Tag Archives: Twitter

Twitter Suspends Black Conservative For Changing NYT Bigot’s Tweets From “White” to “Jewish” and “Black”

https://media.breitbart.com/media/2018/08/GettyImages-823557140-640x480.jpg

In response to the New York Times’ decision to stand by their most recent hire – open bigot Sarah Jeong, who really hates white people, men (especially white men), and cops – black conservative Candace Owens conducted out a thought exercise we mentioned last week in which we replaced the word “white” with “black” to illustrate Jeong’s animus. 

A sample of Jeong’s controversial tweets:

In response, Owens simply replaced “white” with Jewish and Black, then condensed Jeong’s statements into several tweets, for which the Twitter police banned her for 12 hours

Actually, Twitter only removed (or forced Owens to remove) her tweet about Jewish people, while the one in which she swapped the race from white to black remains as of this writing…

Meanwhile, conservative pundit Ann Coulter responded to Jeong’s bigotry with a bit of a history lesson:

Candace responded to her Twitter ban on Sunday:

Was Candace also suspended for her response to Hillary Clinton’s recent defense of Lebron James, who President Trump recently dissed over Twitter after James criticized Trump for fueling racial divides in the U.S.? 

And Candace Owens replied “This is rich. Your husband locked up more black men than any President in the history of the United States. You view Margaret Sanger (who wanted to exterminate the black race) as your idol and Robert Byrd (former Klansmen) as your mentor and dear friend.” : 

Meanwhile, The Times has chosen to stand by Jeong – claiming that she was simply imitating other racists. Perhaps someday Twitter will let us in on what constitutes racism and harassment – since the goal posts seem to be all over the place depending on who said what. 

Source: ZeroHedge

Advertisements

Visualizing The Multi-Billion Dollar Industry That Lives Off Your Data

https://whiskeytangotexas.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/teamwork.png?w=625&zoom=2

In the ocean ecosystem, plankton is the raw material that fuels an entire food chain. These tiny organisms on their own aren’t that remarkable, but en masse, they have a huge impact on the world.

Here on dry land, Visual Capitalist’s Nick Routley notes that the massive volume of content and meta data we produce fuels a marketing research industry that is worth nearly $50 billion.

Every instant message, page click, and step you take now produces a data point that can be used to build a detailed profile of who you are.

https://i0.wp.com/2oqz471sa19h3vbwa53m33yj.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/personal-data-ecosystem.jpg(Click here for larger image)

EVERY BREATH YOU TAKE, EVERY MOVE YOU MAKE

The coarse-grained demographics and contact information of yesteryear seems quaint compared to today’s sophisticated data collection battleground. In the past, marketers would make judgement calls on your likely income and family structure based on where you lived, and you’d receive “targeted” mail and calls from telemarketers. Loyalty programs and the emergence of web analytics pushed things a little further.

Today, the steady march of technological advancement has created a vast data collection empire that measures every aspect of your digital life and, increasingly, your offline life as well. Facebook alone uses nearly one hundred data points to target ads to you – everything from your marital status to whether you’ve been on vacation lately or not. Telecoms have access to extremely detailed information on your location. Apple has biometric data.

Also watching your every move are web trackers. “Cookie-syncing” is one of the sneaky ways advertisers can follow you around the internet. Basically, cookie-syncing allows third parties to share browsing information at such a large scale that even the NSA “piggybacks” off them for surveillance purposes.

The recent sales growth of smart speakers will only increase the breadth of data companies collect and analyze. Amazon and Google have both filed patents for technology that would essentially allow them to mine audio recordings for keywords. Advertisers could potentially target you with diapers before your family and friends even know you’re expecting a baby.

FOLLOWING THE ONES AND ZEROS

While web trackers and companies like Apple and Google are collecting a lot of personal and behavioral data, it’s the whales of the data ecosystem – data brokers – who are creating increasingly detailed profiles on almost everyone.

Data brokers trade on the privacy of consumers and operate in the shadows.

– Senator Al Franken (D-Minn)

The goal of data brokers, such as Experian or Acxiom, is to siphon up as much personal data as possible and apply it to profiles. This data comes from a wide variety of sources. Your purchases, financial history, internet activity, and even psycho graphic attributes are mixed with information from public records to create a robust dossier. Digital profiles are then sorted into one of thousands of categories to help optimize advertising efforts.

FEAR THE SHADOW PROFILE?

According to Pew Research, 91% of Americans “agree” or “strongly agree” that people have lost control over how personal information is collected and used.

Though optimizing click throughs is a big business, companies are increasingly moving beyond advertising to extract value from their growing data pipeline. Amalgamated data is increasingly being viewed as a clever way to assess risk in the decision-making process (e.g. hiring, insurance, loan or housing applications), and the stakes for consumers are going up in the process.

For example, a man may feel comfortable sharing their HIV status on Grindr (for practical reasons), but may not want that information going to a third party. (Unfortunately, that really happened.)

In 2015, Facebook filed a patent for a service that would help insurance companies vet people based on the credit ratings of their social network.

THE MORE YOU KNOW

Below the surface of our screens, our digital profiles continue to take shape.

Measures like adjusting website privacy controls and clearing cookies are a good start, but that’s only a fraction of the data companies are collecting. Not only do data brokers make it hard to officially opt out, their partnerships with corporations and advanced data collection methods cast such a wide net, that it’s almost impossible to exclude individual people.

Data brokers have operated with very little scrutiny or oversight, but that may be changing. Under intense public and governmental pressure, Facebook recently cut ties with data brokers. For a company that has bullishly pursued monetization of user data at every turn, the move is a sign that the public sentiment is changing.

Source: ZeroHedge

Latest O’Keefe (video) Exposes How Creepy Twitter Really Is: “They’re Paid To Look At Your Dick Pics”

https://whiskeytangotexas.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/22405428.jpg?w=596&h=740

Last week, Project Veritas and James O’Keefe dropped the first two parts of their new undercover series which exposed rampant political bias and generally creepy behavior at Twitter.  We covered both of them here:

O’Keefe Strikes Again: Twitter Engineer Admits Willingness To Share Trump DMs Without A Warrant

Project Veritas Exposes Twitter “Shadow Banning”, Blocking Opposing Views

Now, earlier this morning, O’Keefe dropped part 3 of the series which takes the Twitter creepiness to a whole new level.  Among other things, four Twitter engineers openly talk about a team of 300-400 people working at Twitter whose sole role is to review your “private” direct messages to create a more complete profile of your personal interests which can be sold to advertisers.

Per the exchange below, Clay Haynes, who was featured in part one of the Twitter exposé, admitted in a January 6, 2018 meeting that Twitter has hired hundreds employees with the express purpose of looking at these “d*ck pics,” stating:

“There’s teams dedicated to it. I mean, we’re talking, we’re talking three or four… at least, three or four hundred people… Yes, they’re paid to look at d*ck pics.”

“I’ve seen way more penises than I’ve ever wanted to see in my life.”

“That’s, yeah… You know, actually… This sounds horrible, but I’m actually glad and fortunate it’s just dicks, it’s just blow job pictures, it’s just that type of stuff.”

Meanwhile, Pranay Singh, a Direct Messaging Engineer for Twitter corroborated Haynes claims and even joked about using someone’s private messages for blackmail purposes:

“Everything you send is stored on my server… So all your sex messages and you, like, d*ck pics are on my server now…”

“All your illegitimate wives and, like, all the girls you’ve been f*cking around with, they’re are on my server now… I’m going to send it to your wife, she’s going use it in your divorce.”

“So, what happens is like, you like, write something or post pictures on line, they never go away… Because even after you send them, people are like analyzing them, to see what you are interested in, to see what you are talking about. And they sell that data.”

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DTl4HabWkAEpZPj.jpg

So, just how intrusive is Twitter?  Singh continues…

Twitter Engineer:  “So what happens is, like, when you, like, write stuff of when you post pictures online, they never go away.  Like, they’re always on there.”

“Even after you send them, people are analyzing them, to see what you’re interested in, to see what you’re talking about, and they sell that data.”

PV Journalist: “They sell it to who, like advertisers?”

Twitter Engineer: “Advertisers…”

PV Journalist: “Wait, you’re talking about just regular tweets or the DMs? Or both?”

Twitter Engineer:Everything. Anything you post online…”

PV Journalist: “Wow. So even what you think is private, direct message…”

Twitter Engineer:  “Yeah, it’s all analyzed.”

Finally, perhaps no one summarizes this Project Veritas series better than one of Twitter’s own engineers: “It is a creepy Big Brother. It’s like a level… I don’t want to say it freaks me out, but it disturbs me.”

Source: ZeroHedge

“Something is Going On” – And It’s Far Worse Than You Thought

https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftse2.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.M1193f552cf1b35d2bf2254fcd5bf2830o0%26pid%3D15.1%26f%3D1&sp=595de004bf84b2dd133168e83b8b2d14

We have finally unlocked the Great Mystery why the Obama administration, UniParty house and senate leaders, and the Clinton campaign are so reluctant to utter the words radical islamic terrorism.”

I used to wonder why in the heck right-wing commentators on Fox News kept repeating the same mantra over and over again: sitting through the Republican debates, my eyes glazed over when I heard each and every candidate denounce the Obama administration for refusing to say the Sacred Words: “radical Islamic terrorism.” What are these people talking about, I thought to myself: they’re obsessed!

In short, I wrote it off as Fox News boilerplate, until the other day when, in the wake of the Orlando massacre, Donald Trump said the following on Fox: “Something is going on. He doesn’t get it, or he gets it better than anybody understands. It’s one or the other.” Reiterating this trope later on in the same show, he averred that the President “is not tough, not smart – or he’s got something else in mind.”

The Beltway crowd went ballistic. Lindsey Graham had a hissy fit, and other Republican lawmakers started edging away from the presumptive GOP nominee. The Washington Post ran a story with the headline: “Donald Trump Suggests President Obama Was Involved With Orlando Shooting.” Realizing that this level of bias was a bit too brazen, the editors changed it an hour or so later to: “Donald Trump Seems to Connect President Obama to Orlando Shooting.” Not much better, but then again we’re talking about a newspaper that has a team of thirty or so reporters bent on digging up dirt on Trump.

In any case, Trump responded as he usually does: by doubling down. And he did it, as he usually does, on Twitter, tweeting the following:

“Media fell all over themselves criticizing what Donald Trump ‘may have insinuated about @POTUS.’ But he’s right:”

The tweet included a link to this story that appeared on Breitbart: an account of a 2012 intelligence report from the Defense Intelligence Agency predicting the rise of the Islamic State in Syria – and showing how US policy deliberately ignored and even succored it. Secured by Judicial Watch thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, the document says it’s very likely we’ll see the creation of “an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria.” And this won’t just be a grassroots effort, but the result of a centrally coordinated plan: it will happen because “Western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey are supporting these efforts” by Syrian “opposition forces” then engaged in a campaign to “control the eastern areas (Hasaka and Der Zor) adjacent to Western Iraqi provinces (Mosul and Anbar).”

This is precisely what happened, and, as we see, the Iraqi Army is now in the field – with US support – trying to retake Mosul and Anbar, with limited success. Yet it’s not like we didn’t know this was coming – and didn’t have a hand in creating the problem we are now spending billions of dollars and even some American lives trying to “solve.” Things are turning out exactly as the DIA report said they would:

“[T]here is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist Principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).”

And who, exactly, are these “supporting powers”? The anonymous author of the report points to “the West, Gulf countries, and Turkey.” Last I heard, the US is part of the West – although the way things are going, that may not be true for very much longer. And of course the US has had a policy of supporting the “moderate” Syrian Islamist “opposition,” which ended in massive defections from the so-called Free Syrian Army to openly jihadist outfits like al-Nusra and ISIS.

There was a split in the administration over this policy, with then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and then CIA director David Petraeus arguing for a full-scale effort to overthrow beleaguered Ba’athist strongman Bashar al-Assad with massive aid to a loosely-defined “opposition.” Petraeus even openly argued for arming al-Nusra – the Syrian affiliate of al-Qaeda – and there were indications that, before Hillary left Foggy Bottom, an arms pipeline was opened up between the Libyan jihadists we aided in overthrowing Ghaddafi and their Syrian brothers.

Obama was reluctant to get more involved, but Hillary and Petraeus were gung-ho, along with the usual “humanitarian” interventionists in the administration and the media, who were accusing the President of standing by while “genocide” was being carried out by Assad. In reality, the jihadists were chopping off heads and wreaking just as much devastation as the Syrian army, but these facts didn’t make it into the media narrative.

https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.franklincountyvapatriots.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F02%2FBarack_Obama_vs_Hillary_Clinton_by_GaryLocke.jpg&sp=2ff15fa17e82b98190448471d408f0c5

In any case, the administration split was finally resolved when the President announced he was going to intervene in Syria with air strikes. This provoked a huge backlash from flyover country, with congressional switchboards tied up and protests coming in fast and furious. Clearly, the American people didn’t want another war in the Middle East, and, one by one, members of Congress who had planned on voting yes began to back down. The President backtracked – happily, I imagine. Hillary, who had already left the administration, was handed her final rebuke. Yet the seeds planted by her Syria policy would soon sprout into flowers of evil.

War was avoided, at least for the moment – but the prediction of that anonymous DIA agent was coming true. As thousands of US-trained –and-equipped rebels joined ISIS, along with the arms and other goodies provided courtesy of the US taxpayers, their leader declared the “Caliphate” and expanded its operations into North Africa, Europe – and the US.

The long reach of the Islamic State has been felt in this country twice in recent months: first in San Bernardino, and now in Orlando. Both terrorists traveled to Saudi Arabia, ostensibly for religious purposes, where they may have received training – and instructions.

When Omar Mateen opened fire in that Orlando nightclub, killing fifty people and wounding nearly one-hundred, the monster we created came back to haunt us. It didn’t matter that he may not have had direct links to ISIS: inspired by them, he carried out his grisly mission as he swore allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the “Caliph” of the Islamic State.

The Washington Post, in its mission to debunk every word that comes out of Trump’s mouth, ran an article by Glenn  Kessler minimizing the DIA document, claiming that it was really nothing important and that we should all just move along because there’s nothing to see there. He cited all the usual Washington insiders to back up his thesis, but there was one glaring omission: Gen. Michael Flynn, who headed up the DIA when the document was produced and who was forced out by the interventionists in the administration. Here is what Flynn told Al-Jazeera in an extensive interview:

Al-Jazeera: “You are basically saying that even in government at the time you knew these groups were around, you saw this analysis, and you were arguing against it, but who wasn’t listening?

Flynn: I think the administration.

Al-Jazeera: So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis?

Flynn: I don’t know that they turned a blind eye, I think it was a decision. I think it was a willful decision.

Al-Jazeera: A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?

Flynn: It was a willful decision to do what they’re doing.”

Of course, Glenn Kessler and the Washington Post don’t want to talk about that. Neither do the Republicans in Congress, who supported aid to the Syrian rebels and wanted to give them much more than they got. They’re all complicit in this monstrous policy – and they all bear moral responsibility for its murderous consequences.

Gen. Flynn, by the way, is an official advisor to Trump, and is often mentioned as a possible pick for Vice President.

The idea that we could use Islamist to fight jihadists was always crazy, and yet that is what the foreign policy Establishment and the congressional war hawks in both parties have been pushing. The “Sunni turn,” initiated by the Bush administration, supported (and funded) by the Saudis, the Turks, and the Gulf states, and escalated by the Obama administration, has empowered our worst enemies and endangered the American people. And here is the ultimate irony: it was done in the name of “fighting terrorism.” This gives new meaning to the concept of “blow back,” CIA parlance for an action (often covert) that has the unintended consequence of blowing back in our faces.

It certainly blew back in the faces of those party goers in Orlando – in a hail of bullets.

That Trump gets this is little short of amazing, and yet truth often comes to us in unexpected ways. He may be an imperfect vessel – and that is surely an understatement – but he is absolutely correct in this instance: this administration and this President either “doesn’t get it, or he gets it better than anybody understands. It’s one or the other.”

The media and the Never Trumpers leaped on this statement and translated it into the old Obama-is-a-secret-Muslim trope, but that’s not what he was talking about. He was talking about the largely unknown history of our intervention in Syria, where Hillary Clinton was the jihadists’ best friend and benefactor. It was she who led the charge to “liberate” Syria, to arm the “moderate” head-choppers and do to that war-torn wreck of a country what she had done to Libya. Obama knows it: and so does the media. But their lips are sealed.

Fortunately, mine aren’t:

So we finally unlock the Great Mystery: why oh why does is this administration and the Clinton campaign so reluctant to utter the words “radical Islamic terrorism”? Is it because of political correctness and a fear of inciting “Islamophobia”? Don’t flatter them: they’re not above that, when it serves their purposes. But it doesn’t serve their purposes this time.

What they’re afraid of is alienating their allies in the Middle East – not just the jihadists they’ve funded and succored in an effort to overthrow Assad, but primarily the Saudis, the Turks, and the Gulf sheikhs who are all in on the game and are playing it for all it’s worth. And of course there’s the Clinton Foundation, which has received millions in “donations” from the Saudi royals and their satellites.

The US policy goal in the region is to block the Iranians and their Shi’ite allies, including Syria’s Assad, from expanding their influence in the wake of the failed Iraq war. That war installed a Shi’ite regime in Baghdad, and in order to protect our vaunted ally Israel – which is set on regime change in Syria – we are backing and have been backing Sunni radicals, precisely those “radical Islamic terrorists” whose name will never pass Hillary Clinton’s lips.

We’ve been pointing this out on this site for years: I’ve written about it extensively. And now the Republican candidate for President is talking about it. To all those well intentioned hand-wringers out there who think I’ve gone overboard in my coverage of Trump, contemplate that amazing fact for a while – and then get back to me.

by Justin Raimondo | ZeroHedge