Censorship at Facebook runs rampant

Let's document all the ways in the past two months. (And yes, constitutionally, only governments censor but I'm using it in an everyday sense.)

First, I tried to post Ken Klippenstein's JD Vance dossier piece. Taken down.

Then, my blog post about that piece. Yanked.

Then, after that, Ken's May piece about Genocide Joe trying to get Hucksterman et al to censor pro-Palestinian activists. Gone but reposted by me when I saw the notification.

After that, not censored, but Hucksterman blocked the "captcha" of the photo going with this piece from Mondoweiss exposing the lies about an alleged antisemitic pogrom in Amsterdam, when it was really Israeli soccer hooligans accompanied by Mossad.

Then, last week? It kept calling this blog post, my riff via Bob Marley about this year's JFK assassination anniversary, spam and taking it down. Multiple times.

I don't know if it was idiotic bots, Hucksterman's humans in the Philippines not understanding snark, Hucksterman bots or humans thinking I was violating Bob Marley copyright, or bots or humans thinking I was inciting violence myself.

In any case, compared to the comment that Substack is full of Nazis (and setting aside that Beehiiv or Ghost might be easier to use), they're not Fuckbook. OTOH, Substack is still free. (When it stops being that, I stop posting there.)

Gonna give Hucksterman a copy of your driver's license?

That's the price to pay for his version of Twitter Blue at Facebook, reportedly just around the corner.

According to Morning Brew, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg is launching a subscription service for Instagram and Facebook that will allow users to purchase blue badges that mark them as verified. Known as Meta Verified, the service will launch in Australia and New Zealand this week and hit other countries “soon.”

Similar to Twitter Blue, Meta Verified eschews the traditional concept of the blue checkmark as a gift bestowed to notable people like politicians and celebs. Now, it’s open to anyone who’s willing to pay. But there are differences between Twitter’s and Meta’s plans:

• Meta’s is more expensive, costing $11.99 on the web and $14.99 on mobile. Twitter’s costs $8 and $11, respectively.
• Meta will also require Meta Verified users to confirm their identity using a government-issued ID,
  
• something Twitter doesn’t require.

What your $15 gets you with Meta Verified: You’ll get higher “visibility and reach” on the platforms and increased access to customer support, among other perks.

Zoom out: This is a big deal—not only for Meta, but for your experience on social media. By promising increased reach in exchange for $$$, Zuck is cementing social media’s evolution from a tool to keep up with your high school friends to a pay-to-play entertainment medium catering to professional content creators. As Bloomberg’s Sarah Frier noted, “Get your good friends a group chat if you haven’t already.”

And, yes, there will be people dumb enough to trust Huckersterman's security protections and do this.

Trump's Twitter ban & First Amendment idiots & hypocrites

I hadn't originally planned to blog about the idiocy of the likes of Glenn Greenwald, having figured that calling him out on Twitter for his First Amendment idiocy over Twitter's ban of President Trump was enough.

Greenwald, you're mendacious and getting more so by the day. Traditional media already has right to publish, or not publish, what it chooses. If I don't want to run yr letter to the editor at my paper, I don't have to. Issue of monopolies is separate fr the 1st Amendment itself.

— Your Glenn Greenwald pouty tomato face 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) January 9, 2021

While I'm here, though, let me note that I threw Michael Tracey under the bus, too:

Michael Tracey is a budget version of an even bigger First Amendment distorter than Glenn Greenwald. https://t.co/CgmsRz1eB5

— Your Glenn Greenwald pouty tomato face 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) January 9, 2021

The real problem, though, arose Monday, when German Chancellor Angela Merkel indicated she found the ban "problematic."

My thoughts there in this Tweet:

Angela Merkel, leader of a country that has no equivalent to the First Amendment, and a country that officially bans certain speech and expression, attacks Twitter for banning Trump. That's rich. https://t.co/oYaI4uWRGC

— Your Glenn Greenwald pouty tomato face 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) January 11, 2021

That should say it all.

So, let's tackle all three — Greenwald and Tracey together as symptoms of a certain class of journos. 

Is Merkel more hypocrite or idiot? It's true that Trump's blather has not risen to the level of neo-Nazi statements that are banned in Germany. On the other hand, he had in the past tweeted about such things as how the Proud Boys should "stand by." So, primarily, she's a hypocrite. 

Greenwald and Tracey — and assuming the likes of Taibbi are saying similar — are also hypocrites. It would be charitable to just call them idiots, but way too charitable.

To expand on what I told Greenwald, and an email group that was formed to address a couple of Green Party issues but has largely been hijacked by a couple of ardent horseshoe theory practitioners, Glenn either knows better and is a hypocrite, or should know better, and being in a position to know better, is also a hypocrite. Plus, since this is a sort of First Amendment quasi-absolutism in reverse, he's being hoist by his own petard.

Twitter's actions would be just like me telling someone:

We have run a number of your letters to the editor that have come close to libel of local officials. We have flagged some of them with our editorial comments at the bottom. We delayed one letter for publication by a week. The only effect this seems to have had is to have been a red flag to a bull. Therefore, we are banning you from running any more letters to the editor.

As a newspaper editor or publisher, I would have EVERY First Amendment right to do that.

but, what about monopolism, which Glennwald has raised elsewhere?

First, that's not a First Amendment issue.

Second, Twitter isn't a monopoly. Both Parler and Gab exist, even if Parler is scrambling to find its own hosting servers.

Third? Glennwald (though not Merkel) also talked about Facebook's ban. Facebook IS a monopoly, essentially. And? Lots of us have talked about it being a monopoly, and about things like its deceptive trade practices, long before this, and other effects those things have had. Glennwald the not-a-leftist though he tries to play one occasionally on Twitter has pretty much been silent about that.

I'm more than all for breaking up Facebook for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with a misinterpretation of the First Amendment. 

Also, were I the president of these United States, I would get rid of the official POTUS Twitter account. As in, delete it per normal Twitter protocol. I'd have the US government sue Jack Dorsey if he tried to stop that. I'd have all federal agencies and their PIO staff kill their respective Twitter, Facebook and Instagram accounts, and replace them with good old RSS feeds on White House and agency websites.

I haven't included Glennwald fellow travelers and quasi-travelers such as Media Myth Alert's W. Joseph Campbell, who in multiple posts last year appeared to accept #StartTheSteal claims and remains unrepentant, TV talking head lawyer Jonathan Turley, and surely whatever Matt Taibbi has said on this.

===

As for Jan. 6 and what we should say about what actually happened? Trump's "come to the Capitol" Tweet in isolation arguably was an incitement to nothing. But Green Party members who make that argument are full of shit. Somebody inside his White House (ie, Gorka, Miller), even if not Trump himself, likely had an inkling of wingnut social media being used to organize this and probably encouraged Trump to tweet his invitation. 

Let's also not forget Trumpian Twitter context. This is the same president who, when asked last summer to disavow the Proud Boys, instead tweeted about how they should "stand by."

 

Angela Merkel may not know, or think of, the context. Glennwald certainly can if he so chooses. He has chosen not to.

Calling it a coup attempt might (or might not) be too harsh. Calling it an insurrection is not.

Nor is calling it sedition.

Just in case you're wondering? The federal criminal definition of sedition very much fits the action of leading actors on Jan. 6, specifically bullet points 2 and 3. This is why, contra the admins of the official Green Party Facebook group and people like Charles Keener here, it's important to know what percentage of self-identified Greens are conspiracy-thinking enough to consider this a "psyops." 

Time for some Twitter cleanup, maybe another timeout as well as one from Facebook

I have taken several Facebook timeouts of one week or less. But, until earlier this summer, never took a Twitter timeout, as in, like with Facebook, doing an account snooze.

The one I did do with Twitter was more than two weeks.

Here's my take on the two.

Twitter's cesspool, proportionally, is probably worse than Facebook's. But, overall, Twitter does a better job of cleanup. That's the only social media programs I use regularly. I use MeWe semiregularly, ditched Jimmy Wales' site, tried and passed on Mastodon and occasionally used Instagram at previous work sites. I use LinkedIn regularly FOR JOB HUNTING ONLY. You're an idiot if you blog there under your real name, especially about anything not narrowly related to your career field.

That said, back to the header.

There's an old cliché that says "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Bullshit.

This is clearly an Idries Shah issue:

First, as I have said here and elsewhere, the enemy of my enemy may simply be an ally of convenience. That's another side right there.

Or, the enemy of my enemy may also be an enemy to me on other issues, or even on the issue at hand, just via a different track.

Politics (what else?) brings this issue to the fore on Twitter.

I get, in a sense ("get" but don't agree with) still butt-hurt Berners who look for takedown tools against Joe Biden. As a Green, Bernie would have been more acceptable, but I was still voting for the Green Party nominee before 2020 started. (Well, at least for eventual actual nominee Howie Hawkins, and at that time, had the door open for Dario Hunter. The other candidates already seemed off the wall, and then, this summer, true Dario revealed himself. But I digress, again.)

That said, using wingnuts who are often attacking Biden because they're Trumpers, or like nutter H.A. Goodman, Bernie → Trump guys, as part of your takedown tools? No. I'm not blocking, or even muting any of you folks, but I am unfollowing several.

Anyway, the cleanup has happened, but not for the reasons above.

Trump talked over the weekend about considering a pardon for Snowden. That then brought the Assange-stanners, especially not the halfway sane ones but, natch, the Seth Rich conspiracy theorists, to the fore. I unfollowed several people who had been following both Suzi 3D and Kim Dotcom, and then eventually kicked both of them full to the curb. On her? Yes, she's right about the "Five Eyes." So are many other people who don't lie about Seth Rich, don't stovepipe Assange, don't claim persecution and haven't "magically" ended up in Moscow. Her tale sounds less credible than it once did, which is part of why I think I had been following her.

The need for a new Facebook timeout is for other reasons. I've been reporting more and more posts there by wingnuts as fake news, and Twitter, sadly, still doesn't have a "false news" report line.

That said, I had already thought weeks ago that Twitter, even though it has the deeper cesspool, does a better job of policing.

That then became confirmed in spades with news that Facebook fired an engineer after he discovered information that wingnut activist groups were getting preferential treatment in getting false news flags removed. And, given that individual wingnuts' false news posts often involve sharing items from these orgs, I've just been playing kabuki theater. Well, no reason to do that deliberately.

Plus, while Facebook does have a "false news" report, the results of it are definitely a "nothingburger" most the time. A screen over the post that says "Facebook has found this partially false/false." No takedowns.

New Facebook, which is being forced upon us, sux donkey dongs worse than New Twitter. And, it sux in another way. It's burying the "most recent" button for chronological post feed, and instead forcing the algorithms on us. And, it says, in New Facebook help, that you can hit the "most recent" feed, but that posts will eventually revert to Hucksterman's definition of "most popular." I smell another Facebook timeout coming up.

Alternatives? Ello long ago became the British MySpace. Mastodon is clunky. I tried some other alternative to Twitter that interested me even less than Mastodon.

But, there is MeWe. Formed out of remnants of Google Plus after Google pulled the plug on it (after screwing the pooch in several ways), it's not bad. I just need to make an effort on developing some contacts there. On the other, or third, or whatever hand or side, I had a Trumper regularly trolling the Green Party group there. And on the fourth hand, friend Brett Welch said several of his groups have "dried up" recently, including some migrating (back?) to Hucksterville.

'Pink slime' journalism and duopoly money-laundering

Excellent piece by Columbia Journalism Review, following up on a report it did about the Tow Center and other folks. The biggest takeaways from CJR:

1. This problem has grown a lot since the original Tow piece.

2. Per a link to Open Secrets, although this started as a conservative to wingnut-conservative project, liberals are doing it, too. One biggie is the group behind the Shadow vote-tabulation app of infamy from the Iowa Democratic caucus. Another is Pantsuit Nation, obvious Hillbot folks. So, we're talking neoliberals. A third group also gets George Soros PAC money. (Cue wingnut conspiracy theories.)

3. What CJR doesn't mention is that, primarily for capital reasons, leftists aren't. (That said, CJR's general failure to distinguish liberal and leftist is itself an issue.)

4. The original "pink slime" wasn't necessarily partisan as much as it was cheap hypercapitalism.

5. Wanna know who's doing this in Texas? Page 11 of this link. Metric Media and Local News Network are conservative as are Record. None of the links are liberal.

Missing from the CJR account is the problem with this much capitalism sloshing in the system. That's especially true with the Open Secrets piece mentioning IRS concerns. Related? The duopoly issues.

Per two tweets:

Good piece by @acookiecrumbles but cld have used more.
1. More bkgrnd on amnt dark money sloshing around natl elections
2. How much of this is "legal" money laundering of some sort?
2A. Related? Here in Tex-ass, per websites link, even tho we're "swing," all sites r rightist 1/x

— Hiroshima 75: Remember the FULL STORY 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) August 5, 2020

and

3. Framing this in terms of duopoly politics. Greens and further left don't have money for this, and I'm unaware of any of the right or quasi-right sites boosting capital-L Libertarians.
4. Re the Open Secrets link, more IRS-related follow-up?

— Hiroshima 75: Remember the FULL STORY 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) August 5, 2020

that's more detail on how I see that either this piece could have gone further or that it could use another follow-up.

Update: Facebook says it will tighten up on what from pink slime websites counts as news. That said, the new policy has multiple loopholes, and, as usual, I have "Facebook says" in one hand and "shit" in the other. Given that Facebook fired an engineer for documenting its preferential treatment to wingnut outfits that had posts flagged as "fake news," you'll pardon me for being skeptical.

Trump: Partially right on social media for wrong reasons

President Trump's now-announced executive order saying that social media platforms should be treated like publishers under terms of the 1996 Communications Decency Act was reportedly in the works for months, waiting for an excuse. That Daily Bees story is also worth reading for the holier-than-thou hypocrisy of Hucksterman and his minions. If tRump had a Facebook account, Zuckster the Huckster would treat him with the same kid gloves as Jack.

The Bees, though, failed to note what Tech Dirt DID: Not only can tRump not rewrite law, not only can he not replace the federal court system and its jurisprudence, even in the areas where an executive order might carry weight, this one is nugatory and meaningless.

The reality, as an Australian state-level supreme court ruled recently with Google, is that these folks ARE publishers. But publishers have biases all the time. Let's stop pretending otherwise. But, if Jack Dorkey's going to be a hypocrite, you and I can jump off, whether permanently or selectly. (My current plan is to stay off Twitter for a couple of weeks, and then get on just enough to reactivate my primary account, then likely deactivate again and lather, rinse, repeat.)

As for federal law? MUCH of the 1996 Communications Decency Act is flawed and needs overhauling, not just Section 230. Some of it's bad in civil libertarian terms. Some of it's bad in neoliberal capitalism terms, like Section 230.

Specifically, subsection (c)(1) needs to be overhauled. But (c)(2), which is the target of Trump's ire, is OK in my book. Non-Internet publishers do this all the time, and not just with profanity. If wingnuts don't like Twitter, they can go to Gab. Unfortunately, left-liberals and beyond have failed to start any alternatives that I know of, and general social media alternatives? MeWe is OK and easy to use, but more tumbleweeded than Google+. Mastodon struck me as being as clunky as a mastodon. Ello became a British MySpace.

Since Al Franken et al struck out on Air America, a specifically left-liberal and beyond (or even "pergressuve") major effort in Gnu Media just hasn't happened.

Now, what would it mean legally to reject (1) but not (2)?

Per that Aussie case, first of all, it would mean hiring more humans, and paying them better, to clean their Augean stables.

Second, it would force more governments to establish a formal complaint process for notification of these companies, with civil liability if they fail to haul down material without establishing good cause otherwise. As of now, the Good Samaritan clause leaves them non-liable in the US even after such a notification. And that's the crux of the issue — inadvertent initial acceptance of uploaded material on social media sites, or inadvertent search returns on news aggregators, versus willful retention of such material after notification. In essence, because companies hire people to look for offensive material, they are using publication standards.

Third, while it wouldn't put the "old mugshots, old records" people out of business, they'd be living a more marginal live than robodial phone callers.

Fourth, in the case of Google and some search engines, it would likely increase civil liability in some narrow ways on paid search results, to a similar degree of conventional media and advertisers, per the last part of my "second" paragraph.

Fifth, it might lead Google and other search engines to proactively block more search results. That would increase the so-called "dark web," but again, print versions of that, and some pirate radio versions, existed before the Internet. I mean, the average American couldn't find snuff films (to the degree any actually existed and the whole idea wasn't just urban legend) 30 years ago.

In other words, the situation re Section 230 as a whole is more nuanced than the likes of EFF claim. The reality is that Congress could nuance both it and other areas of the CDA that need it without running afoul of either the original or later First Amendment worries.

Counter-commenters might cite, oh, the Seth Rich conspiracy theory. Yeah, but that appeared in traditional media, and Seth's relatives sued Fox and Washington Times. A district court tossed the case, but an appeals court — rightly, IMO — reinstated it.

==

Update, June 11: Ars Technica has a long discussion of Section 230 and possible options. Ben Wittes' "reasonableness exceptions" at the bottom of the piece is exactly what I would support.

A timeout from Twitter; and a new one from FB for good measure

I have taken two Facebook timeouts in the past. One was just about a full week. The other was three or four days.

I've never stepped away from Twitter.

But, although it's not the same degree of privacy, and privacy monetization, leech as Hucksterberg, it's a bigger cesspool as far as being a poster child of all that's wrong with social media.

And Jack Dorsey allows much of it specifically to try to monetize it. That's especially true in the case of one Donald J. Trump.

And in the case of promoting a conspiracy theory claiming that then-Congresscritter Joe Scarborough murdered a staffer, Lori Klausitis, Trump has gone further than normal.

And Jack Dorsey went too far himself.

Now, Scarborough, a one-time Trumper, made his bed. While not justifying any conspiracy theory, any Trump bootlicker, even if not a current one, with an iota of brains knows he will turn on you.

But, not only would Jack not remove the Tweets, despite personal pleading, he wouldn't even put the "fake news" tag on them, which he DID later in the day over Trump claiming Michigan and other states were committing voter fraud by expanding vote by mail. Trump response? Typical bully. He threatened to shut down Twitter. Shows Jack what he gets for enabling Trump.

That said, on the Klausitis Tweets, they first started two weeks ago. I guess Scarborough tried approaching Dorsey in private, and nothing happened. Ditto on her widower, who is the one who asked them to be taken down.

As for Jack? Even by the self-anointed tech guru standards of Silicon Valley, he is a nut. And a grifter. That second link probably explains well Jack's inner "deep state."

Finally, as to Twitter friends who regularly Tweet #DeleteYourFacebook on Twitter? What are you going to do about Twitter? As I have explained above, and per the "later in the day" link, Jack enables Trump because of $$$.

That leaves you two choices.

Boycott companies that advertise on Twitter or
Stop using Twitter, at least temporarily, so those advertisers reach fewer eyeballs.

Well, you have a third choice. And that's to keep enabling Jack Dorsey's cesspool.

I have other reasons to hate Jack and Twitter.

One account of mine was hacked. The hacked version got suspended, but because you can't deactivate a suspended account, the email associated with that is in Twitter limbo. (Jack apparently, though, is unfamiliar with this idea of "burner email addresses.") Another account was suspended because Covington Catholic chuds reported it, my original primary account, in spades. Its handle was "@realDonaldTrump." With the "@" as part of the handle, and the full thing not a name, I charge that this is NOT impersonation, especially when the profile photo was usually one that would piss off the actual Trump.

So, I've got, per Twitter, up to 30 days to reactivate or it deletes. I'll probably use most of it.

Meanwhile, I figured that, for a couple of days at least, I'd take another Fuckbook timeout, to make this more real.

I am also on MeWe ... with four friends. It would probably be more of a cesspool, whether financial or wingnut or both, were it bigger. (Basically, it's the reassembled detritus of Google+.) I've already blocked two wingnuts, one a lying Buddhist or Buddhist-friendly Islamophobe and the other an outright Trumper. Both were in a philosophy of religion group, and both got me a tut-tut from the admin, who is himself a dick, as far as I can tell, starting with half the stuff he lets fly as philosophy of religion. Probably time to leave that group.

And since I don't have my password for it bookmarked on all my browsers at home, that restricts where I use it.

==

As for the issue at hand? Scarborough always has the option of suing Trump.

Yes, yes, Scarborough is a public figure.

But?

It seems pretty clear that this involves
Actual intent of malice and
Reckless disregard for the facts.

Of course, good luck with the jury strikes making sure that you have no more than 1 die-hard Trumper among the 12 people in the box, if it's in most states, or none if it's federal. (And, if this ever actually happened, no way Trump would waive his jury rights.)

Of course, that's why he's not asking. And it's not him leading the push to take them down, it's Klausitis' widower.

Klausitis' widower could also sue, but, in reality? He just wants this to go away, I'd think.

That said, Raw Story looks at the legal chances of both Scarborough and Timothy Klausitis.

And, basically, like the Seth Rich conspiracy theory, Jack is deliberately letting family members be injured.

Meanwhile, if Trump is going to try to punish Twitter (and Fuckbook) tonight, he could be shooting himself in the foot. That's even as his now-announced executive order was reportedly in the works for months, waiting for an excuse. That Daily Bees story is also worth reading for the holier-than-thou hypocrisy of Hucksterman and his minions. If tRump had a Facebook account, Zuckster the Huckster would treat him with the same kid gloves as Jack.

The reality, as an Australian state-level supreme court ruled recently with Google, is that these folks ARE publishers. But publishers have biases all the time. Let's stop pretending otherwise. But, if Jack Dorkey's going to be a hypocrite, you and I can jump off, whether permanently or selectly. (My current plan is to stay off Twitter for a couple of weeks, and then get on just enough to reactivate my primary account, then likely deactivate again and lather, rinse, repeat.)

As for federal law? MUCH of the 1996 Communications Decency Act is flawed and needs overhauling, not just Section 230. Some of it's bad in civil libertarian terms. Some of it's bad in neoliberal capitalism terms, like Section 230.

Update, May 29: So now, Dorkey is hiding a Trump tweet over Minneapolis rioting — until you click a link acknowledging it's violating Twitter terms for glorifying violence. That said, even after clicking the link, it can't be "liked" or retweeted without comment. So there is that.

BUT .... it CAN be retweeted WITH comment. And, oh, it will.

The other problem is a Twitter "infrastructure" problem, as detailed here, with a story claiming this was two years in the works. Twitter's antique backbone, along with a refusal to hire fact checkers, all helped lead to this.

That said, Hucksterman, with a brand new "infrastructure," left Trump's comments up on Fuckbook. Of course he did. And I guess Trump has a Facebook account, and it presumably just reposts his tweets. And Hucksterman's holier-than-thou stance is worse than Dorkey's.

Update, June 11: Ars Technica has a long discussion of Section 230 and possible options. Ben Wittes' "reasonableness exceptions" at the bottom of the piece is exactly what I would support. 

Time for a Facebook tidy-up

I'm not thinking as in "full cleanup," with dozens of friends dropped.

But, with a new move, and Twitter banning my old account (no, dipshit Jack, it's not "suspended") and a heated 2020 Dem presidential nomination coming up, and that already being revelatory on Book of Face ... time to tidy up.

A number of my current FB friends (no, I don't link my FB account to Twitter or this blog, as my version of good social media hygiene) were made via the late Leo Lincourt. For whatever reason, one of them has moved on, on her side, since he died, and changed her Book of Face connection to me.

Many of Leo's friends who were in part for political reasons aren't leftist, or even that strongly left-liberal. When Beto is promoted for his "electability," .... time to loosen the connection if there's no other real strength of connectedness.

So, I've already started slotting some friends as just "acquaintances." Others will happen soon. I just snoozed one on March 15 who drinks the Beto Kool-Aid. I snoozed another who thinks Glenn Greenwald is the greatest thing since sliced bread. When I posted Ken Silverstein's latest piece about GG back, he got indignant. He then mentioned Aaron Mate (good, and I already know Aaron), Caity Johnstone (a nutter) and ignored my suggestion to learn more about Ken, even after I mentioned his original Washington Babylon at Harper's, his founding of Counterpunch and his Mossack Fonseca work. Don't tell me that I'm not well enough read politically if you diss Ken without even following up on my suggestions.

Ditto on some whom I have connected with via Green Party-affiliated Facebook groups. For those who have individually friended me and vice versa, if, as we move toward 2020, I see that you come off as more and more stereotypical Greens on woo, antivaxxerism, etc., I'll loosen those connections, too.

Riffing back to Leo? Finding that sweet spot between non-Gnu Atheism, non-Democratic (or partially so) left-liberals and beyond, and people with a non-American exceptionalism outlook on foreign affairs, among other things, isn't easy. That said, per this ... I am at least going to move political friends who can't put at least part of one foot outside the Democratic party to "acquaintances" unless they have other reasons for me to be FB friends.

More broadly, I may cut my Facebook posting more and focus on building the new Twitter account. Oh, fuck you again, Jack.

Facebook, Google, Apple and the'censorship' of Alex Jones

Glenn Greenwald is leading the worry brigade among some libertarians and semi-libertarians about letting the trio above ban Alex Jones from their sites.

To which, although I've noted problems with the way Popehat swings his particular version of semi-absolutism on the First Amendment, there's his response:

It's ridiculous to think we can find alternatives to big online media gatekeepers like Yahoo, Geocities, and AOL.

— QHatSecretMessages (@Popehat) August 7, 2018

Then there's my response:

Re FB/Google/Apple & Alex Jones We worried about AOL and Yahoo 15 years ago. If FB/Ggl/Appl become more powerful, they can be further regulated. BUT! libertarians of various stripes might not like that. So, while we're at it, we can junk both Citizens United and Buckley v Valero.

— @realDonaldTrump 🌻 (@SocraticGadfly) August 7, 2018

And, with that, I'm targeting Glenn, who's worried about Citizens United but not nearly enough to call for its repeal, and doesn't even care about Buckley.

That's called petard-hoisting, Glenn. (Oh, Ken, I'll put that on you at some point. Unless you actually like people yelling fire in a crowded theater, you're not a 1A absolutist, either.)

Beyond THAT, Infowars is hoist by its own petard:

You can't make this up. InfoWars' own terms of service say: "You are a guest here. It is not censorship if you violate the rules and your post is deleted. All civilizations have rules and if you violate them you can expect to be ostracized from the tribe." (h/t @alexkasprak) pic.twitter.com/8hy8NyLN0H

— Oliver Darcy (@oliverdarcy) August 7, 2018

But, let's move onward.

I don't need Reason to tell me (thus, no link, Ken) that while the trio can ban Jones and Infowars, the grounds are wishy-washy.

But, neither you nor Reason will say, contra your tweet, that late-stage capitalism is involved.

These folks (supposedly, Apple hasn't banned Jones on all platforms yet, anyway), probably saw some small threat of "boycott" and figured that would lose more money than gaining any money from Alex and his neo-nutbar fellow travelers.

As "they" say, Effbook is a "mature platform" in the US. Ditto for YouTube and various Apple sites.

On the third hand, is this:

Mark Zuckerberg told the Senate that @Facebook has a responsibility to its users as a news curator.

Today, Facebook removed the video I posted about the US-backed bombing of Hodeidah, #Yemen, which contained graphic footage of its aftermath.

Another corp. sanitizing news. pic.twitter.com/d5WTL70sVw

— Walker Bragman (@WalkerBragman) August 3, 2018

Facebook ultimately is a late-stage capitalist platform. But that's what drove Citizens United, too, Glenn. So, you're kind of petard-hoist.

To summarize, libertarian types risk hoisting on one of several petards.

One is when saying that Facebook (synecdoche for the group) is doing it wrong. You admit it has the power to do this. Thanks, that's all we need there.

Two is admitting Facebook has gotten too big to be allowed to do this on its own. You're admitting it's a public utility or similar, and that it needs government regulation or similar. Well, on the second half of that sentence, you lost your libertarian card if, like Ted Cruz seemingly, you think it needs to be regulated. If you reject that fork, but accept the first clause, then let's bounce hypotheticals off your head as to how close to First Amendment absolutism you want to go before you might step in. The Weekly Standard goes exactly there by asking if you want porn on social media.

Three is more muddled. It's having the feeling that Facebook's actions are problematic but not being sure what else to do next. If you're an allegedly rigorous-thinking libertarian, that's a problem there.

Beyond that, as Alex Madrigal notes (and others have observed on Twitter) the ban is about as leaky as most newspapers' online paywalls. (It's kind of sad that's my reference, but it's a perfect comparison.) That too is presumably deliberate, and late-stage capitalistic. A "ban" that's more of a shadow ban to appease some people. Hell, Facebook probably even ran an algorithm about just how much "banning" to do.

Google? It just lets Jones keep running on Google+, showing how little it now values that site. Plus, none of these people have banned Jones' British flunky, Paul Watson.

Final note? RationalWiki has a great point about Jones. If he really is blowing the cover of the New World Order time after time, why is he still alive? Why hasn't he been assassinated?

Newspapers, barn doors, Facebook and Google

Friend Chris Tomlinson at the Houston Chronicle has a good column on the latest Facebook brouhaha of many, and not the only one in the past month.

It's not his only one on the subject. It's generally good, as far as it goes. Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg would probably sell his own grandmother to the devil for some new Facebook innovation. That's even as, in the US, Facebook traffic appears to have hit a wall and may even be tailing off. (The increasing number of Facebook memories I see in my own feed for suggested sharing — and the number that I see friends actually sharing — would be anecdotal evidence in support.)

That said, many newspapers (don't know about Chris's Chronicle) made their bed a year or two ago by signing off on the Facebook Partners program, or exactly whatever it's called.

That, in turn, continues a string of 20-plus years of multiple bad decisions related to All Things Internet.

It began in the mid-1990s when Dean Singleton, not only the creator of the now-foundering MediaNews empire, but also at that time chairman of the AP's board of directors, agreed with other AP board members that the "TV model" for newspapers would be just fine as far as "monetization" of the Internet.

The "TV model" basic point was that TV, like radio, was free, and did fine with advertising. So, why couldn't online newspapers be the same?

Well, this ignored several things.

First, cable TV wasn't free.

You counter: But, that's the same as paying an ISP provider for Internet.

First, pay cable TV channels existed in the mid-1990s, and HBO and the Playboy Channel, at least, were 15-plus years old by then.

So, it's not just hindsight to say Deano et al were wrong.

They may have been wrong in misunderestimating the reach of the Net. The first tech bubble crash at the turn of the century, followed by the Greenspan-Bush post-911 bubble inflating their ad revenues, probably fed newspaper owners' ongoing motivated reasoning.

But, they were still wrong.

They probably had a chance, by the late 1990s, if not by the early 2000s, to reverse the AP party line on "retransmission costs" for Yahoo, the first big news aggregator, and up-and-coming Google. Remember when Yahoo was the bomb?

But, eventually, that chance faded away. And, the Net and other things aided both Reuters and AFP in expanding their American presences, too. And, any agreement between them on pricing web content would be collusion.

So, AP at least stiffs smaller dailies more and more on the content of "content," even while jacking the price. The most basic AP package doesn't even include photos.

As to Facebook?

Beyond what I said above?

Algorithms are no match for people in "curation," a word that with online media is even more barf-inducing than "content."

That's true whether it's Facebook or Google.

That said, Facebook is a threat not just to daily papers of size.

The rise of Facebook Groups threatens the future of small daily and non-daily community papers as well. I know this from experience.

If people don't like your coverage of an issue, if they think that, even though you keep a good eye on city hall in general, you just have to be wrong on Issue X?

Boom. New post on the "Citizens of X" Facebook group.

Don't want to turn a string of gossip into a semi-libelous news story?

Boom. New post on the "Citizens of X" Facebook group.

Some blogs used to be this way, as the unlamented, incarcerated felon Joey Dauben illustrated well. (It still blows my mind, as it did at the time, that the Dallas Observer thought him worthy of a long-form profile, especially without considering his possible psychological background.)

But, Facebook gives credence to this stuff, in a way that a random blog doesn't.

And, the mindset of DMCA, if not the act itself, protects it legally just as much as it protects YouTube. (It's also why Mark Zuckerberg steadfastly insists he is NOT a publisher.)

Which is too bad, in a way.

A few libel lawsuits against Facebook might clean some things up.

Beyond that, of course, Facebook can subconsciously manipulate your thoughts in a way that even Google can't. (Google just consciously controls what you see, by things like paid placement, and now, its "fake news" filter that, in America, screens out anything besides the duopoly.) And it's already done it repeatedly.

This all gets to "barn doors," if it's not clear.

A lot of newspaper paywalls are still pretty permeable. And they're afraid to make them less so, as I see it. It now seems to me that the vaunted Wall Street Journal is putting more articles outside its paywall, even, if accessed by social media.

It's like an addiction, even though it's known in most cases that the online ads won't pay for that, and that you're just enabling theoretically bad behavior anyway.

That said, many addictions often seem to be the best solution for a problem even after it seems more clear to non-addicts that they're not. And, until that's recognized by the person or entity with the addiction, that won't change.

Other than pointing out many larger newspaper chains are still too hypercapitalist in what they pay corporate executives, I'm not out to bash the industry. And, while I don't claim to have solutions, I do think, at a minimum, the downward spiral on readership and ads is diminishing.

On the ads side, as Zuckerberg continues to shoot himself in his Facebook foot, newspapers have a reputation to sell, as well as the package of targeted online sales — and better targeting on the print side, too.

As for past sliding? On the circulation side, at least, as top German papers show, it's not just an American problem.

Newspapers are dying, reasons 641, 722 and 816

Sleeping with the Internet enemy, which is becoming sleeping with Google as well as Facebook, is never a good sign. Not only are you letting them control how your  stories get disseminated, you're doing this while continuing to maintain all your legal liability yourself.

Here’s the bottom lines, and PR flak, on Google’s side:

The growing pact between large publishers of news and large platforms for social media is an alliance born out of desperation on the part of publishers and opportunity on the part of technology companies.  … 

 Google has been exploring the benefits and drawbacks of publishing for some time; being an entity protected by the First Amendment and freed from the obligations of utilities can be useful. Taking on expensive publishing risk is less convenient. However, just as the temperature of regulation in Europe heats up, with the government always trying to rein in the giant search company, Google has maneuvered its friendly tanks up the drive and into the garage of publishing houses. … 

 First of all, this is a clear signal of Google saying explicitly that while it might not employ many journalists (yet) it sees itself as being in the news business—not an accidental platform through which news moves, but an active ingredient in shaping how journalism is formulated and consumed. 

Sounds like a publisher in all but name.

And, here’s Facebook’s spiel:

Last month, Facebook disclosed it was negotiating with a number of news companies in the US to embed video and text within its own site from major publishers including The New York Times,National Geographic, and Buzzfeed. … 

 Two weeks ago at the International Journalism Festival in Perugia, Andy Mitchell, head of Facebook’s news partnerships, held the line that Facebook itself was staying out of publishing, even though the evidence is very much to the contrary. George Brock, a professor at City University in London, asked Mitchell whether Facebook felt any responsibility for the integrity of its news feed. Mitchell gave the perfunctory Silicon Valley answer that the company cared about improving the “user experience.” Brock suggests that this denial of responsibility is insulting to audiences.

Also sounds like a publisher in all but name.

And, “legacy” newspapers, in addition to not getting control over story dispersal, are leaving the ad dollars more and more in Facebook’s and Google’s hands. Oh, I’m sure any such arrangements will give the newspapers a percentage of the cut on Facebook ads, or Google ads that appear with stories either in Google’s news feed or online to G+. Will that offset likely further loss of onsite online ads? Probably not.

Indeed. The dynamic duo are attracting 99 percent of digital ad growth. No, not a misprint, it seems.

And, if you’ve got a paywall, like the NYT, how’s that going to affect your online circulation revenue? Not well, I’d think.

I don't know if the smell of desperation in the morning is like that of napalm, but it can't be too good.

Meanwhile, newspapers, especially in mobile versions, are looking at following the social media world down another rabbit hole. Just as ads are becoming ever more "targeted," and per the top of this story, newspapers are looking at doing the same with stories.

So, do blacks in more impoverished portions of the city of Baltimore get a different version of the Freddie Gray story than whites in west-side suburbs? Do poor people get different versions of Wells Fargo marketing subprime credit cards and opening accounts in their name without authorization than do rich people?

If so, then the news industry is taking a major step backward; might as well let Google and Facebook have the keys.

Finally, I don't doubt that fear of social media magnifying mistakes is paralyzing or at least constricting reporting.

The community newspaper world, both smaller dailies and non-dailies, still has a chance to avoid going too far down this rabbit hole. At some times, I'm semi-optimistic; some newspaper companies still officially state they are NOT "digital first."

On the other hand? You have a newspaper ownership company called Digital First Media. (And, it's had not one, but two, rinses in bankruptcy.)

And beyond that, at the non-daily world, being semi-addicted to Facebook Live videos, for which a publisher should know FB pays just pennies on the dollar to big dailies, and fractions of mills on the dollar to small non-dailies, may mean that perhaps your digital marketing advice may not be perfect.

There is still a future in newspapers, even as that future continues to shrink around the edges. It will probably involve more creativity on the digital side, but, for community papers, whether non-daily or daily, it should still be (both as an economic statement and a quality-commitment statement) print first.

Fortunately, some community newspaper ownership groups recognize that more than others, and are doing their best to avoid some of the mistakes big dailies made in the past.

Add in that print-vs-digital readership may reach a point of stasis, as has happened with ebooks vs books, and some newspapers may wind up not dying after all.

President Zuckerberg? I just threw up in Facebook's mouth (new updates)

Mark Zuckerberg via President of Mexico

To be halfway serious, as well as halfway snarky, I think I would take a President Trump over a President Zuckerberg, whose ambitions are hinted at in this Vanity Fair piece.

I think he is:
1. At least as vain as Trump if not more so, albeit in a less mercurial way;
2. Probably as thin-skinned as Trump;
3. At least as imperious as Trump;
4. With a better business and management skill set behind 1-3, which makes them all scarier.
5. Add in that he's surely a tech-neoliberal who thinks that an app, or better, social media (gee, which one?) is the solution to everything, which cultural critic Evgeny Morozov has rightly called "solutionism" and which I call "salvific technologism."

Despite not disclosing party affiliation, I'll list him as a tech-neoliberal Democrat. (I think he's smart enough in terms of current American politics to try to buck the two-party system, so, he's not running Libertarian and he's sure as hell not Green. Plus, he'd probably assume that Dems will slaver for him more than Republicans and that it will be "Dems' turn" in 2024.)

Contra Nick Bilton's claim that Marky Mark would be "an astounding president," for anybody outside the 1 percent, or even more, the 0.1 percent, he'd be a gigantic kick in the nads. Let's not forget he's already ripping off poor and middle-class taxpayers with his "public benefit" foundation. That said, per the foundation, and cluelessness about it, as blogged before, I know that some Skeptics™ would cream their pants over a Zuckerberg run.

Hell, it wouldn't surprise me if he tried to launder campaign finance funds through that foundation in case of a presidential run, via super-PACing off of it or something.

Hell, I distrust him so much I even did a riff on a Shakespearean sonnet about it.

Let's hope that Bilton's right and his lack of a politician's personality bars his run.

==

Update, Feb. 17: A 5,000-word manifesto posted by Hucksterman on Effbook, and analyzed by the Guardian, sure makes it look like he's eyeballing the world of politics.

Update, March 6, 2017: And now, Facebook is bragging about being able to influence elections. Would Zuckerberg conduct a more thorough detachment from Facebook than Trump has from his businesses, and far earlier in the process? I doubt it.

Update, March 12: Maegan Carberry of Salon is now on the wagon, saying Hucksterberg would be good because he would be the shortest route to defeating Trump. First, she's thinking inside the duopoly box, error No. 1. Second, she's thinking inside a top-down version of the Dem half of that box, a move that would further kill grassroots level Dems. Third, her idea only inflates the whole imperial presidency issue. Per her five options, even if the Dem half of the duopoly doesn't have time enough for Option 5, failure to do much on Options 2-3 would merely reflect how bad the party is and how much it needs to be blown up. Of course, Obama himself undercut the possibility of Options 2-3 from the 2010 midterms on.

Battling with #Clintonistas on Twitter

Twice in the past couple of days, and both times after tussles with Clintonistas who had blocked me before I could block them, Twitter froze my account because of "unusual activity" and made me change my password.

Well, assuming I'd been "reported to Twitter" by them on both occasions as well as blocked, I "reported" them back. And, if I think I need to, I am going to start becoming pre-emptive. (The first of them, via screen capture as reported to my email account, since, due to being blocked, it didn't show up in my notifications feed, is at left.)

I do use Twitter to log into Disqus and a few other things, but just about none of those has the "authority" to write for me as well, as after the first freeze-out, per Twitter note, I checked my app settings.

Therefore, it's most likely Clintonistas. So, fight fire with fire.

And, it's not just me. Multiple Twitter friends, including national left-liberal journalist Doug Henwood, have reported similar issues.

And, if I need to go "meta," I'll report Twitter's own account to Twitter if it's not going to start giving me more information on why my account is being frozen.

Given that I plan on gearing up Tweet Deck late this summer, assuming Clinton's the Democratic nominee, I don't need Twitter being as dickish as Facebook on steroids.

You say Zuckerberg, I say Hucksterman, part two (updated)

I blogged on Wednesday about the magical PR pixie dust that has led some people to think Mark Zuckerberg's new for-profit LLC is really a charity and will do all sorts of magic stuff.

Marky Mark, Priscilla Chan and daughter Max.
Who could resist such cuteness? I could.

Well, other than pixie dust inhalers calling me a cynic, and naive PR readers thinking Zuck's done so much good, others have claimed that a California benefits corporation, which is the type of LLC this is in California, will keep him in line.

And, an alleged skeptic should know better. After being given a lawyer's explainer of what such a corporation is, as he attempted to refute a Pro Publica piece from my original blog post, and referenced again below. I Googled to find the actual law instead.

It's true that 30 states have some sort of benefits corporation, per Wiki. It's also true that every one of them was created this decade, when the man and the hour of neoliberalism met nationally in Barack Obama. That alone should be ground for pause. Nobody has any real empirical evidence on how these babies operate.

Specific to Zuckerberg and where Facebook is?

Per California's enabling statute, I don't see it that way; I don't see California's law having any real teeth to making Zuckerberg do anything that he doesn't want to do, period and end of story.

The only way to "enforce" whether such a body is living up to its charter, etc., is through a "benefits proceeding."

However, such proceeding is all "inside baseball":

(a) No person may bring an action or assert a claim against a benefit corporation or its directors or officers under this chapter except in a benefit enforcement proceeding.
(b) A benefit enforcement proceeding may be commenced or maintained only as follows:
(1) Directly by the benefit corporation.
(2) Derivatively by any of the following:
(A) A shareholder.
(B) A director.
(C) A person or group of persons that owns beneficially or of record 5 percent or more of the equity interests in an entity of which the benefit corporation is a subsidiary.
(D) Other persons as have been specified in the articles or bylaws of the benefit corporation.
(c) A benefit corporation shall not be liable for monetary damages under this part for any failure of the benefit corporation to create a general or specific public benefit.

So, that would mean the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative corporately, or any shareholders or directors named Priscilla Chan, Mark Zuckerberg or cronies thereof, of such persons unlikely to hold more than 5 percent of the Initiative's stock, are the only people who can do anything about its performance. Let's remember that, although Cal law, and in most states, technically allows an incorporated, publicly traded company to also reincorporate as a benefits corporation, there's been no rush to do so. Why would they, at least when any shareholder can raise eyeballs, at least "derivatively," which is never really explained.

As for whether such incorporation is better than a traditional 501(c)3 nonprofit? I think not.

True that they don't have tremendous amounts of oversight, either. However, theoretically, the IRS can come down on nonprofits more than these LLCs. The fact that IRS enforcement is bupkis in reality doesn't refute the theoretical angle. And, I'll take even minimal IRS enforcement over this.

And, places like Charity Navigator do annual reviews of charity performance, but, I assume, not of for profit LLCs, even if they're allegedly for a vague "public benefit."

As for the idea this boosts stakeholder value rather than shareholder value? Well, theoretically, but only if your LLC's board isn't a fount of nepotism. Which is why publicly traded corporations aren't rushing to do this.

Speaking, what is a “public benefit”? In California’s enabling law, it says it is:

(D)efined as a material positive impact on society and the environment, taken as a whole, as assessed against a 3rd-party standard, as defined, that satisfies certain requirements. 

But, that “third party standard” is undercut by lack of third-party enforcement.

Wikipedia’s article itself notes this, too:

Benefit corporations need not be certified or audited by the third-party standard. Instead, they use third-party standards solely as a rubric a company uses to measure its own performance.

A “rubric.” Is that like a “goldbrick”?

And, yep, California's statute specifically says an outside audit is not required.

So, what we have is a for-profit company that says, "This is what we think is a 'public benefit.'"

Let's see how this spells out in detail. 

It can then say: "Our cronies agree that we're doing a pretty good job of meeting that benefit."

It can then say: "Now move along, nothing else to see here."

But, I didn’t yet answer what that “specific public benefit” is. Hold on, we’re there:

(e) “Specific public benefit” includes all of the following:
(1) Providing low-income or underserved individuals or communities with beneficial products or services.
(2) Promoting economic opportunity for individuals or communities beyond the creation of jobs in the ordinary course of business.
(3) Preserving the environment.
(4) Improving human health.
(5) Promoting the arts, sciences, or advancement of knowledge.
(6) Increasing the flow of capital to entities with a public benefit purpose.
(7) The accomplishment of any other particular benefit for society or the environment.

OK, more analysis time.

No. 1? Zuckerberg's fake free Internet in India could fall under that.
No. 2? Former San Francisco Mayor, now Cal Lite Guv Gavin Newsom's pothole Donkey Kong ideas would fit.

No. 3? Sounds straightforward, but wait until Facebook promotes "Virtual reality National Parks" or something.

No. 4? Straightfoward.

No. 5? Facebook in K-12 classrooms certainly falls here. The tech-neolib wet dream combined with tax deductions for doing so, as Pro Publica explained. (Yes, yes, he gets tax deductions. Don't let anybody tell you otherwise. If they try to claim otherwise, tell them to read the piece precisely, then go argue with Pro Publica. If they try to claim you're saying tax deductions "now" or similar, tell them the same thing.)

No. 6? "Money laundering" is what this is called. For example, Sergey Brin starts something. Let's call it the Elgoog Foundation. The two foundations start swapping money like bacterial DNA-transfer sex. (Or like David Brock playing shell games with Hillary Clinton money.) And, trust me, this one WILL happen in the future.

7. WTF? That's not just a Mack truck sized loophole. I can take Patton's Second Armored Division through that.

Remember, on that point 7, there is no third-party auditing, and a third party definition is just a "rubric."

Back to that tax issue:

Zuckerberg shows that even among #skeptics, there's a sucker born every minute

Or maybe I should put "skeptic" in scare quotes. And, I definitely should advise you that I have a follow-up post, refuting pseudoskeptics who didn't want to accept what's in this initial one.

Marky Mark, Priscilla Chan and daughter Max.
Who could resist such cuteness? I could.

Early this week, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg announced that with the birth of his daughter, he was creating a new charitable foundation in his wife's name and that he would give away 99 percent of his Facebook stock.

Gawker, a day later, provided the reality of what this meant.

First, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative isn't a charitable organization, it's an LLC. That means that it can spend those Facebook stocks, when cashed out, on whatever it damn well pleases.

I noted that, as well as the fact that Zuckerberg's announced desire to promote "connecting people and building strong communities" sure made it sound like he'd be giving all this Facebook stock to ...

Promote the use of Facebook.

Because, hey, Facebook connects us all, right? Into communities, right?

What's not patently self-serving in the announcement?

Well, much of it that isn't that is New Age drivel.

Advancing human potential is about pushing the boundaries on how great a human life can be. 

Can you learn and experience 100 times more than we do today?

Because that, too, is among what Marky Mark wants to fund.

If you can read that second sentence without barfing, you're probably not much of a real skeptic.

When I posted this on Facebook, alleged "skeptics" claim that I'm just a heartless cynic.

Since I don't normally post to "public," I can't name their names by my Facebook ethics.

Which, of course, is far more ethics related to Facebook than its inventor has ever shown.

Meanwhile, per BuzzFeed, which pointed out that the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative is not a charity, Marky Mark already has for-profit activities lined up:

A Facebook release this afternoon stated as much. “The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative will pursue its mission by funding non-profit organizations, making private investments and participating in policy debates, in each case with the goal of generating positive impact in areas of great need,” it said. “Any profits from investments in companies will be used to fund additional work to advance the mission.”

"Policy debates" could be translates as "lobbying," in my book.

But I'm just a cynic.

Other buzz phrases could be similarly translated. "Areas of great need" could be neoliberal tech-powered education, where Marky Mark's already been a flop, per the Gawker link.

Which, from there, goes on to note about said education initiatives:

“Micro-schools”? Putting Facebook software in public schools? Software, software, more software. If you have a headache, take a software. Jimmy can’t read? Give him software. The conceit that code can solve all social ills and free the species from the chains of aging, illness, and flatulence is the height of Silicon Valley bullshit, and Zuckerberg’s massive giveaway will clearly be predicated on that conceit.

Yep. Like Chris Whittle and others, Zuckerberg wants to get our schoolkids hooked on the tech-neoliberal version of Marlboros ASAP. 

Or, his attempt to ram Facebook down Indians' throats while offering a bait-and-switch with a lure of a crappy free Internet plan to try to get people to buy a slightly less crappy paid plan.

But I'm just a cynic. And the MSM, like "skeptics," are suckers. Right, NYT? Right again, NYT? Even while co-suckering others to play along?

And not mentioned by Zuckerberg is that this "giveaway" surely will allow him a sweet tax write-off.

Indeed, Pro Publica has now weighed in on exactly that issue

Mark Zuckerberg did not donate $45 billion to charity. You may have heard that, but that was wrong. 

Here’s what happened instead: Zuckerberg created an investment vehicle. 

In doing so, Zuckerberg and Chan did not set up a charitable foundation, which has nonprofit status. He created a limited liability company, one that has already reaped enormous benefits as public relations coup for himself. His PR return-on-investment dwarfs that of his Facebook stock. Zuckerberg was depicted in breathless, glowing terms for having, in essence, moved money from one pocket to the other.

Sounds about right. 

But, wait, it gets "better."

What’s more, a charitable foundation is subject to rules and oversight. It has to allocate a certain percentage of its assets every year. The new Zuckerberg LLC won’t be subject to those rules and won’t have any transparency requirements.

And, only one person makes the decision on how to invest this. 

But wait, Pro Publica goes further on this:

Any time a superwealthy plutocrat makes a charitable donation, the public ought to be reminded that this is how our tax system works. The superwealthy buy great public relations and adulation for donations that minimize their taxes.

Yep. 

And, Zuckerberg gets tax benefits from this:

So what are the tax implications? They are quite generous to Zuckerberg. I asked Victor Fleischer, a law professor and tax specialist at the University of San Diego School of Law, as well as a contributor to DealBook. He explained that if the LLC sold stock, Zuckerberg would pay a hefty capital gains tax, particularly if Facebook stock kept climbing. 

If the LLC donated to a charity, he would get a deduction just like anyone else. That’s a nice little bonus. But the LLC probably won’t do that because it can do better. The savvier move, Professor Fleischer explained, would be to have the LLC donate the appreciated shares to charity, which would generate a deduction at fair market value of the stock without triggering any tax.

Meanwhile, some pseudoskeptics are claiming that a California benefits corporation, which is the type of LLC this is in California, will keep him in line.

Per California's enabling statute, I don't see it that way.

That's in part because, per that same lawyer, and contra one neolib pseudoskeptic, Zuckerberg's money can be used for lobbying purposes, too.

The only way to "enforce" whether such a body is living up to its charter, etc., is through a "benefits proceeding."

However, such proceeding is all "inside baseball":

(a) No person may bring an action or assert a claim against a benefit corporation or its directors or officers under this chapter except in a benefit enforcement proceeding.
(b) A benefit enforcement proceeding may be commenced or maintained only as follows:
(1) Directly by the benefit corporation.
(2) Derivatively by any of the following:
(A) A shareholder.
(B) A director.
(C) A person or group of persons that owns beneficially or of record 5 percent or more of the equity interests in an entity of which the benefit corporation is a subsidiary.
(D) Other persons as have been specified in the articles or bylaws of the benefit corporation.
(c) A benefit corporation shall not be liable for monetary damages under this part for any failure of the benefit corporation to create a general or specific public benefit.

So, that would mean the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative corporately, or any shareholders or directors named Priscilla Chan, Mark Zuckerberg or cronies thereof, of such persons unlikely to hold more than 5 percent of the Initiative's stock, are the only people who can do anything about its performance.

As for whether such incorporation is better than a traditional 501(c)3 nonprofit? I think not.

True that they don't have tremendous amounts of oversight, either. However, theoretically, the IRS can come down on nonprofits more than these LLCs. The fact that IRS enforcement is bupkis in reality doesn't refute the theoretical angle. And, I'll take even minimal IRS enforcement over this.

And, places like Charity Navigator do annual reviews of charity performance, but, I assume, not of for profit LLCs, even if they're allegedly for a vague "public benefit."

As for the idea this boosts stakeholder value rather than shareholder value? Well, theoretically, but only if your LLC's board isn't a fount of nepotism.

Speaking, what is a “public benefit”? In California’s enabling law, it says it is:

(D)efined as a material positive impact on society and the environment, taken as a whole, as assessed against a 3rd-party standard, as defined, that satisfies certain requirements. 

But, that “third party standard” is undercut by lack of third-party enforcement.

But, I'm just a cynic.

Hey, alleged skeptics? (One of him is somewhere between right-neolib and libertarian, so understandable.) Sometimes cynicism is the proper social and emotional stance to adopt as a result of skeptical perusal of an issue.

Of course, I love being a deliberate contrarian at times. And a capital-C philosophical Cynic.

But, Zuckerberg doesn't even make a public announcement about going to the bathroom unless there's some self-interest involved.

Part of the problem is that many Americans, including said neoliberal pseudoskeptic, don't understand what philanthropy actually is. Per this piece, remember:

If you are giving money to somebody with the expectation that they will carry out your instructions, further your agenda, owe you compliance and assistance, or complete a project you've assigned them — you're not a philanthropist. If your giving is designed to give you power or control over an aspect of public life in our country — you're not a philanthropist.

Period and end of story.

===

Update, April 12, 2016: Facebook's new Siri-on-Oxy-slow bot-apps are surely a public benefit, right?