#also the tweet op says shes not sure if its real or fake but it looks pretty standard early animatic to me it even uses the rough 3d models | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

un-enfant-immature · 5 years

Text

British parliament presses Facebook on letting politicians lie in ads

In yet another letter seeking to pry accountability from Facebook, the chair of a British parliamentary committee has pressed the company over its decision to adopt a policy on political ad that supports flagrant lying.

In the letter Damian Collins, chair of the DCMS committee, asks the company to explain why it recently took the decision to change its policy regarding political ads — “given the heavy constraint this will place on Facebook’s ability to combat online disinformation in the run-up to elections around the world”.

Chair @DamianCollins has written to @facebook's Nick Clegg over changes to political advertising rules ahead of a potential General Election.

Facebook have dropped a ban on “deceptive, false or misleading content” in political ads.

Read more: https://t.co/1mA3d3uDnN pic.twitter.com/2L88mQMDb2

— Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee (@CommonsCMS) October 22, 2019

“The change in policy will absolve Facebook from the responsibility of identifying and tackling the widespread content of bad actors, such as Russia’s Internet Research Agency,” he warns, before going on to cite a recent tweet by the former chief of Facebook’s global efforts around political ads transparency and election integrity who has claimed that senior management ignored calls from lower down for ads to be scanned for misinformation.

“I also note that Facebook’s former head of global elections integrity ops, Yael Eisenstat, has described that when she advocated for the scanning of adverts to detect misinformation efforts, despite engineers’ enthusiasm she faced opposition from upper management,” writes Collins.

Facebook hired me to head Elections Integrity ops for political ads. I asked if we could scan ads for misinfo. Engineers had great ideas. Higher ups were silent. Free speech is b.s. answer when FB takes $ for ads. Time to regulate ads same as tv and print.https://t.co/eKJmH7Sa7r

— Yael Eisenstat (@YaelEisenstat) October 9, 2019

In a further question, Collins asks what specific proposals Eisenstat’s team made; to what extent Facebook determined them to be feasible; and on what grounds were they not progressed.

He also asks what plans Facebook has to formalize a working relationship with fact-checkers over the long run.

A Facebook spokesperson declined to comment on the DCMS letter, saying the company would respond in due course.

In a naked display of its platform’s power and political muscle, Facebook deployed a former politician to endorse its ‘fake ads are fine’ position last month — when head of global policy and communication, Nick Clegg, who used to be the deputy prime minister of the UK, said: ” We do not submit speech by politicians to our independent fact-checkers, and we generally allow it on the platform even when it would otherwise breach our normal content rules.”

So, in other words, if you’re a politician you get a green light to run lying ads on Facebook.

Clegg was giving a speech on the company’s plans to prevent interference in the 2020 US presidential election. The only line he said Facebook would be willing to draw was if a politician’s speech “can lead to real world violence and harm”. But from a company that abjectly failed to prevent its platform from being misappropriated to accelerate genocide in Myanmar that’s the opposite of reassuring.

“At Facebook, our role is to make sure there is a level playing field, not to be a political participant ourselves,” said Clegg. “We have a responsibility to protect the platform from outside interference, and to make sure that when people pay us for political ads we make it as transparent as possible. But it is not our role to intervene when politicians speak.”

In truth Facebook roundly fails to protect its platform from outside interference too. Inauthentic behavior and fake content is a ceaseless firefight that Facebook is nowhere close to being on top of, let alone winning. But on political ads it’s not even going to try — giving politicians around the world carte blanche to use outrage-fuelling disinformation and racist dogwhistles as a low budget, broad reach campaign strategy.

We’ve seen this before on Facebook of course, during the UK’s Brexit referendum — when scores of dark ads sought to whip up anti-immigrant sentiment and drive a wedge between voters and the European Union.

And indeed Collins’ crusade against Facebook as a conduit for disinformation began in the wake of that 2016 EU referendum.

Since then the company has faced major political scrutiny over how it accelerates disinformation — and has responded by creating a degree of transparency on political ads, launching an archive where this type of advert can be searched. But that appears as far as Facebook is willing to go on tackling the malicious propaganda problem its platform accelerates.

In the US, senator Elizabeth Warren has been duking it out publicly with Facebook on the same point as Collins rather more directly — by running ads on Facebook saying it’s endorsing Trump by supporting his lies.

Facebook should ban campaign ads. End the lies.

There’s no sign of Facebook backing down, though. On the contrary. A recent leak from an internal meeting saw founder Mark Zuckerberg attacking Warren as an “existential” threat to the company. While, this week, Bloomberg reports that Facebook’s executive has been quietly advising a Warren rival for the Democratic nomination, Pete Buttigieg, on campaign hires.

So a company that hires politicians to senior roles, advises high profile politicians on election campaigns, tweaks its policy on political ads after a closed door meeting with the current holder of the office of US president, Donald Trump, and ignores internal calls to robustly police political ads, is rapidly sloughing off any residual claims to be ‘just a technology company’. (Though, really, we knew that already.)

In the letter Collins also presses Facebook on its plan to rollout end-to-end encryption across its messaging app suite, asking why it can’t limit the tech to WhatsApp only — something the UK government has also been pressing it on this month.

He also raises questions about Facebook’s access to metadata — asking whether it will use inferences gleaned from the who, when and where of e2e encrypted comms (even though it can’t access the what) to target users with ads.

Facebook’s self-proclaimed ‘pivot to privacy‘ — when it announced earlier this year a plan to unify its separate messaging platforms onto a single e2e encrypted backend — has been widely interpreted as an attempt to make it harder for antitrust regulators to break up its business empire, as well as a strategy to shirk responsibility for content moderation by shielding itself from much of the substance that flows across its platform while retaining access to richer cross-platform metadata so it can continue to target users with ads…

#TechCrunch

0 notes

workfromhom · 5 years

Text

British parliament presses Facebook on letting politicians lie in ads

Chair @DamianCollins has written to @facebook's Nick Clegg over changes to political advertising rules ahead of a potential General Election.

Facebook have dropped a ban on “deceptive, false or misleading content” in political ads.

Read more: https://t.co/1mA3d3uDnN pic.twitter.com/2L88mQMDb2

— Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee (@CommonsCMS) October 22, 2019

— Yael Eisenstat (@YaelEisenstat) October 9, 2019

In a further question, Collins asks what specific proposals Eisenstat’s team made; to what extent Facebook determined them to be feasible; and on what grounds were they not progressed.

He also asks what plans Facebook has to formalize a working relationship with fact-checkers over the long run.

A Facebook spokesperson declined to comment on the DCMS letter, saying the company would respond in due course.

So, in other words, if you’re a politician you get a green light to run lying ads on Facebook.

And indeed Collins’ crusade against Facebook as a conduit for disinformation began in the wake of that 2016 EU referendum.

Facebook should ban campaign ads. End the lies.

from Facebook – TechCrunch https://ift.tt/31GzxLX via IFTTT

#IFTTT #Facebook – TechCrunch

0 notes

endenogatai · 5 years

Text

British parliament presses Facebook on letting politicians lie in ads

Chair @DamianCollins has written to @facebook's Nick Clegg over changes to political advertising rules ahead of a potential General Election.

Facebook have dropped a ban on “deceptive, false or misleading content” in political ads.

Read more: https://t.co/1mA3d3uDnN pic.twitter.com/2L88mQMDb2

— Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee (@CommonsCMS) October 22, 2019

— Yael Eisenstat (@YaelEisenstat) October 9, 2019

In a further question, Collins asks what specific proposals Eisenstat’s team made; to what extent Facebook determined them to be feasible; and on what grounds were they not progressed.

He also asks what plans Facebook has to formalize a working relationship with fact-checkers over the long run.

A Facebook spokesperson declined to comment on the DCMS letter, saying the company would respond in due course.

So, in other words, if you’re a politician you get a green light to run lying ads on Facebook.

And indeed Collins’ crusade against Facebook as a conduit for disinformation began in the wake of that 2016 EU referendum.

Facebook should ban campaign ads. End the lies.

from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8204425 https://ift.tt/31GzxLX via IFTTT

#IFTTT #RSSMix.com Mix ID 8204425

0 notes

melbynews-blog · 6 years

Text

War Propaganda Is Exposed When Pearson Sharp Goes to Syria & Tells the Truth

Neuer Beitrag veröffentlicht bei https://melby.de/war-propaganda-is-exposed-when-pearson-sharp-goes-to-syria-tells-the-truth/

War Propaganda Is Exposed When Pearson Sharp Goes to Syria & Tells the Truth

“This sincere young journalist is having a real Mr. Smith Goes to Washington experience in #Douma,” tweeted journalist Caitlin Johnstone, referring to Pearson Sharp (One America News Network) whose on-the-ground reporting from Syria flies in the face of official mainstream reports out of Syria. Realizing that everything we’ve been told about Syria is false, Sharp — like Mr. Smith in Washington — goes about exposing the lies. While legacy media rants on about a horrifying attack, reports out of Douma suggest it didn’t happen. Sharp found no witnesses nor evidence. Nor did journalists, Robert Fisk (UK The Independent) and Uli Gack (German ZDF).

The world’s eyes are on Syria like never before. Concerns about potential full-scale military confrontation with Russia have caused people to re-examine the Syria situation, sending into overdrive the establishment’s megaphone, a.k.a. the mainstream media (“MSM” hereafter). The war machine relies on public support, so intelligence agencies have perfected the craft of psychological operations — psy-ops — to mind control us into supporting wars that benefit war profiteers and hurt everyone else. The cost has been more than a half million dead in Syria, 2.4 million in Iraq, and trillions in tax dollars. In the US, propaganda was legalized and Pentagon — yes, Pentagon — funds were earmarked for psy-op campaigns geared to cripple dissent and manufacture consent for wars.

In this article, we examine nine war psy-op tactics used by MSM in Syria. By comparing MSM Syria reports to what real journalism looks like — featuring Pearson Sharp — we get a crystal clear picture of how MSM goes about deceiving and manipulating us. The more expert we become at collectively decoding and exposing their tricks — and sharing these tools of discernment with friends — the sooner establishment narratives will crumble. Following is an investigation into just how they operate.

First we consider Sharp who’s a role model in how the Fourth Estate is supposed to function. In self-filmed videos, he randomly approaches and interviews locals and hospital personnel in Douma with the assistance of an interpreter. To prove he isn’t speaking to government plants, he randomly approaches people in the streets with film rolling. His interviewing style is thorough, covering all bases, never leading the speaker to a desired answer, and eliciting their assessment and conclusions. Of the five journalists reviewed herein, Sharp is the only one with full interviews, which creates transparency.

Ground zero interviews in Douma

At ground zero, we learn people laughed when they first heard about the alleged attack on TV. They think it’s a “show”. “The West keeps playing this game. This is not the first time,” they concur. “This is how the West plays its game to find an excuse to attack Syria or bomb Syria.” In the hospital, staff report there were typical cases of smoke and dust inhalation that day, but no deaths nor gas victims — fewer patients than usual. In a gas attack, they explain, hundreds of victims would be admitted. They say the video of children being sprayed with water and inhalers was staged by intruders yelling “chemical attack!”

1. Halt the Investigation & Make the Rest Up (Starring Robert Fisk, The Independent)

These hospital testimonies and Sharp’s inability to find a single witness of a real gas attack corroborate the findings of award-winning Middle East correspondent Robert Fisk in this article (also a short audio here), who interviewed “more than 20 people” in Douma. Fisk has more journalistic latitude than his MSM counterparts discussed below, but he doesn’t go far enough. “How could it be that Douma refugees who had reached camps in Turkey were already describing a gas attack which no one in Douma today seemed to recall?” he wonders. But without further investigation, he draws his conclusion that news didn’t spread due to people living in tunnels “so isolated from each other for so long” during the siege. That does not square. Military reports stated that the terrorists packed civilians in close quarters, yet he leaves it at that, not willing — or too polite — to call out MSM reports from up north the way Sharp does, such as in this tweet:

Just watched a Sky News report about Douma — reporter COMPLETELY LIES about what she saw. I didn’t meet ONE PERSON who saw the attack, but she makes it sound like an atrocity… These reporters act like they care about the Syrian people, but their lies are costing lives. (Emphasis mine)

2. Confuse the Reader Without Outright Lying (Fisk)

The horrors jihadists inflict upon civilians have been documented every time a town is liberated, including Douma. Fisk’s article touches on this matter, sprinkling seedlings of truth. He alludes to the miles of “wretched prisoner-groined tunnels” (i.e. civilian slaves), a Jaish al-Islam execution, and “jihadis . . . living in other’s people’s homes” (i.e. forcing civilians to be homeless), yet he avoids explaining that there are no moderate rebels. Sharp, on the other hand, explains it in black and white on Facebook (boldface mine):

What I can’t figure out is why journalists report about Syria the way they do — — it’s a stunningly beautiful country, with some of the kindest, warmest people I’ve ever met. The Syria they talk about in the news, and the Syria I’m visiting now are not the same place AT ALL. The people here are THRILLED the government has recaptured areas from the rebels: under rebel control, they had no jobs, no food, no power or water or medicine. They feared for their lives every day. EVERY person I’ve talked to (this is not an exaggeration, I have yet to meet someone who disagrees) says they are so relieved to be living under Assad, and that life is finally going back to normal now that he is in charge.

I simply don’t understand why other journalists would say differently. I have talked to Syrians from all over the country, not just one place, and they unanimously hated the rebels, and love President Assad. And these aren’t people who are fearful of speaking against the president, you can see it in their eyes, hear it in their voice. They laugh when I tell them Western media says they hate Assad, and love the rebels. They ask me, “then why would we live here? We are free to do what we want, why wouldn’t we just go live in rebel held areas if we like them so much?” It’s a great question.

I don’t have all the answers, and I’m genuinely baffled at the VAST difference between the Syria on TV, and the Syria I’m seeing with my own eyes.

For seven years “they unanimously hated the terrorists” and “feared for their lives every day.” Fisk, however, keeps this pivotal detail cryptic, writing,

The story of Douma is . . . not just a story of gas — or no gas, as the case may be. It’s about thousands of people who did not opt for evacuation from Douma on buses that left last week, alongside the gunmen with whom they had to live like troglodytes for months in order to survive.

For readers unfamiliar with the word troglodyte, that sentence means nothing. Again, Fisk talks over our heads.

Recent civilian testimonies expose barbaric terrorist war crimes in Ghouta. People are eager to tell their story, and one of Sharp’s hospital interviewees goes off-topic to say the terrorists starved his family for seven years. Surely Fisk was told these horrors, but he plays it safe, stressing there are two stories in war. His assignment is simply to investigate a gas attack, not expose war propaganda. Notwithstanding, the outcome of his ambiguity is a confused reader — not an informed one. In juxtaposition to this, we see Sharp blowing the lid off the entire war psy-op. When Fisk visited the abandoned offices of the White Helmets — whose tweets alerted the world of the event — he found a gas mask and dirty military camouflage uniforms. He thought:

Planted, I asked myself? I doubt it. . . . Of course we must hear their side of the story, but it will not happen here . . . [because] every member of the White Helmets in Douma . . abandoned their main headquarters and chose to take the . . . government-organised and Russian-protected buses to the rebel province of Idlib with the armed groups when the final truce was agreed.

This point will fly past readers only familiar with White Helmets’ Hollywood image. A terrorist mecca, Idlib’s no ordinary travel destination. The US–funded White Helmets are a propaganda construct who rescue only terrorists, participate in beheadings, stage fake rescues, and are allied with Al-Nusra Front. The reason Fisk doubts that the gas mask and military apparel were planted is surely because he‘s aware of their terrorist activities. But once again, he doesn’t spell that out.

3. Make Sweeping Unsubstantiated Claims (Fisk)

Fisk probably believes what he says — but does not source his sweeping “ruthless dictatorship” claim. (He cannot.) But because he writes in an authoritative tone (see #8 below), we’re supposed to trust this party line. Nevertheless, regardless of the deficits, kudos for his report on the gas attack matter and his masterful free-flowing prose that brings the streets of Douma to life for the reader.

4. Lie Brazenly Straight to the Camera (Starring Louise Callaghan, Sky News)

Sky News reporter Louise Callaghan reports on her visit to northern Syria refugee camps — without presenting interview footage. She claims that “individually corroborating” testimonies of Douma “survivors” all witnessed the gas attack, experienced symptoms, and said the missile attack was “good” but wouldn’t deter Assad. No clarification is provided as to whether they’re pro-rebel or pro-Assad. This is because MSM pretends all Syrians hate Assad. She claims that she met a girl from the hospital video, that the White Helmets help people all over Syria and are not Al-Qaeda, and that Assad used gas many times.

Given MSM’s long history of lying us into war, when they stay perfectly on a war agenda script like this, you can be sure they’re lying. Because she broadcasts from Mosul, one cannot be sure she even went to Syria. It’s really unlikely everyone interviewed said the exact same thing. Without video proof, we should assume she made it up, especially because it contradicts video testimonies in Douma. Plus she says provable lies about the White Helmets and Assad, so she has zero credibility.

There’s no evidence Assad gassed his people. Ever. She doesn’t discuss Assad’s popularity nor the US-supplied terrorists’ penchant for gassing people. In fact, here’s a compilation of reports refuting hers, suggesting it was a false flag staged by her pals, the White Helmets. “This isn’t just bad journalism, it should be criminal,” Sharp tweeted. “I wish she had to live with the people she was lying about.”

One final clue that she’s lying is her body language: the rolling of eyes, blinking, smug grin and deadpan gaze hint of a trained liar. Those contrast with Sharp’s sincere expressions and steadfast eyes.

5. Act Like an Expert While Forecasting a Long War. Be Sure to Make it Sound Complicated. (Starring Callaghan)

Pushing the war psy-op envelope, twenty-something Callaghan acts like a seasoned foreign policy expert, declaring “The war’s far from over” because of the complicated web of warring factions — as if only experts could figure it out. This plants the idea of never-ending war in the public’s consciousness — just what the war profiteers ordered. In truth, the situation is not so complicated. Here’s how simple it is: It’s not an organic civil war. Assad, Russia, and the Syrian Arab Army are the good guys with mass popular support. There are various “rebel” factions, but no moderate rebels. As my friend John McCarthy points out, “War would stop immediately if outside forces stopped supplying the “rebels, most of whom are not even from Syria.”

6. Insinuate That Everything Fits Your Narrative (Starring Arwa Damon, CNN)

In our next video, CNN correspondent Arwa Damon reports from a refugee camp in northern Syria. This video got a lot of laughs because she debunks herself by sniffing and touching objects allegedly contaminated with chemical weapons — without donning gloves or mask. Her highly edited video features clips of interviews with her voice-over translation muting most of the original dialog.

Damon reports that they all witnessed the gas attack, and some were poisoned. Really? A bedridden woman, she translates, was leaving the hospital when the sick arrived — a “horrific” scene! Woah, that doesn’t jibe with Sharp’s and Fisk’s hospital testimonials. Damon implies — without saying it outright — that the husband died in the alleged gas attack — a perfect example of how to insinuate that everything fits official narratives. Damon doesn’t say the smelly items were contaminated in the attack, but she implies it by reacting to a sniff test — “definitely . . . stings,” she says. With the camera close up on a smiling child, she states:

This new camp is inhabited with those who survived the siege of Douma. Its relentless months-long bombing that drove families underground so that something as simple as feeling the sun on their skin was a luxury.

Her scolding tone is code for blaming Assad and his Army. Damon summarizes in the same chiding tone:

The limited US-French-UK strikes may have sent a message to the Syrian regime about chemical weapons, but not the rest of its arsenal. For those who have endured the unimaginable, it’s little more than a move on a gruesome chessboard.

This insinuates that Assad and the Arab Army are responsible for the “unimaginable” and it implies locals share this viewpoint — which is not supported at all by Sharp’s news coverage (nor other independent journalists, for that matter).

One-man act

7. Edit Craftily (Damon)

Damon’s big budget film crew production honestly cannot compete with Sharp’s one-man act. His interviews are not highly edited nor dubbed like hers — nothing is hidden. His 3rd party interpreter translates in real time on camera. No one should ever, ever trust CNN dubbed translations because CNN was literally caught reading scripts on air in the Bana Alabed Syria psy-op. An elderly woman in this video hardly utters a word on camera, but quite oddly, Damon translates an entire paragraph, saying “her country has caused her too much pain.” Hmm . . . did the woman really say “HER country”? Unlikely, considering that people in Sharp’s videos know the score.

Of four adults Damon interviews, we don’t see the faces of two. Why did the man in this picture refuse to be identified? There can be a reasonable explanation (or he could be a terrorist), but it seems there was a dearth of willing participants in this large camp. Could it be because few conformed to her agenda? Sharp’s videos, in contrast, feature many people unabashed to speak on camera. With tape rolling, he randomly approaches and interacts with many people — not the case on CNN where the settings and props (doll, clothes in wash basin, face mask, pot on boy’s head, infant on hospital bed) look pre-planned. Furthermore, her interviews are cut, so we don’t know if she asked leading questions. Compared to Sharp’s impromptu videos, hers look rehearsed — props and all. Truth does not need editing nor staging.

Did CNN provide the t-shirts, face mask or sunglasses as props?

8. Speak in an Authoritative Tone In Lieu of Providing Proof (Co-starring Callaghan & Damon)

Caitlin Johnstone points out that “Saying something [repeatedly] in an authoritative tone [is] now [treated as] the same thing as providing proof.” These Sky News and CNN segments lack video proof. Yet because they speak in authoritative tones, viewers are meant to believe that none of the refugees denounced the “rebels” and western governments like other Syrians do, and that they all witnessed the gas attack. Johnstone recommends, “Never, ever, ever let them push the burden of proof upon you” (at 18:00). As chance would have it, Sharp provided video proof that refutes these MSM claims.

9. Lie by Omission (Starring Frederik Pleitgen, CNN)

CNN senior international correspondent Fredeik Pleitgen reported from Damascus April 7, providing the first details of the attack for which Assad was accused (link is here). The week prior, Pleitgen had visited eastern Ghouta with a group including Vanessa Beeley, who tweeted:

Why no mention of #EasternGhouta terrorist chemical weapons lab u visited wth me on 6th March? Why no mention of 3,500* plus civilian prisoners of Jaish Al Islam held in “repentance” prisons? Who gains fm this alleged CW use?

Pleitgen lies by omitting these critical parts of the puzzle — which would turn the narrative completely on its head because Jaish al Islam had the motive, means, and proximity to captives. On the other hand, Sharp leaves no gaps in his reporting. The way to know they’re lying by omission is to follow credible media sources. Here’s a list of independent Syria experts to follow (plus Tim Anderson). (*Note: Jaish al-Islam lied about the hostage count. Only 200 survived, with thousands dead or sold to Idlib.)

Hold MSM Accountable & Spread the Word

This is not normal. It is not healthy for well-educated journalists to warmonger for a paycheck and fame. To recap, here’s a list of nine psy-op ploys used to manufacture consent for war.

MSM has literally turned into a Hollywood production, and puts on this charade because they can get away with it. We need to call them out, hold their feet to the fire, and show our friends how to spot these psy-ops. Quite demonstrably, Sharp models what real journalism looks like, in graphic relief to MSM. This drastic dichotomy proves how fake MSM is and how dumb they think we are. As John McCarthy points out, “. . . honestly and humanly, [Sharp] is giving a voice to the People of Syria.” Sharp has arrived back in the USA and is posting more “Mr. Smith Goes to Syria” footage from his journey. In an interview, Sharp offers strong advice as follows:

Don’t trust the media. There is so much that goes on that you don’t see reported. I work in the media. I was at Douma. I saw what I saw, and then I saw what the other news outlets reported, and it wasn’t at all the same thing. . . . Traveling around Syria, there’s so much to that country that people don’t see in the media. The people there are friendly and outgoing, and all they want is to live a normal life. They are trying so hard . . . to just have a normal life. . . . In spite of everything, Syrians love America.

The good news is that — gas, or no gas — this chapter has helped blow the cover off MSM’s wiles. That’s why MSM is doing damage control with a giant smear campaign targeting their indie media competition. We need to push back, hold them accountable, and expose their tricks. People’s lives depend on it. Maybe even our own. Let’s follow, support, and promote these independent Syria-expert journalists and get the word out about Syria. Peace.

Net News Global

Quelle

قالب وردپرس

0 notes