Drop Down MenusCSS Drop Down MenuPure CSS Dropdown Menu
Alternative Text Alternative Text Alternative Text Alternative Text
Survivor of US Drone Attack:
Obama Belongs on List of World's Tyrants

Poisoning Black Cities: Corporate Campaign to Ethnically Cleanse US Cities Massive Marches in Poland
Against Authoritarian Threat of Far-Right
Ethiopia’s Invisible Crisis: Land Rights Activists Kidnapped and Tortured

Global Perspectives Now Global Perspectives Now
Showing posts with label google. Show all posts
Showing posts with label google. Show all posts

Israel To Coordinate With Google, YouTube, To Censor Palestinian Videos

Google agreed to strengthen the bilateral relations with Israel’s Foreign Ministry, and build a mechanism of “collaborative work” that would make both parties partners in monitoring the published materials and censoring them.



Israel held meetings with representatives of YouTube and Google to find ways of cooperating to censor Palestinian videos.


By Saed Bannoura
Israeli daily Maariv said Hotovely will be working with Google and YouTube officials in a joint mechanism that will be in charge of “monitoring and preventing” any publication of materials deemed by Tel Aviv to be “inflammatory.”

Hotovely announced in a Hebrew-only press release that she met with YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki, and Google’s Director of Public Policy, Jennifer Oztzistzki, at Google’s Silicon Valley Offices.

Hotovely said that she received a comprehensive review mechanism for companies to monitor the films that allegedly incite violence, claiming that the supposed ‘incitement videos’ drive young children to go out and stab: "The attacks daily in Israel are the result of youths and children incited by the education system and the social networks, this is a daily war of incitement."

She said that Google agreed to strengthen the bilateral relations with Israel’s Foreign Ministry, and build a mechanism of “collaborative work” that would make both parties partners in monitoring the published materials and censoring them.

The Israeli move comes amidst escalating tension in occupied Palestine, and a large number of videos, including those showing Israeli soldiers and officers killing Palestinians execution-style after injuring them, and many videos that in general highlight the suffering of the Palestinian people, living under the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestine.

The Israeli coordination with Google and YouTube has very serious implications, and many journalists have spoken out in opposition, saying it is a direct assault on the Freedom of the Press.

Read More

Google Manipulating News & Information: Demands Website Remove Stories On US Torture in Iraq and the War in Ukraine — Blocked Advertising To Site

Google demanded Antiwar.com delete an article on the civil war in Ukraine and remove content on torture by the US military in Iraq. Google also blocks ads to websites in nations against whom the US has imposed sanctions

When the big bucks starting flowing, Google got very evil. (Steve Rhodes. Flickr, CC)
When the big bucks starting flowing, Google got very evil. (Steve Rhodes. Flickr, CC)

By, Eric Harris, IPA
Founder and director of Antiwar.com, Garris just wrote the piece “Google Doubles Down: Demands Review of All Antiwar.com Content,” which states: “On Wednesday morning (3/18/15), Google AdSense suspended ad delivery to Antiwar.com demanding that we remove our 11-year-old pages that showed the abuse by U.S. soldiers of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib. We publicized this and got a bit of coverage. [See in Gawker: 'Google Suspends Site from Ad Network for Abu Ghraib Photo."]

“Yesterday [Thursday] Google contacted us and told us that they had given in and would be restoring ad service to Antiwar.com shortly.

“However, this morning [Friday] they contacted us demanding that we remove this article.

“Antiwar.com has no intention of allowing Google to dictate our content. We are looking into alternate sources of advertising and will not likely be working with Google AdSense in the future.”

JILLIAN YORK, jillian at eff.org, @jilliancyork, @onlinecensors
York leads the new project onlinecensorship.org at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. She said: “While Google is well within its legal rights to regulate content — and has good reasons to ensure certain violent content doesn’t make it to AdSense, in this case it came down on the wrong side of what was clearly content in the public interest: images that demonstrate torture by the U.S. military.”

In her article “Can Apple Refuse to Sell a Laptop to an Iranian Citizen? Maybe,” York noted: “Google reportedly blocks Persian-language advertisements because of the prohibition on financial transactions targeting Iranians. Given that there are only small pockets of Persian speakers outside of Iran, it would be difficult for Google to argue they’re not targeting Iranians with ads in Persian; therefore, blocking the advertisements entirely ensures that they’re in compliance with the regulations.”


Now That Obama Is Pushing For Net Neutrality, Pro-Neutrality Internet Giants Get Quiet: With Friends Like These, Who Needs Enemies?

Barack Obama explains his position of net neutrality. (Screen capture from video)
Barack Obama explains his position on net neutrality. (Screen capture from video)

By Farhad Manjoo
Silicon Valley’s giant companies have been quiet lately on the question of whether the government should protect an open Internet, which they’ve previously argued is vital to innovation. Don’t count on them staking out a stronger position even though President Obama has stepped into the fray, and Washington looks to be gearing up for an epic battle over the rules that govern the Internet.

On Monday, Mr. Obama offered his support for a strict set of rules that, among other proscriptions, would prohibit broadband carriers from blocking online content, and would restrict them from giving priority access over their lines to companies that pay an extra fee.

In another era, the White House’s position might have elicited squeals of joy from the technology giants, which have long maintained that the future of innovation online depends on such strict net neutrality rules. But Google, which was once the industry’s most ardent supporter of net neutrality, and Facebook, which could mobilize millions of supporters through its service, both declined to comment on Mr. Obama’s position.

Read More

Google’s Basic Business Model is ‘Same as the NSA’s’: Chairman Does 'Back Channel Diplomacy for US' — Says Julian Assange (Video)

Julian Assange has suggested that when he met with Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt, Schmidt gave him the impression he was doing "back channel diplomacy"  for the US government.





By telesurtv
As Wikileaks founder Julian Assange's new book hit shelves, on Friday the whistleblower website provided supporters with a sneak peak of 'When Google Met WikiLeaks.'

“While WikiLeaks had been deeply involved in publishing the inner archive of the U.S. State Department, the U.S. State Department had, in effect, snuck into the WikiLeaks command center and hit me up for a free lunch,” Assange wrote in a chapter of the book released to the public on Wikileaks' website.

The “free lunch” Assange referred to was a 2011 meeting between himself and the chairman of Google, Eric Schmidt and his then partner Lisa Shields.

“When he introduced (Shields) as a vice president of the Council on Foreign Relations—a US foreign-policy think tank with close ties to the State Department—I thought little more of it,” Assange wrote. He continued by describing Schmidt as “a good foil.”

[...]

Months after the meeting, when Wikileaks tried to contact the State Department, Assange wrote that Shields was used by the U.S. government as an intermediary.

“Not only had Hillary Clinton’s people known that Eric Schmidt’s partner had visited me, but they had also elected to use her as a back channel,” he wrote. “It was at this point that I realized Eric Schmidt might not have been an emissary of Google alone. Whether officially or not, he had been keeping some company that placed him very close to Washington, DC, including a well-documented relationship with President Obama,” Assange explained.

For Assange, the incident was a wake-up call that the lines between Google and the State Department had become blurred.

“Google is literally in bed with the State Department,” he told teleSUR English in an exclusive interview in September.


Read More

FBI Threatens to Force Apple and Google to Decrypt Their Phones

"Congress might have to force this on companies," he said. "Maybe they'll take the hint and do it themselves."—FBI Director James Comey

FBI Director James Comey. (Screen capture from YouTube video)
FBI Director James Comey. (Screen capture from YouTube video)
By Jason Koebler
Everyone is stoked that the latest versions of iOS and Android will (finally) encrypt all the information on your smartphone by default. Except, of course, the FBI: Today, its director spent an hour attacking the companies and the very idea of encryption, even suggesting that Congress should pass a law banning the practice of default encryption.

It's of course no secret that James Comey and the FBI hate the prospect of "going dark," the idea that law enforcement simply doesn't have the technical capability to track criminals (and the average person) because of all those goddamn apps, encryption, wifi network switching, and different carriers.


It's a problem that the FBI has been dealing with for too long (in Comey’s eyes, at least). Today, Comey went ballistic on Apple and Google's recent decision to make everything just a little more private.

"Encryption isn’t just a technical feature; it’s a marketing pitch … it’s the equivalent of a closet that can’t be opened. A safe that can’t be cracked. And my question is, at what cost?" Comey said. "Both companies [Apple and Google] are run by good people, responding to what they perceive is a market demand. But the place they are leading us is one we shouldn’t go to without careful thought and debate."

In a tightly moderated speech and discussion at the Brookings Institution—not one technical expert or privacy expert was asked to participate; however, several questions from the audience came from privacy-minded individuals—Comey railed on the "post-Snowden" world that has arisen since people began caring about their privacy.

Comey's speech and thinking was out-of-touch and off on many levels: He continually referred to potential "bad guys" as the only ones using encryption, and suggested that, with default encryption, people who are wrongly arrested won't be able to unlock data within their phones that could exonerate them.

Read More



Yelp, Facebook, Google Are Latest Tech Companies to End Association With ALEC — That Secretive Organization of Right-Wing Millionaires

Illustration by DonkeyHotey.
Illustration by DonkeyHotey.
By Mary Bottari
Grassroots campaigners are on a roll, as first Microsoft, then Google, Facebook and now Yelp have caved to public pressure to drop their membership in the controversial corporate bill mill called the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Next in their sights: Yahoo and Ebay.

On Monday, Google Chairman Eric Schmidt told NPR that the company would end its membership with ALEC and that ALEC was “literally lying” about climate change.

On Tuesday, a Facebook spokesperson told the San Francisco Chronicle: “We re-evaluate our memberships on an annual basis and are in that process now. While we have tried to work within ALEC to bring that organization closer to our view on some key issues, it seems unlikely that we will make sufficient progress so we are not likely to renew our membership in 2015.”

On Wednesday, Yelp confirmed to Common Cause that it was no longer a member of ALEC.

ALEC, which generated or disseminated voter suppression legislation, “Stand Your Ground” laws, and measures to dismantle unions as well as preempt minimum wage and sick leave ordinances, is now in hot water for its “free market” agenda to promote fossil fuels and cook the planet.

As CMD has documented, ALEC is funded by an array of fossil fuel interests, including Koch Industries, Exxon Mobil, TransCanada, and Peabody Energy. ALEC has promoted the repeal of Renewable Portfolio Standards and the approval of the Keystone XL pipeline. It has called on state legislators to engage in "Guerrilla Warfare" against the EPA, and urged politicians to recruit their state attorney general to sue over the EPA's new emissions rules.

The environmental organization Forecast the Facts' #DisruptDenial campaign has been putting pressure on a number of corporations for publicly backing the cause of climate change, but privately funding climate change deniers, including members of Congress and groups like ALEC and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Brant Olson of Forecast the Facts told CMD that the move by the tech firms to sever ties with ALEC shows that climate change is becoming a priority for major American firms. "The vast majority of Americans know that climate change is a reality and tech companies realize the issue is important to their customers. The departure of these firms from ALEC shows that denying the facts on climate change, really doesn't have a place in the modern business world," said Olsen.

The Sierra Club’s Michael Brune told the Chronicle that there is a disconnect between what many tech companies say about climate change and how their corporate parents lobby politically. “If you look at most of the employees in these companies — these are smart people who believe in climate science and they believe in clean energy technology,” Brune said. “And yet some of the institutions that their companies associate with are knuckle-dragging climate deniers. The government affairs office isn’t coordinating with the executive office."

Common Cause, Forecast the Facts, Sierra Club, Stand up to ALEC, Roots Action, Sum of US, People for the American Way, Progress Now, the Center for Media and Democracy and many other citizen groups and organized labor groups sent a formal letter to Google September 3 asking the firm to quit funding ALEC. In addition to thousands of emails generated by the groups, an untold number of postcards distributed by the Center for Media and Democracy were sent directly to Google corporate headquarters after the cards were handed out at the annual grassroots festival "Fighting Bob Fest," named for Wisconsin Senator "Fighting Bob" La Follette. Groups protested Google's ALEC membership at its headquarters in February, and Public Citizen spearheaded an action at Google's corporate shareholder meeting in May, and continues to demand that Google sever its ties with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Last year, Color of Change launched a spoof Yelp website criticizing the company for its ALEC membership, and multiple groups launched petitions urging the online review site to drop its ALEC membership.

Over 80 firms -- including some of the largest Fortune 500 firms in the nation -- have dumped ALEC since CMD started launched ALECexposed.org in 2011. See the list of ALEC corporate members here.

Tech giants Yahoo and Ebay remain members of ALEC.

Update: After this story was published on September 24, Yahoo issued a statement affirming that it was also leaving ALEC.



Reprinted with permission from PRWatch.

Social Media Censorship: Should Twitter, Facebook and Google Executives be the Arbiters of What We See and Read?




By Glenn Greenwald
There have been increasingly vocal calls for Twitter, Facebook and other Silicon Valley corporations to more aggressively police what their users are permitted to see and read. Last month in The Washington Post, for instance, MSNBC host Ronan Farrow demanded that social media companies ban the accounts of “terrorists” who issue “direct calls” for violence.

This week, the announcement by Twitter CEO Dick Costolo that the company would prohibit the posting of the James Foley beheading video and photos from it (and suspend the accounts of anyone who links to the video) met with overwhelming approval. What made that so significant, as The Guardian‘s James Ball noted today, was that “Twitter has promoted its free speech credentials aggressively since the network’s inception.” By contrast, Facebook has long actively regulated what its users are permitted to say and read; at the end of 2013, the company reversed its prior ruling and decided that posting of beheading videos would be allowed, but only if the user did not express support for the act.

[...]

In the digital age, we are nearing the point where an idea banished by Twitter, Facebook and Google all but vanishes from public discourse entirely, and that is only going to become more true as those companies grow even further. Whatever else is true, the implications of having those companies make lists of permitted and prohibited ideas are far more significant than when ordinary private companies do the same thing.

[...]

If you want these companies to suppress calls for violence, as Ronan Farrow advocated, does that apply to all calls for violence, or only certain kinds? Should MSNBC personalities be allowed to use Twitter to advocate U.S. drone-bombing in Yemen and Somalia and justify the killing of innocent teenagers, or use Facebook to call on their government to initiate wars of aggression? How about Israelis who use Facebook to demand “vengeance” for the killing of 3 Israeli teenagers, spewing anti-Arab bigotry as they do it: should that be suppressed under this “no calls for violence” standard?

A Fox News host this week opined that all Muslims are like ISIS and can only be dealt with through “a bullet to the head”: should she, or anyone linking to her endorsement of violence (arguably genocide), be banned from Twitter and Facebook? How about Bob Beckel’s call on Fox that Julian Assange be “assassinated”: would that be allowed under Ronan Farrow’s no-calls-for-violence standard? I had a long dialogue with Farrow on Twitter about his op-ed but was not really able to get answers to questions like these.

Read More

Google as an Arm of the Surveillance State: Google Helps Capture Lawbreaker Through Its Routine Scanning of Email Attachments


Monitors show imagery from security cameras seen at the Lower Manhattan Security Initiative on April 23, 2013 in New York City.


"There’s a pretty large gap between 'we’ll let the government look at your stuff if they insist' and 'we’ll keep an eye out for stuff that the government might want to see.' The latter, with respect to privacy, represents the top of a very slippery slope. How slippery? Well, consider Google’s interests in 'geolocation' [..] It’s not out of the question that someday as you drive down the road, Google will track you and automatically message the local police department if it notices you’re driving 38 miles per hour in a 35-mph speed zone."


By Thomas L. Knapp
Convicted in 1994 of sexually assaulting a young boy, John Henry Skillern of Texas once again finds himself incarcerated and awaiting trial, this time for possession and production of child pornography. Skillern’s arrest comes courtesy of Google. Few, I expect, will shed tears for Skillern with respect to his alleged sexual predations. Nonetheless his case once more brings Google into the privacy spotlight, this time as an arm of “law enforcement.”



Google makes no secret of the fact that it “analyzes content” in emails sent and received by users of its Gmail service, mostly for purposes of targeting advertising to users most likely to click thru and buy things. That’s how Google makes money — tracking users of its “free” services, watching what they do, selling those users’ eyeballs to paying customers.

It’s also understood by most that Google will, as its privacy policy states, “share personal information … [to] meet any applicable law, regulation, legal process or enforceable governmental request.” If the cops come a-knocking with a warrant or some asserted equivalent, Google cooperates with search and seizure of your stored information and records of your actions.

But Google goes farther than that. Their Gmail program policies unequivocally state that, among other things, “Google has a zero-tolerance policy against child sexual abuse imagery. If we become aware of such content, we will report it to the appropriate authorities and may take disciplinary action, including termination, against the Google Accounts of those involved.”

As a market anarchist, my visceral response to the Skillern case is “fair cop – it’s in the terms of service he agreed to when he signed up for a Gmail account.”

But there’s a pretty large gap between “we’ll let the government look at your stuff if they insist” and “we’ll keep an eye out for stuff that the government might want to see.” The latter, with respect to privacy, represents the top of a very slippery slope.

How slippery? Well, consider Google’s interests in “geolocation” (knowing where you are) and in “the Internet of Things” (connecting everything from your toaster to your thermostat to your car to the Internet, with Google as middleman).

It’s not out of the question that someday as you drive down the road, Google will track you and automatically message the local police department if it notices you’re driving 38 miles per hour in a 35-mph speed zone.

Think that can’t happen? Think again. In many locales, tickets (demanding payment of fines) are already automatically mailed to alleged red-light scofflaws caught by cameras. No need to even send out an actual cop with pad and pen. It’s a profit center for government — and for companies that set up and operate the camera systems. In case you haven’t noticed, Google really likes information-based profit centers.

And keep in mind that you are a criminal. Yes, really. At least if you live in the United States. Per Harvey Silverglate’s book Three Felonies a Day, the average American breaks at least three federal laws in every 24-hour period. Want to bet against the probability that evidence of those “crimes” can be detected in your email archive?

Read More

A Sick Game: 'Bomb Gaza' Game on Google Play Removed After Complaints

Bomb Gaza – a game on Google Play was removed after complaints.
Bomb Gaza – a game on Google Play was removed after complaints.
By Amira Al Hussaini
An Android game which allows gamers to carry out airstrikes on Gaza has drawn criticism and anger today. The game, which has since been withdrawn from Google Play, is called Bomb Gaza, and was released on July 29.

Online, users have described it as “disgusting,” “shameful” and simply “sick” – especially in the light of the horror stories coming out of Gaza as Israel continues its Protective Edge land invasion, now in its 30th day, which has so far left 1,865 Palestinians dead and more than 9,500 injured (Source: Palestine Health Ministry spokesman Dr Ashraf Alqedra's Facebook page).

All day, netizens pushed for removing the offensive game.

Occupied Palestine urges his 29.9K followers to flag the game:
Aysha asks them to report it:
And journalist Rania Khalek tells her 45.8K followers:
The game has since been removed.

Palestinian Omar Ghraieb, from Gaza, asks his readers to remain vigilant for other such games online:
Since Israel launched a massive offensive against the 40-kilometer long coastal strip on July 8, more than 6,780 have been injured. Israel has bombed schools, a playground, hospitals, shelters and refugee camps. Three in four people killed in Gaza were civilians. On July 28, Israel attacked the only power plant in Gaza, plunging the congested strip of 1.8 million people into darkness. As Israel forces bombs residential neighborhoods, tens of thousands have been made homeless and are forced to take refuge in makeshift shelters.

This is Israel's third military operation in Gaza in six years. Excessive restrictions from Israel in the Palestinian territories of Gaza and the West Bank is why most of the world and the United Nations considers this territory “occupied” by Israel.


Reprinted with permission from Global Voices.

Google Attempts To Justify Looking At Your Email Attachments — Blows Whistle On Man Emailing Child Porn

Last year, a Google director said it was Google's role to see that people sharing certain types of content are caught and prosecuted.




By Salvador Rodriguez
Google's controversial practice of scanning emails and analyzing users' emails for targeted ads reportedly led to the arrest of a 41-year-old Houston man who has been charged with possessing and promoting child pornography.

According to a local TV station news report, Google detected a Houston man using Gmail allegedly to send explicit images of a "young girl" to his friend.

The Mountain View, Calif., tech giant reportedly alerted the authorities, who then allegedly found more child pornography on the suspect's phone and tablet after obtaining a search warrant, KHOU reported.

The suspect, identified as John Henry Skillern, is being held on a $200,000 bond, according to the TV report, which said Skillern is a registered sex offender.

The practice of Google scanning Gmail messages has been controversial and has led to lawsuits that have accused Google of illegally opening and reading emails in violation of federal wiretapping statutes.

Read More


Stealing From A Baby: Apple Stole Millions From Parents by Letting Their Kids Make Purchases Through 'Free' Game Apps

Photo by Nisha A.
Photo by Nisha A.
Apple misleading children on 'free' apps, says European Commission. EC warns Apple could face legal action if it continues to delay changes to its app policies.

By Andrew Trotman
Apple could face legal action after failing to tackle the problem of children racking up huge bills by making in-app purchases, the European Commission (EC) has said.

In its latest findings into how internet giants charge for programs downloaded onto tablets and mobile phones, the commission declared that Apple has not committed to changing its policies.

The EC's main concern is that games are often labelled as "free to download" but are not "free to play", with purchases automatically debited from a registered credit card. More than half of online games in the EU are advertised as "free", the Commission says, despite many carrying hidden costs.


In one case, an eight-year-old British girl managed to run up a bill of £4,000 making "in-app" purchases from games such as My Horse and Smurfs' Village. In that instance, Apple reimbursed the girl's father.

The commission has pushed for Apple to comply on four key points:
1) Games advertised as "free" should not mislead consumers about the true costs involved;

2) Games should not contain direct exhortation to children to buy items in a game or to persuade an adult to buy items for them;

3) Consumers should be adequately informed about the payment arrangements for purchases and should not be debited through default settings without consumers’ explicit consent;

4) Traders should provide an email address so that consumers can contact them in case of queries or complaints.
Read More

Google Had Close Relationship With the NSA: Emails Show Google Executives and NSA 'Coordinated' On A Variety of Issues

Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of Google. (Photo by
Charles Haynes
)

By Jason Leopold
Email exchanges between National Security Agency Director Gen. Keith Alexander and Google executives Sergey Brin and Eric Schmidt suggest a far cozier working relationship between some tech firms and the U.S. government than was implied by Silicon Valley brass after last year’s revelations about NSA spying.


Disclosures by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden about the agency’s vast capability for spying on Americans’ electronic communications prompted a number of tech executives whose firms cooperated with the government to insist they had done so only when compelled by a court of law.

But Al Jazeera has obtained two sets of email communications dating from a year before Snowden became a household name that suggest not all cooperation was under pressure.

On the morning of June 28, 2012, an email from Alexander invited Schmidt to attend a four-hour-long “classified threat briefing” on Aug. 8 at a “secure facility in proximity to the San Jose, CA airport.”

“The meeting discussion will be topic-specific, and decision-oriented, with a focus on Mobility Threats and Security,” Alexander wrote in the email, obtained under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, the first of dozens of communications between the NSA chief and Silicon Valley executives that the agency plans to turn over.

Read More

Is There's a '2% Black Solution' In Play at Tech Corps?: Mysterious 'Consistency' at Google, Yahoo and Facebook — Only 2% of Their Workforces is Black

There a 'strange' consistency among the biggest Internet tech companies with regard to their hiring (or lack of hiring) blacks: Let's call it "the 2% solution." For Facebook and Yahoo, only 2% of their workforce is black, for Google it's a "whopping" 1%. For a number of years, companies like Google and Yahoo refused to release data on the ethnic/gender make up of their work forces, hiding behind the "trade secret" excuse. Now we know what they were hiding. These geek giants don't even pretend to make an effort at including blacks who are no doubt frozen out due to the subjective interview process and the nature of the culturally biased screening employed by these companies.


So-called 'diversity' hiring figures for Facebook (top left), Yahoo (top right) and Google (bottom): The percentage of black  employees never reaches higher than two percent.
So-called 'diversity' hiring figures for Facebook (top left), Yahoo (top right) and Google (bottom): The percentage of black
employees never reaches higher than two percent. So what's the job description of those blacks who do work for these
companies?  One wouldn't be surprised if most had job titles like "security" and "maintenance."

New stats show Facebook is run by a bunch of white dudes, just like Yahoo & Google


By Ruth Reader
Facebook released its company diversity stats in a blog post yesterday. The post, by Facebook’s Global Head of Diversity Maxine Williams, discussed the company’s commitment to diversity — but even she admits Facebook has a long way to go.
Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg may run the show at Facebook, but she’s mostly directing white guys. Facebook is 70 percent male and 57 percent white, but white guys really reign supreme at the senior level, where they occupy three-quarters of the jobs...

Hispanics make up four percent, multiple ethnicities three percent, and black employees make up two percent of the company workforce. Those demographics are pretty evenly distributed across tech, non-tech, and senior level jobs.

Read More


Top 10 Reasons Why Corporate Social Media is Not Your Friend, and Dark Social Media Is: Corporate Social Media Sites Are 'Crippled' On Purpose

The t-shirt and jeans are meant to give you that "he's not really  a manipulative, greedy billionaire" feeling.
The t-shirt and jeans are meant to give you that "he's not really
a manipulative, greedy billionaire" feeling. (Mark Zuckerberg, a
co-founder of Facebook: Photo by TechCrunch)
Social media sites like Facebook are deliberately "crippled" by their programmers to keep you from your friends, serve you up to advertisers and rob your money.  Did you know that only 7-8% of your Facebook friends can see your posts and that you have to pay Facebook a "promotion" fee so that 92 - 93% of your Facebook friends can actually see what you posts? In addition, only 3% of those who "like" your business or non-profit page are kept up to date with your posts, the rest are kept in the dark: unless you pay Facebook a fee, of course.  Happen to know a friend or family member is on Facebook and you would like to find them? Try searching for them using the "search" engine inside of Facebook. Unless they are already "friends of a friend" your chances of ever finding them through Facebook is virtually nil.Ronald David Jackson

By Bruce A. Dixon, BlackAgendaReport
For a long time now, we've all been told, and have told each other, that corporate social media is the way to build businesses, audiences and brands. What if this is about as true as the old saw about real estate prices only going up? What is “dark social media” and how is it different from Twitter, Facebook and the rest.

It's new, it's now, it's cool, learn how... everybody's on it, everybody's doing it. For some time now, we've been told you cannot build a business, find old friends or organize much of anything without the indispensable aid of corporate social media, especially Facebook and Twitter. But what if this is about as true as other stuff the supposedly wise and informed told us in recent years, like that real estate prices could be counted on to always go up?

Human societies are based on lots of horizontal communication. What if corporate social media is little more than a gigantic scam to extract revenue from the otherwise ordinary communication the internet permits between groups and individuals, between people and businesses, and among communities of interest. What if corporate social media ultimately aims not to open up but to throttle and restrict those conversations to make them artificially scarce and valuable commodities. What if corporate social media's business model is to thrive on content its proprietors don't create, and to place itself between that content and prospective audiences, even to substitute itself for the web sites, email lists and media offerings of content creators?

With a billion users, Facebook is far and away the largest player in the world of corporate social media, so all these criticisms apply to Facebook. But many also apply to Twitter, Pinterest and their little brothers as well.

Here are the top ten reasons why corporate social media is NOT your friend, and dark social media is.
  1. Facebook currently limits the number of your “friends” who can see your posts to about 7 or 8%. What? You thought that “friends” list was yours? It's not. It's theirs. And think about it, if you had a thousand friends, and 25 of them, that's 2.5% posted 3 or 4 times a day, another 25 posted once a day, and a hundred posted once a week, that would be at least 150 daily posts for you to comb through, leaving little room for Facebook to insert ads and promoted content which customers have paid for into your news feed.

  2. Facebook will let you talk to the other 92 or 93% of your friends, but you have to pay for that privilege. You buy an ad, or you “promote” the post by paying Facebook. Essentially Facebook is “broken on purposeso it can extract payment from you to do what you imagined it would do anyway, keep you in touch with your friends. You can get around this to a very limited extent by “tagging” each post with the names of individuals, or joining dozens of Facebook groups and individually sharing posts in the groups. But this is a time consuming process which has to be repeated with each post. If Black Agenda Report, with only a dozen or so new articles each week, we'd be on Facebook three or four hours each publication day.

  3. Facebook, along with Twitter and other corporate social media platforms provide you no way whatsoever to contact or individually identify your Facebook “friends” outside its own walled garden. Again, those lists of Twitter followers, and Facebook friends aren't really yours at all.

  4. Facebook limits the “organic reach” of your business or nonprofit organization page to about 3% of those who say they “like” you. Presumably those people “liking” your page imagined this would keep them up to date with what you're doing. Not so. Neither Facebook nor Twitter provides you any way to identify those “likes”, and Facebook won't allow you even to send a message to them. Let's do a thought experiment. Suppose you've got a business or a worthy cause, and a list of thousands of customers, prospects, clients, or past and potential volunteers and like minded donors. If I offer to take care of deliveries to that list, but won't let you see their names, their email addresses, or how many and which of them I actually deliver to, would that be OK with you? No? Now please tell me again why corporate social media which pretty much does that is essential to building your business, your brand, your cause.

  5. Facebook will gladly sell you advertising directed at the 97% of your “likes” who otherwise might never see your stuff. Actually, these people WILL see what you offer if they go out of their way to your Facebook page. But with the same amount of effort, they could have visited your web site independently of Facebook, couldn't they?

  6. Third party vendors are eager to sell you all the “Facebook likes,” “Facebook friends” and Twitter “followers” you're willing to pay for. They might be located in Egypt, Sri Lanka or Croatia, and never interact with your product or page again, but you can count them as “likes.” Twitter and Facebook do not endorse these parasitic vendors, but the mythology around corporate social media being so important to your business or organizational “presence” on the web keeps them in business as well.

  7. If someone hostile to your politics, your business or your person lodges a spurious complaint to Facebook, or Yahoo, Google or YouTube, say, that you're an anti-Semetic copyright-violating whistle blowing vegan child molester, what these providers generally do is simply cut your account off without notice. Their terms of service often relieve them of the bother of even sharing the exact nature of the complaint against you let alone investigating it, and explicitly state that “your” lists are really theirs. I know people who've lost thousands of business contacts and years of content in Yahoo and Google email accounts, lists and YouTube contents this way.

  8. Facebook, Twitter and other corporate social media platforms don't just track your every move while you're on Twitter or Pinterest or Facebook. If you close the browser tab without logging off or purging cookies, they usually continue to record and transmit all your internet activity home for data miners to crunch. Such data, both raw and refined are major revenue sources.

  9. While Facebook, Twitter and all the social media platforms rely on YOU and people like you for their compelling content, they deliberately aim to place themselves between you and your readers, customers, and clients, to substitute your Facebook presence for your own offerings elsewhere on the internet. Do you actually visit all the articles you pause over in your Twitter feed? Nobody else does either. We habitually comb through 140 character snippets and hundred word Facebook brain farts while seldom leaving the corporate social media plantation, and imagine we've actually visited those web sites, those sources. There are already folks whose ONLY daily internet experience is Facebook, and books like “The Shallows” explain how our internet reading makes us practically unable to read book length arguments, reluctant to follow any single line of inquiry for more than a minute or three.

  10. Dark social media is “dark” because it's social media untraceable by Big Data and corporate marketers. It's direct email sent from your own lists and your own listserves. Dark social media was around before Facebook, Pinterest, and Twitter, and remains the proven way for individuals, causes and businesses to reach, retain and maintain contact with friends, customers, clients, and like minded souls. Using dark social media to expand the reach of your business or project, to engage audiences directly and without an intermediary is often a more fruitful way to spend scarce resources. Corporate media won't tell you this and neither will the “social media consultants,” sometimes because they don't believe fat meat is greasy, and other times because disinformed customers are more profitable.
Remember all those real estate professionals and “wealth building experts” who told us home values would never go down? Some of them actually believed it that swill. Some others knew better, but were watching their own bottom line, not those of their customers or the public. This is not so different.

Facebook does some really nice things, and many of us have and interacted (online at least) with a ton of interesting people. But it may be time for your business, your social movement or project or you as an individual to reconsider the effort and resources devoted to maintaining a presence on Facebook, Twitter and corporate social media platforms. If you've already got two or three thousand Facebook friends or tens of thousands of “likes” that aren't fakes a bit of continued effort on Facebook and Twitter is probably required.

Bruce A. Dixon is managing editor at Black Agenda Report, a state committee member of the Georgia Green Party and a partner in an internet technology firm. He lives and works near Marietta GA and can be reached via  emailed at bruce.dixon@blackagendareport.com.



 Reprinted with permission from Black Agenda Report.

It’s Complicated: Facebook’s History of Tracking You

"Self Snitch:  Facebook doesn't bring you closer to friends, it brings you closer to the  police." (Illustration by Poster Boy)
"Self Snitch:  Facebook doesn't bring you closer to friends, it brings you closer to the
police." (Illustration by Poster Boy)
By Julia Angwin, ProPublica
For years people have noticed a funny thing about Facebook's ubiquitous Like button. It has been sending data to Facebook tracking the sites you visit. Each time details of the tracking were revealed, Facebook promised that it wasn't using the data for any commercial purposes.

No longer. Last week, Facebook announced it will start using its Like button and similar tools to track people across the Internet for advertising purposes.

Here is the long history of the revelations and Facebook's denials:

Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg introduces the "transformative" Like button…

April 21, 2010 – Facebook introduces the "Like" button in 2010 at its F8 developer conference. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg declares that it will be "the most transformative thing we've ever done for the Web."

He says his goal is to encourage a Web where all products and services use people's real identity. He suggests, in fact, that creating a personally identifiable web experience could be divine: "When you go to heaven, all of your friends are all there and everything is just the way you want it to be," he says. "Together, lets build a world that is that good."

Which sends data…

Nov. 30, 2010 – Dutch researcher Arnold Roosendaal publishes a paper showing that Facebook Like buttons transmit data about users even when the user doesn't click on the button. Facebook later says that Roosendaal found a "bug."

even when users don't click on it…

May 18, 2011 - The Wall Street Journal reports that Facebook Like buttons and other widgets collect data about users even when they don't click them. Facebook's chief technology officer says, "we don't use them for tracking and they're not intended for tracking."

Internet pioneer says log out of Facebook…

Sept. 24, 2011 – Veteran tech blogger Dave Winer writes that " Facebook is scaring me" with its apps like the social reader, which can automatically share stories you read. This "kind of behavior deserves a bad name, like phishing, or spam, or cyber-stalking," he writes. Winer recommends that users log out of Facebook to prevent being tracked on other websites.

Except logging out doesn't work…

Sept. 25, 2011 – Australian blogger Nik Cubrilovic writes that " Logging Out of Facebook is Not Enough." He shows that Facebook is tracking users even when they log out of the site. Facebook responds that it is fixing the issue so people won't be tracked when they are logged out of Facebook.

Facebook says not to worry...

Sept. 27, 2011 – Facebook tells the New York Times that it doesn't use data from Like buttons and other widgets to track users or target advertising to them, and that it deletes or anonymizes the data within 90 days.

Turns out Facebook has patented the technique…

Oct. 1, 2011 – Blogger Michael Arrington digs up a Facebook patent application for "a method … for tracking information about the activities of users of a social networking system while on another domain." The title of his blog post: " Brutal Dishonesty."

But, really, don't worry…

Dec. 7, 2012 – As the Wall Street Journal finds that Facebook Like buttons and other widgets appear on two-thirds of 900 websites surveyed, the company says again it only uses data from unclicked Like buttons for security purposes and to fix bugs in its software.

OK, worry…

June 12, 2014 – Facebook tells Ad Age that it will start tracking users across the Internet using its widgets such as the Like button.

It's a bold move. Twitter and Pinterest, which track people with their Tweet and PinIt buttons, offer users the ability to opt out. And Google has pledged it will not combine data from its ad-tracking network DoubleClick with personally identifiable data without user's opt-in consent. Facebook does not offer an opt-out in its privacy settings.

Instead Facebook asks members to visit an ad industry page, where they can opt out from targeted advertising from Facebook and other companies. The company also says it will let people view and adjust the types of ads they see.

We contacted Facebook to ask them about their tracking habits. They didn't respond.

Read our recent story about how online tracking is getting creepier, and a piece from our archives rounding up the best reporting on Facebook and your privacy.



Reprinted with permission from ProPublica

How Microsoft and Yahoo Are Selling Politicians Access to You — And They Won't Tell You Your iInformation is Used for Political Targeting.

Photo by Robert Scoble.
Photo by Robert Scoble.
By Lois Beckett, ProPublica
Microsoft and Yahoo are selling political campaigns the ability to target voters online with tailored ads using names, Zip codes and other registration information that users provide when they sign up for free email and other services.

The Web giants provide users no notification that their information is being used for political targeting.

In one sense, campaigns are doing a more sophisticated version of what they've always done through the post office — sending political fliers to selected households. But the Internet allows for more subtle targeting. It relies not on email but on advertisements that surfers may not realize have been customized for them.

Campaigns use voters records to assemble lists of people they're trying to reach — for instance, "registered Republicans that have made a donation," Yahoo's director of sales Andy Cotten told ProPublica. Microsoft and Yahoo help campaigns find these people online and then send them tailored ads.

These messages don't just pop up in Yahoo Mail or Hotmail. Because Microsoft and Yahoo operate huge networks that provide advertising on some of the most popular web destinations, targeted ads can appear when a voter visits a swath of different sites.

Microsoft and Yahoo said they safeguard the privacy of their users and do not share their users' personal information directly with the campaigns. Both companies also said they do not see the campaigns' political data, because the match of voter names and registration data is done by a third company. They say the matching is done to target groups of similar voters, and not named individuals.

According to Microsoft, President Obama's re-election campaign has recently done this kind of targeting, and both national political parties have done so previously.

The marketing site ClickZ, the Wall Street Journal, Slate and others have previously noted the ability of campaigns to target online ads to specific groups of voters. But what has not been detailed is which companies are now making the targeting possible by providing users' personal information — and which have decided it's off-limits.

Google and Facebook told ProPublica they do not offer this kind of political matching service.

Google's privacy policy classifies political beliefs as "sensitive personal information," which should not be used for online ad targeting. Facebook does allow political campaigns to target political advertisements, but only on the basis of political beliefs reported by the users themselves, rather than information culled from their voting records.

Jules Polonetsky, a former chief privacy Officer at AOL, and now the director of the Future of Privacy Forum, said political targeting has grown more aggressive in recent years.

Polonetsky recalls conversations within the online ad industry about "not wanting to do things like targeting users based on donor history" because "all of that was considered far too sensitive and likely to alarm users and set off privacy concerns."

"Today, those barriers have been leapt over with abandon," he said.

Industry experts argue targeted advertising can help campaigns save money by advertising more efficiently, a factor that could level the playing field for smaller campaigns.

Privacy advocates note that there's no way to track what messages campaigns are showing to different targeted groups — or whether politicians may be pandering to different voters.

"Whenever a campaign or other big organization knows much more about you and your habits than you know about them, any voter is open to manipulation," said Chris Calabrese, the privacy lobbyist for the American Civil Liberties Union.

Neither presidential campaign would comment on how it targets voters.

"We have no interest in telling our opponents our digital strategy," said Obama campaign spokeswoman Katie Hogan. "However, this campaign has always and will continue to be an organization that respects and takes care to protect information that people share with us."

Mitt Romney's campaign, which also uses sophisticated microtargeting tactics, did not respond to requests for comment. Targeted Victory, a firm that specializes in digital political targeting, had done nearly $4 million of work for Romney's presidential campaign as of March. Targeted Victory's advertised services include reaching voters online using voter registration data. The company's co-founder, Zac Moffat, currently serves as the Romney campaign's digital director. Neither Moffat nor Targeted Victory would comment on whether the Romney campaign is using voter records to reach potential supporters online.

Microsoft would answer questions about its targeting services only through a public relations spokesperson, who also asked that her name not be used. Microsoft's chief privacy officer, Brendon Lynch, did not respond to requests for comment.

Yahoo would not comment on specific clients, but said it has worked with Democrats and Republicans.

The Republican National Committee worked with both Yahoo and AOL to match Internet users to voter lists in 2007, according to Becki Donatelli, co-founder of Connell Donatelli, one of the most prominent Republican digital strategy firms. Contacted by ProPublica, AOL would not explain how its targeting service works.

The Republican National Committee also wouldn't provide details about its practices, but a spokeswoman said, "Targeting is one part of a larger playbook we have and will continue to employ. We follow legal guidelines and industry best practices." The Democratic National Committee did not respond to requests for comment.

When you see an online ad, you may assume it's comparable to a billboard — identical to everyone who walks by. But that's not the case for many ads. In the milliseconds it takes for a page to load, advertisers can identify a particular user visiting a site, and choose ads to display based on what they know about that user.

For instance, surfers may be shown a shoe ad if they recently visited a shoe site. Most of this sort of targeting doesn't require your name. Political targeting does. Campaigns may want to reach only reliable party members, or independents who might swing their way.

In order to do this, campaigns assemble lists of names from public records of voters they hope to reach, using such criteria as party registration, turnout history and previous donations. The campaigns often hire companies that harvest vast amounts of consumer data about individual Americans, further refining their voter lists with factors not publicly available such as income, education, magazine subscriptions, and purchasing habits.

Finding voters online is difficult, since no public record connects voters to a particular Internet address.

That's where Microsoft, Yahoo, AOL and other lesser-known companies come in. Their enormous stores of registration data can serve as the bridge between particular Internet users and their voter information.

Online advertising is delivered with the help of cookies, tiny files that companies place on surfers' browsers. Cookies can be used to track people as they move from site to site, helping specialized firms most users have never heard of create detailed records of the sites users visit and the links they click. This tracking is typically done through anonymous ID numbers; the tracking firms and advertisers don't know you by name.

Microsoft and Yahoo's targeting service combines two crucial factors: their knowledge of users' personal information and their ability to add cookies to browsers. Over the years, Internet users have given these companies their name when they signed up for free programs like the Microsoft suite of services known as Windows Live, which includes Hotmail. (Microsoft said it does not sell campaigns access to information users provide when they register for Office or other Microsoft products they've bought.)

Microsoft and Yahoo both said the cookies aren't connected directly to names or other personally identifying information. Instead, they use a complicated process to match coded voter information back to anonymous cookies on particular users' browsers.

But many parts of the process remain unclear since the companies were reluctant to explain the details of their matching and targeting.

Microsoft said that the credit reporting giant Experian performs a "double-blind" match between Microsoft's data and campaigns' data. Yahoo uses another massive data company, Acxiom. Both Experian and Acxiom also offer similar matching for commercial clients who want to find previous customers online.

"They don't need your permission to do this," said William McGeveran, a data privacy expert at the University of Minnesota Law School. As long as a company has not explicitly promised users not to do this kind of matching, the process is legal for both political and commercial entities, McGeveran said.

Microsoft, Yahoo and AOL all point out that users who don't want to be targeted can opt out.

"At AOL, we take privacy very seriously," Caroline Campbell, a company spokeswoman, wrote in an email. "We strongly support self-regulation, consumer transparency and choice, and responsible uses of data."

The Network Advertising Initiative, an industry group, offers a one-page site that allows users to turn off targeted advertising from a long list of prominent companies. Another industry group, the Digital Advertising Alliance, also offers a one-page opt-out site.

But you need to realize you're being tracked before you can decide whether to opt out.

Under the online ad industry's self-regulations, most targeted ads are marked with a tiny blue triangle and a phrase like "Ad Choices." Web surfers can click on this icon, read some general information about targeted ads, and find a link to a page that will allow them to opt out of receiving such ads in the future. Few ever notice or understand the symbol.

Speaking to an industry audience at the CampaignTech conference in Washington, D.C., in April, Cotten, from Yahoo, said less than one percent of Yahoo's users have chosen to opt out of targeted advertising.

"Most users are not even cognizant that they're being targeted," he said.

Nor are the companies' privacy policies much help.

Microsoft's privacy policy makes no mention of matching people's names and Zip codes against voter lists.

The Microsoft online privacy highlights page notes that the company collects users' personal information, and that "We use the information we collect to provide the services you request. Our services may include the display of personalized content and advertising." Like Yahoo and other companies, Microsoft's privacy policy is broken up over several different Web pages.

In an "advertising privacy supplement" Microsoft explains it may target ads using data from other companies, as well as "demographic or interest data, including any you may have provided when creating a Windows Live ID (e.g. age, ZIP or postal code, gender)." It does not say whether it classifies users' first and last names as "demographic or interest data."

"You are in charge of deciding whether we know anything about you," Microsoft explains elsewhere. "But the more you tell us about yourself, the more we can help you find information or products you want."

Yahoo's more straightforward privacy policy on data matching explains that the company may combine its users' personally identifiable information with information from other companies in order to customize ads. It names CampaignGrid, a political targeting firm, as one company that helps Yahoo! "provide more relevant content and advertising." Yahoo told ProPublica users' registration data is "consensually provided."

AOL's advertising privacy policy explains that it may customize ads "by using the registration data or other household data you have provided or that we have acquired from other companies."

The voter matching process is still far from perfect. Blaise Hazelwood of Grassroots Targeting, a Republican firm, said that the process is expensive, and that it's typically only possible to locate 20 to 40 percent of a given list of voters online in a typical matching process.

"You're not getting everyone," she said, "but the people you get, it's great."

Hazelwood was one of the first to use this tactic. She worked with Resonate, a data and targeting company, to deliver online ads to groups of Louisiana voters during Bobby Jindal's 2007 gubernatorial campaign.

In a 2008 campaign supporting a California proposition to ban gay marriage, Republican firm Connell Donatelli targeted online ads at registered Democrats over the age of 55, Kate Kaye of Clickz News first reported. One of the firm's strategists compared online voter matching to "a stealth bomber."

This spring, the Federal Trade Commission, which maintains the national "Do Not Call" registry, called for Web companies to implement a "Do Not Track" mechanism "that would provide a simple, easy way for consumers to control the tracking of their online activities."

Microsoft, Yahoo and AOL have agreed to implement "Do Not Track," but how exactly websites and advertisers will have to respond to the setting isn't clear.

In a surprise move, Microsoft recently made "Do Not Track" the default setting for the latest version of Internet Explorer browser, a decision that has received fierce pushback from the advertising industry and a key policy group.

Defending its stance, Microsoft's chief privacy officer last week cited a recent Pew study that found that 68 percent of respondents "were 'Not OK' with targeted advertising."


Reprinted with permission from ProPublica

Yahoo Details its Mostly-Male Employee Diversity Data for the First Time

For years tech firms like Yahoo have resisted providing data on the diversity of their workforces. Companies like Google and Yahoo hid behind the excuse that such information was a trade secret. The (lack of) diversity data for Google and Yahoo seems strangely similar.
Ronald David Jackson


Yahoo diversity data


Yahoo diversity data



By Josh Lowensohn
Yahoo today became the latest tech company to reveal the gender and ethnic demographics of its employees, disclosing that the majority of those workers are white males. Yahoo's broken down both gender and ethnicity profiles for its 12,200 employees globally and in the US where the company is headquartered. It's also detailed those genders and ethnicities across its tech workers, non-tech workers, and leadership group, which comprises predominantly of white males...
Results from the three are difficult to compare primarily because of size. Google employs nearly 50,000 people globally, which is more than four times the size of Yahoo. LinkedIn, meanwhile has about 5,400 employees. Nonetheless, Yahoo and LinkedIn are more similar, with women in both companies coming in at less than 40 percent of overall employees. The two companies also had very close white and Asian ethnicity makeup among its US employees.

Read More
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...