Slashdot Mirror
Latest WikiLeaks Reveal Suggests Facebook Is Too Close For Comfort With Clinton (hothardware.com)
MojoKid writes: As we quickly approach the November 8th elections, email leaks from the Clinton camp continue to loom over the presidential candidate. The latest data dump from WikiLeaks shines a light on emails between Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, John Podesta and Facebook Chief Operating Officer, Sheryl Sandberg. In one email exchange, dated June 6th, 2015, Sandberg expresses her desire for Clinton to become president, writing to Podesta, "And I still want HRC to win badly. I am still here to help as I can." While that was a private exchange, Sandberg also made her zest for seeing Clinton as the 45th President of the United States publicly known in a Facebook post on July 28th of this year. None of that is too shocking when you think about it. Sandberg has every right to endorse whichever candidate she wants for president. However, a later exchange between Sandberg and Podesta showed that Mark Zuckerberg was looking to get in on the action a bit, and perhaps curry favor with Podesta and the Clinton camp in shaping public policy. Donald Trump has long claimed that Clinton is too cozy with big businesses, and one cannot dismiss the fact that Facebook has a global user base of 1.7 billion users. When you toss in the fact that Facebook came under fire earlier this year for allegedly suppressing conservative news outlets in the Trending News bar, questions begin to arise about Facebook's impartiality in the political race. The report also notes that Sandberg is at the top of the list when it comes to picks for Treasury Secretary, if Clinton wins the election. In an interview with Politico, David Segal, executive director for Demand Progress, said "[Sandberg] is a proxy for this growing problem that is the hegemony of five to ten major Silicon Valley platforms." Lina Khan, a fellow with the Open Markets Program at the New American think tank adds: "If a senior Cabinet member is from Facebook, at worst it could directly interfere [in antitrust actions]. But even in the best of cases there's a real worry that it will have a chilling effect on good-faith antitrust efforts to scrutinize potential anti-competitive implications of dominant tech platforms."
It gives the serfs the illusion that they have some say in who their rulers are.
What happened to the BoA materials? Did wikileaks not release them because they're not personally relevant to Assange and his own personal feuds?
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Who says companies can't favor one candidate or party over the other. Fox News clearly favors republicans and that just seems to be accepted.
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
All the media companies online and off-line, Paul Ryan and his Republican insiders, The DNC, all foreign governments except Russia and China. Women, Blacks, Mexicans, disabled people, ex soldiers, they're all plotting against Trump. Jeb Bush, big plotter, Ted Cruz and his sleazy push polls,Fox News and its clown announcers, CNN and their boring anti-trump panelists, Charles Koch and his puppets, MSBNC crazy crazy fraudsters, Marco De Rubio the joke phoney light weight, John Kasich the Absentee Governor who supports Mexico..... ALL PLOTTING!
It's time for the non-Democrat, non-Republican, white, male, full-fit, but not military, who are not in the media, or online media, it's time for that MAJORITY to rise up and put Trump into power he so richly believes he deserves!
Make America Great Again!
This illustrates the problem of virtual public spaces and real danger to freedom of speech and association that comes with digitization of all means of communications. Currently, FB and Twitter are free to censor political speech and push political agenda. You could argue that in 2016 as a politician you are effectively censored if you don't have access to FB and Twitter. This shouldn't be the case, insofar politics these should be considered virtual public spaces and any censorship of this kind should be disallowed.
In China, the people who control the media support the party. And the party makes sure the top people who control the media get rich.
We are no different.
I am being inundated with all sorts of pro-Trump posts by one of my friends. All the anti-Clinton conspiracy posts. Every damn one of them. Including one that was so bad that even Fox News published a retraction.
So as far as I can tell FB isn't shaping much, otherwise they would have tweaked that mysterious algorithm that only shows you posts from people that they want you to see and then for everything else goes "What post? I don't see any post? What do you mean you saw a post 5 minutes ago and now you can't find it in your feed? No idea what you are talking about."
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
There's no point in denying this any more. Journalists have always tended to lean left more than right, but 2016 has shown that all pretense of integrity and independence has completely evaporated. Rigged polls, collusion with PACs and the DNC, mudslinging directed at the RNC candidates while ignoring third party options and DNC scandals of the same magnitude as Watergate, and making unsubstantiated accusations of foreign interference by Russia while ignoring the foreign money from Soros and extreme Islamic regimes influencing the electoral process. Nothing is off limits to the same group that doctors audio recordings to falsely show racism and hypes up stories of a few cops committing criminal acts against black people while ignoring the fact that black on black violence is at epidemic levels.
Rigging the Facebook feed to promote pro-DNC pro-Clinton pro-SJW causes is IMO an effective subliminal ploy even for those that scroll past it so they can see funny pictures of their friends' kids. They're cutting off Twitter feeds and FB pages of people they don't like too even though they have not violated the user agreement. All of them will stop at nothing to brainwash and browbeat us into one mind, and use the SJWs to persecute those who disagree with the positions like useful idiots.
But it isn't just here as we've also seen in Europe with the hiding of stories and statistics on the effects on violence and crime due to mass migration from the third world. And, at this point, anyone who is a blind follower of political parties or of the media is a fool ready to be controlled to the will of an elite willing to throw us back into an effectively feudal system.
Welcome to the Ministry of Truth. We have always been at war. All dissent is doubleplusungood. You don't even need to imagine a boot stomping on a human face forever because it's already coming through your computer screen.
Really? You think it sounds pretty good? Are you okay with it when the police and the judge are buddies? Are you okay with it when you got on the polices wrong side and you're claiming the police wrongfully arrested you and you're trying to convince the judge that his buddy is lying?
And if you don't get why I used that analogy then we're done here. We'll never see eye to eye.
I don't think even the lowliest serf is ignorant anymore that every media outlet and talking head is campaigning for Hillary.
I wonder, though, if this won't backfire. People don't like being lied to, deceived, having information kept from them, or being talked down to like the media is doing. The average voter might lean right or left, but they want the process to be fair, and the media to be fair, and for the ballots to fall where they may.
This growing perception that the media will never relay the truth about Hillary or honestly investigate her scandals, that all the corporate interests (including Google and Facebook now) are manipulating public opinion for her - people aren't going to like this nonsense. I wonder if it won't cost her more votes than it nets her.
I can see the left and right coming together on this. The right hates Clinton, and so does much of the left. Both are sick and tired of her lies, manipulation and the dirty tricks political machine. I would never vote to put Clinton the Second back into the White House again, but for me it is even more about her coziness with Wall Street and her penchant for wars of regime change (e.g., Libya) and her pro-trade deal and drill-baby-drill stances than it is about her lies and deceitfulness.
A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
I am voting third party, even though I have always voted Republican in the presidential election.
I wish people would revolt. Everyone likes to pretend that we wouldn't vote for the worst person in the world just because they bear our favored party's lablel. Well, this time around both sides get to prove it. To prove that honest government is more important than my desire for my side to dominate.
If not now, when?
If you are saying this without sarcasm you are an idiot. Agree/disagree with Wikileaks all you want but at least know what the organization is about.
WikiLeaks specializes in the analysis and publication of large datasets of censored or otherwise restricted official materials involving war, spying and corruption. It has so far published more than 10 million documents and associated analyses.
IOW, they specialize in government dealings because that is what is 'censored or otherwise restricted official materials'.
The difference is that if you have dirt on Trump any media source will publish it and you won't need protection from the government. If you leak government secrets you either get jailed, holed up in Russia, or worse. The point of Wikileaks is to protect the leakers from the government you mongoloid.
There are plenty of other news organizations that are digging up dirt on Trump. Or did you forget getting grabbed by the pussy? Or did you forget the X million of dollars losses in a tax return leak? Or did you forget the lawsuits of Trump University?
FFS. Apologetic shills just get to me in the morning before I have had my coffee.
"Why at this point does it even matter?"
Seriously, the media organizations in this country have decided that HRC would be our next president. It doesn't actually matter what she did or didn't do, the legality, the money, etc.
To be clear: the voting is a pointless detail.
-Styopa
So Hillary has made friends in businesses. So has Trump. The fact is, few politicians are completely clean. If you get into politics, you’re almost forced to play dirty because you know your competition isn’t going to pull any punches either.
Magazine of the John Birch Society. Yep, I need to hear from them.
Ah, the argumentum ad hominem! Always strange to see a logical fallacy modded up...
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
The problem with revolting is that, what ever comes after, there is no guarantee that it will be better. More often than not it is worse.
Anybody that still has karma, I recommend that you do NOT make comments in this thread.
Here be dragons!
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch
It bugs me that this is even an issue. Why are so many people apparently willing to get their news from Facebook?
Develop some critical thinking skills, people.
#DeleteChrome
none of the things he has *said* are worse than the things she has *done* is the issue
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Both sides!!!1!?!!!
Thiel gave $1.25M to a candidate who'd just had it revealed he has serious problems with women (to put a politically correct spin on it), who is/was telling people he wouldn't accept the results of the election if he loses, and who previously has supported violence against his opponents, who is threatening legal sanctions against his opponents and the press, and who has engaged in racial scapegoating and in dehumanizing minorities.
Clinton has done none of those things (with the possible exception of one dubious comment about "predators" aimed at criminals in the 1990s that she's since apologized for.) So yeah, even though we don't like Clinton very much, we absolutely reserve the right to be angry that someone's response to a candidate boasting they can sexually assault women and get away with it is to give him money.
If Thiel had given money to Jeb Bush, nobody would have bat an eyelid. Nobody was angry when numerous billionaires gave Romney, McCain, or Bush Jr lots of money at the last few elections either. The fact you can't tell the difference between donating to Trump and donating to those guys or Clinton suggests you've been living under a rock this election campaign - or else actually think there's nothing wrong with sexual assault, opposing democratic elections (and supporting violence in politics), silencing critics, and attacking minorities.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Right.
Because we hate Wall Street, let's instead put a billionaire real estate scammer whose entire adult life has been spent trying to kiss up to investors and banks to get loans for his businesses, and who refuses to reveal what banks he's in debt to in power.
Because we oppose the Libyan conflict, let's put in power someone who wants to bomb the children of terrorists, insists that waterboarding isn't harsh enough, wants more nations to have nuclear weapons, wants to build a new generation of nuclear weapons, and spent his first security briefing repeatedly asking why we're bothering to have nuclear weapons if we're not going to use them.
Because we oppose free trade, let's put in power someone who spent his entire career - up until he decided to rebrand himself as a populist for this election - championing free trade, built his empire on dumped steel and undocumented workers, and - until it was shut down as a scam - championed the benefits of outsourcing on his Trump University page.
I'm not even sure where you're getting that Clinton has been big "drill baby drill" champion, but Trump has literally called for "drill baby drill" in speeches, including lifting all federal restrictions on offshore drilling and elimination of the EPA.
So if you want to cut off your nose to spite your face, go right ahead, but please understand why many people will not be joining at you.
And if your argument is "I'm not supporting either of them" - if you don't vote for one, you're supporting the other. Not to the degree of voting directly for the other, but you're still supporting them. Because that's the way the US electoral system works.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
I find both candidates to be revolting.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
"Thiel gave $1.25M to a candidate who'd just had it revealed he has serious problems with women (to put a politically correct spin on it),"
Sure sounds like Hillary/Bill to me.
" who is/was telling people he wouldn't accept the results of the election if he loses,"
Maybe you have a point there. After all, it sounds like Trump is agreeing with Al Gore and that's not a good look.
" and who previously has supported violence against his opponents,"
Yeah, Hillary supports violence right now and violated campaign finance laws to coordinate the violence. Ever seen Project Veritas?
" who is threatening legal sanctions against his opponents and the press,"
Sounds like Clinton to me too.
" and who has engaged in racial scapegoating and in dehumanizing minorities."
Basket of Deplorables. Not to mention the racist lynch mob waiting for any "minority" who gets uppity and doesn't lick Massa Hilary's boots like a good little house slave.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
I think this is a different group.
Sandberg is angling for a cabinet position: after having graduated from growing up in a wealthy and privileged family to becoming a billionaire, her ambitions are higher, and what else is there other than political power? And even if she doesn't get the cabinet position, sucking up to the Democrats is good business for Silicon Valley companies.
Of course, there is an enormous amount of hypocrisy and self-delusion in Sandberg's positions. She has led such a privileged life that 99.9% of the men whose backs she walks on can only dream of.
Wrong group. The New American is indeed a magazine published by the John Birch Society, as clearly stated on their web site . However, the original poster made an error. Lina Khan is a fellow in a program run by The New America Foundation , which was founded in 1999. According to Soucewatch, the New America Foundation received over $6 million through 2013 from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and lesser amounts from other foundations. https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...
I agree with that. I would think an RNC leak would actually help Trump. It would show all the RNC executives shitting on Trump and conspiring against him like the DNC did Bernie, except Trump had a strategy for beating them. It would corroborate Trump's narrative that the system, including the primaries, is rigged.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Who the fuck cares about his tax returns? As if Trump doesn't have enough other problems?!
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Yes, it is. The scumminess or non-scumminess of the source is not relevant to the strength of their argument. If they are scum, it may be more likely that they have made false arguments, but it is not guaranteed, and the proper counter is to root out the falsity of their arguments.
Either the Republicans run a tighter ship with better security, or there's nothing incriminating/shady to leak.
OR they simply aren't as heavily targeted - the Russian government is only interested in finding dirt on the Democrats after all. They may have even broken into the RNC/Trump campaign to the same extent but kept the information for themselves rather than leaking it.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
It's adorable that you think she's going to do anything of this.
In her "private" vs "public" speech, she has told big business that she wants to make it easier for the banks, and use government to backstop all of their risk. Her foundation's doesn't do anything in health care unless there's a political connection back to skim money out of it. And her track record on actually telling the truth is terrible, she lied about forwarding confidential information, her lack of security focus in Benghazi, but if you want to think that she actually cares about you, go ahead. Send her more money.
Right. So let's take a look at how this "excerpt the gotcha" plays into that.
Slashdot writes about Zuckerberg:
Except that the email from Shelly about Zuckerberg very clearly begins:
Likewise on the other email from Cheryl. They mention the "She came over and was magical with my kids" re. Clinton. They don't bother mentioning the reason for Hillary's visit, which can be seen in what she's replying to:
This wasn't some buddy-buddy campaign visit, this was a "person I know's husband just died" visit. Likewise, the implication that they're supposed to give here is that they know her because of Facebook. No bothering to mention that the reason that they actually know her is because she was Larry Summers' Chief of Staff during the Clinton administration.
Almost anything can be made to look sinister when you take it completely out of context. Which is the whole purpose of these emails.
Furthermore, do you honestly think you couldn't do the exact same thing by picking through the Trump campaign's internal messaging? Do you have any clue how many people of note a major campaign interacts with, how many people work for them, etc? We know given Trumps record on server security that hacking him would have been a breeze, but miraculously nobody bothered. Why do you think that is?
Lastly: take everything you read with a grain of salt. I know everyone's reaction to statements that emails could have been altered (and scattered amongst real ones) is going to be "You just don't want to discuss them!" No, the reason you should take things with a grain of salt is that the other anti-Clinton hacks this year have done exactly that. Leaks posted by the hackers in different places involved cases where they had involved changing the same file to say different things (such as a donation list where they added a donation from Soros to a Russian democracy activist, but had different values for the donation in different versions of their release), cases where files were dated to after the hack occurred, and cases where file metadata showed the changes they'd been making. Salting real data with fake is something that they've been doing this year, so it'd be naive to think that they're just going to stop doing it now. Come on, even the most die-hard Clinton hater is going to be hard pressed to actually believe that the Clinton Foundation has a directory sitting around literally called "Pay for Play".
Yes, the majority will be real. But don't be naive when viewing them and assume that you can just take everything at face value.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
They have nothing on Trump most likely because he's never held a government position, ergo, no official documents to leak.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
You might feel safe in ignoring them, but if you attempt to refute them, using "they're scum" is still a logical fallacy. If you feel there's no point in refuting them any more, that's a different matter. But laziness is not logic.
You can't just assume it was the Russian government, as the evidence doesn't back that up. It could have been anyone from a Russian proxy, or the phishing attacks could be unrelated to the leaked email. i.e., they could have both stupid users who fall for phishing attacks, and disgruntled employees leaking their shit.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
We can all agree on that.
So let's give up the idea of having a good President, let's focus on which one will give us more entertainment. Let's ask ourselves: which of those two could resurrect press conferences and the state of the union? Would you ever tivo a Clinton speech so you can watch again the good parts? Unlikely. Even is she was competent, she's exciting as a doorknob.
Trump, however, would give us a good show. Insult foreign dignitaries that don't deserve the VIP treatment. Blame people, companies or religions openly. Make comments about the physical appearance of celebrities. Ignore lobbies. Ignore precedents and tradition. The guy is pure gold!
lucm, indeed.
Hey look, it's the Fallacy Fallacy.
The original poster never said he was trying to refute them. He was simply dismissing them.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
You should have made that argument first instead of trying "it's not ad hominem if I don't like them". Still not sure I agree with it, but you'd be on firmer ground.
So you are saying the following are shilling for Clinton:
- Fox News
- Breitbart
- EIB (Rush Limbaugh)
- Wall Street Journal
- New York Post
- Forbes
I could go on but you get the point.
People are commenting and comparing the GOP and DNC, taking at face value that they are truly separate and non colluding parties. In the past this may have been true but in the run up to the primaries it was very apparent that they are two sides of the same corrupt coin. They are both beholden to the same corporations and dependent on the same lobbying groups for money. Bernie who I initially supported was destroyed by the DNC machine because he wanted real change. Trump was bashed on by the GOP because he wasn't getting in line with the party interests. At this point you'd have to be a fool to vote for more of the same old same old with Clinton. She's gotten tacit and open support from the Bushes! Trump is the only choice to drain the damn swamp or at least attempt to do it.
notably, the people who've been called out on the contents of the emails, immediately push the "Stolen by Russia" narrative, and never address the actual contents of the emails. ...Which can be verified by DKIM sig
https://www.reddit.com/r/DNCleaks/comments/58il3v/dkim_rules_out_the_it_may_be_altered_defense/
I supported Bernie Sanders, and the DNC used every cheating dirty trick in the book to make sure he failed. If Independents had been allowed to vote in all the primaries, he would have won. Jill Stein is the only other candidate that is talking about the same issues. Clinton is talking about no fly zones over Syria. You also know she will push through any trade deals that Obama fails to get passed. I voted for the Democrats most of my life (my first presidential vote was for Carter). But that is over. Now that they are the other corporate controlled party, I will be sticking with the Greens until the DNC gets taken back from the billionaires.
A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
Yeah, let's get a politician who doesn't pander to all the people who have the power (read: not you or me), and see how successfully they run for office. A politician who doesn't pander to the most powerful players is a politician who is going to lose to their competitor who does. And people who complain about politicians being in bed with big business are ignorant. Yeah, it sucks, but it's how politics works. It's how it has always worked, and it is how it's always going to work, until we are ruled by robots (and even then I'm not sure the game will change). You want Hillary or Trump to pander directly to you, but once they get elected, what good are you to them? Maybe $5000 in annual tax revenue if you're lucky. Maybe you're lucky enough to be a part of a voter block who collectively has enough power to get a bit of support in the form of a tax break or a subsidy, but odds are, you mean nothing to any politician.
Most of what she has supposedly "Done" are outright fabrications.
How many "investigations" have to come up empty before you admit that there is no fire behind the smoke that Republicans call Benghazi?
Clinton Foundation is shown to have average overhead expenses.
Etc.
Arguing against the Civil Rights Movement is effectively saying all citizens should not be equal, which is kind of one of the principles our country was founded on (admittedly it took us a long time to approach that point).
At this point the Civil Rights movement seems to be more interested in pushing for special rights for favored groups and blaming any problems its favored groups encounter on -isms like racism or sexism. Moreover Civil Rights groups tolerate honest discussion, or dissenting views, about as well as Soviet Russia. Indeed they take special pride in punishing dissenting political views such as anyone who donated to California Proposition 8 (citation below). This is why I chuckle when Civil Rights groups are mentioned in the same sentence as founding principles. The two couldn't be more different. Equality under law just means no special rules for anyone ... period. It really is that simple.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02...
Clinton did pay for play.
Trump gets it on with a lot of women.
So do we pick the playboy, or the woman who puts the interests of foreign governments before America?
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
Good candidate don't run for president, and the few that do don't get very far. By very nature of being decent, they don't attract corporate or lobbyist money.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
the EPA destroyed a river and absolved itself from all responsibility. excuse me for not giving a flying fuck about them
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
maybe because they wont cooperate?? i mean maybe teh fact that thousands of emails disappeared may have played into it??? ffs man
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
By definition, Trump can either have extreme opinions or he can represent the majority view, but he can't do both. Getting elected is the art of getting lots of people from the middle of the political spectrum to agree with you.
Getting nominated of course is a different matter. To get nominated you just have to get a plurality of a subset of voters, and ones predisposed to agree with you at that. News organizations were also predisposed to like Trump. He sells a lot of newspapers, and drives a lot of pageviews. However, he seems to have mistaken "getting attention" for "getting votes", and even if everything else were going his way, what drives the media out of his corner is his decision to attack them for anything resembling negative coverage. Threatening lawsuits is probably not a good move there. Saying that as President you would push for more expansive libel laws is flat-out stupid.
Trump is socially pretty extreme. That's why people know who he is. It's possible to be socially outré as a politician (Churchill comes to mind), but pretty difficult. His politics are also pretty extreme, and that puts him at a mathematical disadvantage with the electorate. However, if there is a media conspiracy against him, [1] they don't have much work to do, given the above, and [2] he should probably have gone for a strategy of appeasement rather than aggression. There is an appropriate phrase here: "Never argue with a man who buys ink by the barrel." Given that Trump continues to ramp-up his anti-media rhetoric, are you really surprised that the media is less inclined to support him?
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Now, why would the DNC have to cheat? They wrote the rules! And the rules say, they can nominate whoever they want. The superdelegates are there for just that reason, to overturn the primaries if the people don't pick the one they want. The primaries are only advisory. The results are not binding. This is by design. The RNC has slightly different rules for itself, but the idea's the same.
People complain about how unfair the primaries are. Yup, they're unfair. They're unfair by design. The DNC and RNC are both private organizations that can do as they please. Don't like it? Go vote for a different party, one with internal rules that you like. Try to vote for someone promising election reform so we can get rid of this whole rotten system. Not that anyone promising election reform has a snowball's chance in hell of winning. If they had any way to win in the current system, they wouldn't be trying to reform it.
Yeah, it sucks. All of it.
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.