suck” not just for Zuckerberg, but for everyone. In the meantime, though, who can blame Warren for spiking the ball after this pick-six?

The post Facebook CEO: Would a Warren election “suck for us? Yeah” appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group warren-happy-300x173 Facebook CEO: Would a Warren election “suck for us? Yeah” The Blog Mark Zuckerberg facebook Elizabeth Warren breaking up big tech 2020 Democratic primaries   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Beto’s fundraising pitch: ‘Now, we don’t want anything to happen to the kitten …

Westlake Legal Group BetoLaughing715 Beto’s fundraising pitch: ‘Now, we don’t want anything to happen to the kitten … TribFest The Blog Texas Fundraising facebook Beto O'Rourke austin 2020 Democrat debates

Please spare the life of Miss Whiskers by donating $5, $10, or even $15 to the failing presidential campaign of Robert Francis O’Rourke. Otherwise, the kitten may not be long for this world.

That was said jokingly by O’Rourke (or was it?) during his interview on the stage of TribFest this weekend but it shows the level of desperation that the candidate has reached.

TribFest, for those unfamiliar with it, is a three-day annual event sponsored by The Texas Tribune in Austin. It’s a far-left wonderland where people like Nancy Pelosi are not adequately liberal enough for most of the audience. (Jazz referenced her appearance.) Her lecture to the notoriously young and super-woke crowd present didn’t elicit near the rousing applause that other guests did, especially when she pledged to support incumbents over candidates looking to unseat them. Rep. Henry Cuellar, a member of the Texas congressional delegation who is considered one of the few moderate Democrats left in the House, was singled out recently by Justice Democrats and has a primary challenger. Justice Democrats, you remember, backed AOC in her primary challenge in 2018.

The Democrats running for president are looking at the requirements to be in the November debate and some are falling short. Robert Francis O’Rourke is concerned that he may be one of those Democrats. He was asked during his interview with NBC’s Garrett Haake if he would remain in the primary race if he fails to meet the DNC requirements for the November debate. He joked that it may take a Facebook livestream event that involves a kitten to meet his fundraising goal but he’s not going anywhere any time soon.

“You know, it’s kind of raising the ante or the bar for how we compete for those dollars,” O’Rourke said. “I mean, I could maybe do a Facebook livestream with a kitten and, say, you know, ‘Now, we don’t want anything to happen to the kitten … and so, you know, send your $5 or $10 or $15 in now. And, you know, Miss Whiskers is going to be fine.’”

Haake returned the joke saying that the federal election attorneys were on the phone. O’Rourke then assured the crowd that he was only kidding but qualified it with “I can’t say it didn’t cross my mind.” Yikes! Poor Miss Whiskers.

Twelve candidates will be on the debate stage in October. O’Rourke is one of them. Some of the candidates that are still polling at the bottom of the heap are showing some very creative ways to capture attention as the deadline approaches to meet the requirements for the November debate. Amy Klobuchar used the dramatic appeals in a plea for donations.

O’Rourke has met the new threshold in fundraising to qualify for the November debate but not the polling requirement.

November’s debate, the DNC has announced, has higher thresholds for polling and donor numbers. O’Rourke has met the donor requirements but needs improved polling.

According to the DNC, candidates must cross one of the two polling requirements and receive money from at least 165,000 individual donors, an increase from 130,000 for the fall debates, to qualify.

For polling requirements, Democratic hopefuls must earn at least 3% in four or more national or early-state — Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada — polls, a modest bump from the last round of debates, or get at least 5% in two early-state polls.

To cross the first polling threshold, each of the qualifying polls must have a different sponsor — or be in a different geographical area if it’s the same sponsor. But with far less polling coming from the early states, for a candidate to qualify via the second avenue, the DNC is allowing for two early-state polls to be in the same geographical areas and from the same sponsors.

Will Robert Francis meet the polling requirement in time? The candidates must satisfy the requirements by seven days before the November debate. That date hasn’t been announced, though. A sudden rise in popularity is unlikely. He took a huge swing at it after recent mass shootings enabled him to become the gun-grabbing candidate yet he’s still only at 2.5% nationally according to Real Clear Politics as I write this Sunday morning. He is at 1.7% in Iowa, 1.3% in New Hampshire, and 2% in South Carolina – the first three state primaries. In Nevada, he is at 0%. O’Rourke gambled on opportunistically using the deaths and injuries brought about by gun violence and he lost. He has the resources to hang around for as long as he wants and it looks like he will do just that.

The post Beto’s fundraising pitch: ‘Now, we don’t want anything to happen to the kitten … appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group BetoLaughing715-300x162 Beto’s fundraising pitch: ‘Now, we don’t want anything to happen to the kitten … TribFest The Blog Texas Fundraising facebook Beto O'Rourke austin 2020 Democrat debates   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Mark Zuckerberg Admits Pro-Abort Zealots Labeled Live Action as #FakeNews Now We Need a Permanent Fix Not Permanent Excuses

Westlake Legal Group AP_18100671669782-620x380 Mark Zuckerberg Admits Pro-Abort Zealots Labeled Live Action as #FakeNews Now We Need a Permanent Fix Not Permanent Excuses Social Media Missouri Mark Zuckerberg Live Action Lila Rose Josh Hawley Front Page Stories Featured Story facebook Congress Abortion

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg arrives before a joint hearing of the Commerce and Judiciary Committees on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, April 10, 2018, about the use of Facebook data to target American voters in the 2016 election. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

Back in August, Facebook hit the Pro Life group Live Action with sanctions for allegedly spreading “false news.” As issue was a video produced by Live Action that said abortion is never medically necessary. This is factually true. (We can have a whole discussion on ectopic pregnancies some other time, thanks.) Facebook used two hyper advocates of abortion to fact check the video, they did not ask for an opinion from pro-life ob-gyns of anyone from the Catholic hospital system as a balance. As a result, Live Action’s ability to share posts was limited and the shares it did make were flagged saying that Live Action was known for spreading false information.

Live Action is no fly-by-night group. They have over 3 million followers on Facebook and are a major player in the fight against abortion, so this got the interest of a lot of people. Four conservative senators Josh Hawley, Ted Cruz, Kevin Cramer, and Mike Braun sent Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg a letter protesting the action.

Facebook removed the sanctions on a temporary basis.

Yesterday, Zuckerberg met with Hawley. Hawley, as you know, has been in the forefront of struggle to keep the tech giant from acting as a hit squad for those who would stomp out the ability of conservatives to use social media. It produced a pretty amazing result.

This is significant. I wouldn’t have expected Zuckerberg to do the right thing and divest Instagram and WhatsApp…I think it will take the Federal Trade Commission and a battalion of red-fanged anti-trust lawyers from Department of Justice to make him see the light there… but rather than the usual “mistakes were made” weasel words, Zuckerberg admitted that biased fact checkers used their position of power to take out an opponent and that the problem is systemic.

This should be a clarion call for anyone who values liberty. While a huge organization like Live Action can get the attention necessary to overturn a decision by Facebook, most publishers can’t. If RedState, for instance, ran afoul of Facebook in that way, we’d face the loss of a significant amount of our traffic and we would most likely end up folding. No platform should have that power. If the market doesn’t exist for your crap that is one thing, when a company decides that it will not let your existing market to have access to your product, that is something different. And while the “muh principles” bunch has a cow at that idea of using the force of the federal government to break these information cartels, the fact is that we either have rights or we don’t and it matters not one whit whether those rights are choked off by the federal government or if the federal government allows corporate oligarchies to abridge those rights. The preamble to the Constitution states that the government exists to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” If we stand by an let a corporate monopoly to do us what our ancestors would not allow King George III and parliament to do, then it is possible that we really deserve the serfdom that comes our way.

The post Mark Zuckerberg Admits Pro-Abort Zealots Labeled Live Action as #FakeNews Now We Need a Permanent Fix Not Permanent Excuses appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group AP_18100671669782-300x184 Mark Zuckerberg Admits Pro-Abort Zealots Labeled Live Action as #FakeNews Now We Need a Permanent Fix Not Permanent Excuses Social Media Missouri Mark Zuckerberg Live Action Lila Rose Josh Hawley Front Page Stories Featured Story facebook Congress Abortion   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

How Very Big Tech-DC: Jeffrey Epstein’s Meeting with Elon Musk and Big Tech’s Elite

Westlake Legal Group elon-musk-pot-smoking-SCREENSHOT-620x321 How Very Big Tech-DC: Jeffrey Epstein’s Meeting with Elon Musk and Big Tech’s Elite ula Tesla Motors tesla Target Races spacex Solar City republicans Popular Culture Politics Policy Peter Thiel PayPal News NASA Media lucy LinkedIn law jupiter Jeffrey Epstein Government Front Page Stories Front Page facebook environment Energy Endorsements elon musk Economy donald trump democrats Defense Department Climate Business & Economy

There are variations of a joke that have been making their way round the Internet.

A version goes something like this:

Q: What is the difference between pedophiles and Republicans?

A: Washington, D.C. and Big Tech will work with pedophiles.

We all know how both DCs Swamp Creatures and the monstrous Big Tech monsters feel about members of the GOP.

President Donald Trump is the first Republican in decades to actually take seriously the implementation of conservative policies.

And DC and Big Tech – the Swamp Elites – HATE him.

Why the Swamp Hates Trump

Washington Post’s Bezos Hates Trump

Elon Musk Is Not a Fan of Donald Trump

Leaked Video: Google Leadership’s Dismayed Reaction to Trump Election

And whenever Big Tech companies discover Republicans on their payroll – they carve them out as if they were melanoma cells.

One of the Swamp Elite’s favorite people – was Jeffrey Epstein.

You remember Jeffrey Epstein.  Epstein committed suicide in jail in August – after FINALLY getting (again) arrested after decades of sexually assaulting underage girls.

‘I’m Not a Pedophile’: Remorseless Jeffrey Epstein Said ‘Children He Raped and Assaulted Did Not Look Underage, and Claimed HE Was a Victim’ In His Final Interviews

The ‘Sex Slave’ Scandal That Exposed Pedophile Billionaire Jeffrey Epstein

Epstein sounded like a really pleasant fellow.

But Epstein was rarely alone on his escapades.

Jeffrey Epstein’s World of Wealth and Powerful Friends

And sometimes – members of DCs Swamp Elite were on board and along for the ride.

Flight Logs Show Bill Clinton Flew on Sex Offender’s Jet Much More Than Previously Known

Well that’s hardly a galloping shocker.  But….

Jeffrey Epstein Documents Could Expose Powerful Politicians

Accused Sex Trafficker Jeffrey Epstein’s Political Connections: A Guide

Flight Logs Released from Jeffrey Epstein’s ‘Lolita Express’

And when it came to political coin – Epstein was like serial woman assaulter Harvey Weinstein.

Both loved lavishing lots of coin on Democrats.  Which bought both of them lots of closed eyes and turned heads – when it came to their sexual depravities.

Democrats Pressured to Return Donations from Harvey Weinstein

Billionaire Sex Offender Epstein Gave Heavily to Democrats

The Left desperately tried to tie Trump to Epstein.  Except….

Trump Banned Epstein From Mar-a-Lago Years Ago, Here’s Why…:

“‘…because Epstein sexually assaulted an underage girl at the club, according to court documents….’”

You know who didn’t ban Epstein from…anything at all?  Big Tech’s Elite.

In 2011, Jeffrey Epstein Was A Known Sex Offender. The Leaders Of Amazon, Google, And Tesla Dined With Him Anyway:

“After pleading guilty to charges of soliciting prostitution from an underage girl, Jeffrey Epstein spent part of 2011 reintroducing himself to elite society.

“A March 2011 dinner with the most powerful figures in tech showed just how connected he was…..

“Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Tesla CEO Elon Musk, Google cofounder Sergey Brin, and others were all in town for TED, the annual conference with the slogan ‘ideas worth spreading.’  They were among friends at an annual event called the ‘billionaires’ dinner’….

“This elite dinner, and another similarly select gathering that Epstein attended later that year, were both organized by the New York literary agent John Brockman, whose exclusive intellectual club, called Edge, seems to have played a role in Epstein’s efforts to regain credibility and influence in circles of the rich and powerful.

“At the time, he was less than two years removed from finishing a 13-month prison term in a Florida state jail for soliciting prostitution from an underage girl….

“Epstein wasn’t named in the photos posted on the Edge website, but he appears in the background of a snap of Zack Bogue, a venture capitalist and husband of Marissa Mayer, then a vice president at Google….

“Other photos show the participants mingling before or after taking their seats. Also present were Bezos; Musk; Brin; Salar Kamangar, then CEO of (Google-owned) YouTube; Mayer, who the following year left Google to become CEO of Yahoo; and Anne Wojcicki, Brin’s then-wife and CEO of genetic testing startup 23andMe….

“Epstein attended a second exclusive Edge event in July 2011, held over a weekend at a winery in St. Helena, California. There, he mingled with a handful of leading scientists and several science journalists, plus wealthy power brokers including Sean Parker, former president of Facebook, and Nicholas Pritzker, a venture capitalist and former CEO of the Hyatt Development Corporation. Pritzker’s venture firm has invested in Uber, (Musk’s companies) Tesla and SpaceX and he is now on the board of vaping startup Juul Labs.”

That is a veritable Who’s Who – of Big Tech Elites.

What have we learned?

Nothing new, really – if you’ve been paying any attention at all.

Just like DCs Elite, Big Tech’s Elite will put up with a whole lot of really heinous behavior – if you keep kicking in huge coin to fund their activities.

And/or provide illegal extracurricular activities in which they can engage.

All of which begs a set of separate, specific questions: Of the Donald Trump Administration – about government-funded perpetual failure Elon Musk.

Musk owns the aforementioned SpaceX and Tesla – and SolarCity.

All three of which – have (at least) two things in common:

They have each taken billions of dollars in government money – and they are all miserable failures.

Elon Musk: The $5-Billion-Government-Money-Recipient ‘Genius’

Welfare King Elon Musk: No One Rewards Failure Like Government

Elon Musk and the Art of Failing Successfully

The Many Failures of Elon Musk, Captured in One Giant Infographic

Musk Defends Receiving $4.9 Billion in Government Support for Tesla, SolarCity and SpaceX

Heavily Subsidized and Failing: Elon Musk and SolarCity

Elon Musk, Tesla, and the Solar Roof Tile Fraud

Taxpayer Subsidies Helped Tesla Motors, So Why Does Elon Musk Slam Them?

Musk Calls Out SpaceX Rival for Receiving Billion Dollar Subsidy

Elon Musk on SpaceX: ‘I Always Thought We Would Fail’

About which Musk couldn’t care less – so long as it’s our massive money he’s losing.

If ever there was a person at the Big Tech-DC Swamp crossroads – it is Elon Musk.

Almost no one has his snout more deeply buried in the DC money trough.

Almost no one is more beloved for his many, MANY government-funded failures.

Musk is Big Tech’s biggest DC Swamp Creature.

So why hasn’t Donald Trump ejected Musk – the way he ejected Epstein?

The Trump Administration – has kept the Musk government gravy train a-rolling.

Despite Musk’s badmouthing Trump prior to the 2016 election.

Here’s Everything Elon Musk Has Ever Said About Donald Trump

Despite Musk endorsing Democrat Andrew “$1K a Month In Vote-Buying Bribes for All” Yang for 2020.

Despite ALL of this – we get:

Trump Praises Elon Musk

Vice President Mike Pence Met With Elon Musk

VP Pence’s meeting would have only made sense – if he had taken it to deliver pre-President Trump’s famous phrase:

You’re fired.”

It’s WAY past time – to FINALLY get uber-failure Welfare King Elon Musk off the government teat.

The post How Very Big Tech-DC: Jeffrey Epstein’s Meeting with Elon Musk and Big Tech’s Elite appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group elon-musk-pot-smoking-SCREENSHOT-300x155 How Very Big Tech-DC: Jeffrey Epstein’s Meeting with Elon Musk and Big Tech’s Elite ula Tesla Motors tesla Target Races spacex Solar City republicans Popular Culture Politics Policy Peter Thiel PayPal News NASA Media lucy LinkedIn law jupiter Jeffrey Epstein Government Front Page Stories Front Page facebook environment Energy Endorsements elon musk Economy donald trump democrats Defense Department Climate Business & Economy   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

That Feel When The Feds Notice You: Big Tech Facing Several Anti-Trust Probes

Westlake Legal Group Big-Tech-620x354 That Feel When The Feds Notice You: Big Tech Facing Several Anti-Trust Probes Technology Google Front Page Stories Free Speech Featured Story facebook apple antitrust amazon

While social media applications like Twitter and Facebook continue to battle allegations they engage in “viewpoint discrimination”, a bigger — arguably potentially much more disruptive — investigation is beginning to take shape, and Big Tech ought to be thinking of ways to tighten up.

While Google has been negotiating an investigation into their business practices from the Department of Justice, and Facebook has been the subject of a Federal Trade Commission antitrust investigation, it was announced last week that state 50 attorneys general from across the nation decided to launch their own antitrust investigation into Facebook.

Now comes word that legislators on the House of Representatives antitrust subcommittee, who have been investigating antitrust allegations related to potential anti-competitive behavior from Google, Apple, Amazon and Facebook, have ramped up their investigation and asked those companies to supply them with internal documents to aid in their work.

“Today’s document requests are an important milestone in this investigation as we work to obtain the information that our Members need to make this determination,” Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), who chairs the subcommittee and is leading the antitrust investigation, said in a statement.

“We expect stakeholders to use this opportunity to provide information to the Committee to ensure that the Internet is an engine for opportunity for everyone, not just a select few gatekeepers.”

“This information is key in helping determine whether anticompetitive behavior is occurring, whether our antitrust enforcement agencies should investigate specific issues and whether or not our antitrust laws need improvement to better promote competition in the digital markets,” added Rep. Doug Collins (Ga.), the ranking Republican on the full Judiciary Committee.

Apparently one goal of the request is to bring to light dealings and processes these companies have previously jealously guarded as highly secretive.

The letter to Google parent company Alphabet, for instance, asks for records relating to “Google’s algorithm that determines the ranking of search results, including but not limited to how Google’s algorithm accounts for Google content or services and how Google’s algorithm accounts for non-Google content or services that compete with Google’s offerings.”

But the larger goal is to try to determine how these companies gained market power, if they used tools and business practices to discourage competition and market entry, and whether or not the market power they’ve enjoyed is actually harming consumers.

Free speech on social media may become a bit player in a much larger drama involving the relationship of Big tech companies with their users.

The post That Feel When The Feds Notice You: Big Tech Facing Several Anti-Trust Probes appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Big-Tech-300x171 That Feel When The Feds Notice You: Big Tech Facing Several Anti-Trust Probes Technology Google Front Page Stories Free Speech Featured Story facebook apple antitrust amazon   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Facebook looking at hiding “likes.” But… all of them?

Westlake Legal Group Facebook-1 Facebook looking at hiding “likes.” But… all of them? The Blog Social Media like facebook code

This is kind of a weird story that might have some serious implications for social media users. A coder was poking around in the Facebook code on her device and discovered something odd. There was an as-yet inactive piece of code that would hide the number of “likes” any given post gets from other users, only allowing the individual to see their own number of likes. This concept is apparently already being tested in limited locations on Instagram, but it could be showing up for the general population across platforms in the near future. (BBC)

An engineer has discovered prototype code in Facebook’s Android app which suggests it might test hiding the number of likes a post receives.

Jane Manchun Wong found the code, which has not been activated. Instagram, which is also owned by Facebook, including Canada and Brazil, where only the account holder in the trial can see the number of likes they attract.

Facebook declined to comment.

Some studies have suggested the pressures of social media popularity can affect mental health, particularly in young people.

While there’s no “official” comment on this yet, so far it looks to be something they’re billing as a mental health initiative. (Or “digital well being” as it’s being called.) But that makes no sense. The theory that Instagram is working off of suggests that people feel too much pressure to try to get a ton of likes for their posts and depression can result if they fail to run up large numbers. But based on the way this is working thus far, the user will still be able to see how many (or few) likes they have. The difference is that nobody else will be able to see the number. How does that make them less depressed?

I’m also wondering what this will do to all of the “trending” questions associated with the platform. Isn’t the number of likes and interactions how they determine which posts are hot and going viral? Taking those numbers away would appear to kneecap the process.

But those aren’t the biggest concerns as far as I can see. If Facebook is building in the ability to mask the number of likes for all users, will they also be able to selectively mask the figures for certain users? Or even display a far lower number than the actual interactions? Given their track record, it’s not difficult to imagine them masking popular conservative content to stop it from spreading too quickly. Think of it as the Facebook equivalent of shadowbanning.

Hey, maybe I’m just being paranoid over nothing. But you’ve got to admit, Facebook (as well as Twitter) has given us more than sufficient reasons to be paranoid.

The post Facebook looking at hiding “likes.” But… all of them? appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group Facebook-1-300x153 Facebook looking at hiding “likes.” But… all of them? The Blog Social Media like facebook code   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com