Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Why ‘Mark Zuckerberg is the most dangerous person in the world,’ according to this NYU business professor

  1. #1
    The lion's gate
    Chlodovech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    3 Hours Ago @ 06:10 AM
    Ethnicity
    Flemish
    Ancestry
    Frankish
    Country
    Holy Roman Empire Holy Roman Empire
    Gender
    Politics
    Völkisch traditionalist
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    3,487
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,762
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,970
    Thanked in
    1,341 Posts

    Why ‘Mark Zuckerberg is the most dangerous person in the world,’ according to this NYU business professor



    Source: CNBC

    As the CEO of Facebook, a business that has the attention of billions of people, Mark Zuckerberg has incredible power.

    And that’s what makes the Facebook chief executive “the most dangerous person in the world,” New York University Stern School of Business professor Scott Galloway said on “Bloomberg Markets: The Close” on Wednesday.

    Galloway, who teaches marketing and is a self-made millionaire entrepreneur, made the comment while discussing Facebook’s move to integrate the messenger services of the various platforms it owns: WhatsApp, Instagram and Facebook Messenger. (Facebook bought Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014.) While customers will still be able to use all three messenger apps individually, the three services will all be running off of the same back-end technical infrastructure when Zuckerberg’s plan is completed, either by the end of this year or in early 2020.

    “Mark Zuckerberg is trying to encrypt the backbone between WhatsApp, Instagram and the core platform, Facebook, such that he has one communications network across 2.7 billion people,” Galloway said in the Bloomberg interview. “What could go wrong?”

    Indeed, more than 2.7 billion people use at least one of those Facebook-owned services each month, the company says. And more than 2.1 billion use Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, or Messenger every day on average, according to Facebook.

    “The notion that we are going to have one individual deciding the algorithms for an encrypted backbone of 2.7 billion people is frightening — regardless of that person’s intentions,” Galloway tells Bloomberg.

    That’s because a variety of public voices and perspectives should, at least in theory, help keep the democratic process healthy, Galloway tells CNBC Make It.

    A “key safeguard for society is diversity of media/viewpoints, checks and balance,” Galloway says. He adds that people should be concerned by “the notion that one set of algorithms, controlled by one person who cannot be removed from office” would have a significant influence over the platform through which billions of Facebook users around the world consume information every day. Another relevant matter of concern regarding Zuckerberg and Facebook, Galloway adds, is that the social networking giant has already faced high-profile criticism regarding “bad actors” (such as Russian propagandists) using the platform to spread misinformation and sow discord through Facebook and Instagram.

    ”[Zuckerberg] has not demonstrated ability, or will, to ensure the doomsday machine will not be weaponized (repeatedly) by bad actors,” Galloway says.

    Meanwhile, Facebook’s move to integrate its messaging infrastructure could actually be an effort to build a defense against a possible pending antitrust case, Galloway argues.

    At the end of July, the U.S. Department of Justice said it was opening an antitrust review of some of the nation’s largest tech companies, and while no companies were named specifically, the DOJ is launching the review based on “new Washington threats” from Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple, according to a report by the Wall Street Journal.

    Zuckerberg wants to get to the point where, if the government were to attempt to break up Facebook, the company would try claim it is not possible without killing the entire social network and taking out the economic benefits with it, Galloway says. “What Facebook is doing is taking prophylactic moves against any sort of antitrust so that [Zuckerberg] could say, ‘It would be impossible to unwind this now,’” Galloway tells Bloomberg.

    This argument, though, is not likely to work, antitrust lawyer Steven Levitsky tells CNBC Make It. “No one likes to ‘unscramble the eggs’ of a corporate integration. But when companies have operated separately, and only now become integrated, it’s obvious that they can be separated again,” Levitsky says. “The cost of the separation is one that the defendant would have to bear.”

    Facebook may also try to claim that if it were broken into smaller pieces it won’t be able to compete with Chinese tech behemoths, such as the Chinese messaging and mobile payment app WeChat and social media video app Tik Tok, Galloway tells CNBC Make It in a follow-up phone call.

    This, Galloway says, is called the “national champions’ argument” in economics: “If you, in any way, diminish our size and power, we won’t be able to defend our shores against the Chinese companies that are coming for us,” Galloway says. He doesn’t by that argument. “Smaller, more nimble, agile companies have shown an ability to be just as effective countervailing forces than large lumbering ones,” he says.

    “This is absolutely bad for the planet, bad for society and it is clear where they are going,” Galloway says. He also called the federal regulators’ approval of Facebook’s acquisition of Instagram a “failure.”

    “I think we all probably regret that now,” Galloway said. To this, the Federal Trade Commission had no comment, a spokesperson told CNBC Make It.

    Facebook did not respond to CNBC Make It’s request for comment.
    “When a nation forgets her skill in war, when her religion becomes a mockery, when the whole nation becomes a nation of money-grabbers, then the wild tribes, the barbarians drive in.“ – Robert Howard

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    schwab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Last Online
    Sunday, March 15th, 2020 @ 06:41 PM
    Status
    Prolonged Absence
    Ethnicity
    Alsatian/Suevi
    Ancestry
    germanic/alsatian/Elsaesser
    Subrace
    Child of Creator God
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Oregon Oregon
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    retired - Aerospace Quality Engi
    Politics
    independent
    Religion
    Born again Christian,
    Posts
    842
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    769
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,017
    Thanked in
    498 Posts
    "Zuckerberg" which translates to "Mountain of sugar/sugar mountain".
    As everyone knows, sugar is deadly.

  3. #3
    Grand Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Online
    Thursday, October 31st, 2019 @ 03:26 AM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    English, Anglo-Saxon
    Country
    England England
    Location
    South Coast
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Aries
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Self Employed
    Politics
    Free Speech / Anti-EU
    Religion
    Pagan
    Posts
    5,040
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,584
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,618
    Thanked in
    1,406 Posts
    ... but extremely addictive, just like Facebook!

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to SaxonPagan For This Useful Post:


  5. #4
    Senior Member
    velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    Sunday, March 8th, 2020 @ 03:10 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Northern Germany
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Gender
    Age
    46
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Pestilent Supremacy
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Religion
    Fimbulwinter
    Posts
    5,000
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,295
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,440
    Thanked in
    644 Posts
    FB attempts to relabel itself as "publisher" in a lawsuit, instead of a tech-platform so that they can censor whatever they like and claim this as their rights derived from the first amendment. That despite all former efforts in public to be not labelled as publisher, just when it suites them to avoid being held accountable for their doings.

    Would be great if it gets broken up again, so maybe MySpace can return in its old fashion form, and all the other "platforms" like Instagram, SnapShot, WhatsApp and whatever else they've bought up to eliminate concurrence to their monopoly. Best would be to shut down FB alltogether to make room for better systems, and Suckerberg be arrested for spying on the whole world and manipulating public opinion.

    #FBsucks
    Ein Leben ist nichts, deine Sprosse sind alles
    Aller Sturm nimmt nichts, weil dein Wurzelgriff zu stark ist
    und endet meine Frist, weiss ich dass du noch da bist
    Gefürchtet von der Zeit, mein Baum, mein Stamm in Ewigkeit

    my signature

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to velvet For This Useful Post:


  7. #5
    Senior Member
    schwab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Last Online
    Sunday, March 15th, 2020 @ 06:41 PM
    Status
    Prolonged Absence
    Ethnicity
    Alsatian/Suevi
    Ancestry
    germanic/alsatian/Elsaesser
    Subrace
    Child of Creator God
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Oregon Oregon
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    retired - Aerospace Quality Engi
    Politics
    independent
    Religion
    Born again Christian,
    Posts
    842
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    769
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,017
    Thanked in
    498 Posts
    Facebook releases long-secret rules on how it polices the service

    https://www.aol.com/article/finance/...vice/23418793/

  8. #6
    Moderator
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    GroeneWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Dutch
    Subrace
    Don't know
    Country
    Netherlands Netherlands
    State
    Utrecht Utrecht
    Gender
    Age
    37
    Family
    Single adult
    Posts
    3,074
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    326
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    426
    Thanked in
    234 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    FB attempts to relabel itself as "publisher" in a lawsuit, instead of a tech-platform so that they can censor whatever they like and claim this as their rights derived from the first amendment. That despite all former efforts in public to be not labelled as publisher, just when it suites them to avoid being held accountable for their doings.
    Which could open a can of legal worms for them. Since platforms like Facebook under a special deal could not be prosecuted for what their users placed on their profiles/channels/ect. under the understanding that social media sites are a new form of public spaces. So that would mean that they now can be persecuted when someone commits illegals acts trough sites like Facebook.

    But heck, that is the price they have to pay if they want to be able to censor people who state things they do not like. And of course them claiming to be publishers might also provoke even more action from politicians who are becoming aware of the impact social media is having.
    The sense of honor is of so fine and delicate a nature that
    it is only to be met with in minds which are naturally noble or
    cultivated by good examples and a refined education.
    - Sir Richard Steele

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to GroeneWolf For This Useful Post:


  10. #7
    Senior Member
    velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    Sunday, March 8th, 2020 @ 03:10 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Northern Germany
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Gender
    Age
    46
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Pestilent Supremacy
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Religion
    Fimbulwinter
    Posts
    5,000
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,295
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,440
    Thanked in
    644 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by GroeneWolf View Post
    Which could open a can of legal worms for them. Since platforms like Facebook under a special deal could not be prosecuted for what their users placed on their profiles/channels/ect. under the understanding that social media sites are a new form of public spaces. So that would mean that they now can be persecuted when someone commits illegals acts trough sites like Facebook.
    Among them some interesting cases, like hosting a bride auctioning with live bidding, streaming a murder, streaming killing sprees... that would make for some very interesting lawsuits. Plus the data transfer without user consent to criminals like Cambridge Analytica, in general selling user data without user consent etc

    But heck, that is the price they have to pay if they want to be able to censor people who state things they do not like. And of course them claiming to be publishers might also provoke even more action from politicians who are becoming aware of the impact social media is having.
    Absolutely.
    And then some judge thinks it's "public space" where the first amendment applies to everyone, sacks the whole thing and puts it under public regulation

    Talk about can of worms^^
    Ein Leben ist nichts, deine Sprosse sind alles
    Aller Sturm nimmt nichts, weil dein Wurzelgriff zu stark ist
    und endet meine Frist, weiss ich dass du noch da bist
    Gefürchtet von der Zeit, mein Baum, mein Stamm in Ewigkeit

    my signature

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to velvet For This Useful Post:


  12. #8

    Zuckerberg really must think we’re all ‘dumb fucks’: Filling his ‘Supreme Court’ with like-minded liberals is just window dressing





    Mark Zuckerberg testifies at a House Financial Services Committee hearing in Washington, U.S., October 23, 2019.


    Facebook has spent $130 million setting up a so-called “independent content oversight board” – but its make-up shows that nothing will change about the tech giant’s sinister use of mass surveillance and censorship.




    Facebook's market capitalization is close to $700 billion and its primary businesses are publishing, advertising and data collection. During the global lockdown, Facebook boasted that the number of its daily active users (DAUs) on average for March 2020 was 1.73 billion. For 2019, it reported a headcount of 48,268 employees as well as an advertising revenue of $17.44 billion.


    Facebook users are “the product” that Facebook sells. In a New Yorker interview, Zuckerberg once admitted to describing Facebook's users who were trusting him with their personal information by saying: “They trust me – dumb fucks.”



    As we saw in the case of Cambridge Analytica, Facebook data was sold to third parties and used to help political campaigns. In 2018, after hearing testimony from Cambridge Analytica whistleblower Christopher Wylie before the UK Parliament, Damian Collins, chair of the UK's Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee (DCMS) demanded that Zuckerberg appear to answer questions regarding Analytica’s harvesting of user data – aka data misuse. While Analytica claimed only 30 million Facebook users were impacted, other sources said up to 90 million users were exposed. We were never able to determine precisely what the number was.


    When Facebook's public relations surrounding the Analytica nightmare hit the fan, Zuckerberg hired former British Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg as VP of global affairs and communications to deal with data protection, fake news, and government regulation. Slowly, the Cambridge Analytica scandal simply faded away from the news cycle.


    In 2018, during Zuckerberg’s testimony before the US Senate and the EU Parliament, he was vague, unresponsive and evasive. Zuck totally avoided providing meaningful answers when asked questions about Facebook’s data collection, storage and privacy practices.


    These issues are not the only questionable practices the left-leaning Facebook has been accused of – it has also been accused of censorship, particularly by conservatives. Zuckerbeg’s response, six months ahead of the 2020 presidential elections, has been to create a $130 million fancy editorial board he deemed his “Supreme Court” (the full list of Zuck's court can be found
    here).



    One of the tasks of this liberal “Supreme Court” will be to look at banning “hate speech,” for which no legal definition exists. Zuckerberg proclaimed his “Supreme Court” would be an “independent content oversight board” at Facebook and that this committee may be able to overrule Zuckerberg on what content should be censored, shadowbanned or withheld from public view on Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp.



    Unfortunately, Zuckerberg, personally or via his particular proxies, has appointed heavily “progressive” liberal-left biased Facebook co-chairs. These co-chairs were then “allowed” to select other members of Zuckerberg's “Supreme Court” – with Zuckerberg's approval, of course.



    How can anyone possibly view Facebook's censorship committee as the least bit “independent” when Zuckerberg packs this board of moderators with members such as Pamela Karlan? Karlan is a Stanford law professor and is an openly mean-spirited anti-Trump campaigner who made fun of Trump's 13-year-old son during congressional testimony.




    Another pick, Alan Rusbridger, an ex-editor of the Guardian, once declared his mission, when running the UK newspaper to the verge of bankruptcy, was to create “the world's leading liberal voice.” Even worse, another board member, Professor Nicolas Suzor, once liked a post that compared President Trump to Adolf Hitler. These should be disqualifying acts. As far as shareholders having a say in anything Facebook, look at Facebook's recent SEC filing:
    "Because Facebook qualifies as a ‘controlled company’ under the corporate governance rules for Nasdaq-listed companies, Facebook are not required to have a majority of our board of directors be independent, nor are Facebook required to have a compensation committee or an independent nominating function. In the future Facebook could elect not to have a majority of our board of directors be independent or not to have a compensation committee or an independent nominating function. Accordingly, should the interests of our controlling stockholder (MARK ZUCKERBERG) differ from those of other stockholders, the other stockholders may not have the same protections afforded to stockholders of companies that are subject to all of the corporate governance rules for Nasdaq-listed companies. Our status as a controlled company could make our Class A common stock less attractive to some investors or otherwise harm our stock price."



    How does this “Supreme Court” show the world that Facebook is non-discriminatory, inclusive, diverse, fair, balanced or even moderately concerned about accepting all viewpoints, including conservative and alternative viewpoints? Zuckerberg's openly biased censorship committee is all about a power grab. Simple. If the left cannot win at the ballot box, they will win via indoctrination, censorship and propaganda.



    Zuckerberg and his “Supreme Court” are not the only far left operatives at Facebook. In a previous article, I detailed how Facebook's COO, and political operative, Sheryl Sandberg was actively working with John Podesta, Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign manager, on the Clinton campaign. Politico reported that Sandberg was put on Clinton's shortlist to become US treasury secretary after Clinton won, though Sandberg later denied it




    Sandberg has always been heavily involved in politics supporting the Democratic Party. Under Bill Clinton, she served as the chief of staff for the US Treasury Department. After Sandberg's work with the Clinton administration, she became a vice president at Google before becoming Zuckerberg's COO at Facebook. Sandberg served on Barack Obama's President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness as well as serving on several boards, including Walt Disney Company – owners of ABC News, ESPN and many other cable channels. Sandberg's Facebook compensation in 2019 was around $30 million.



    Zuck and Sandberg are trying to sell the idea that Facebook is not a publisher and therefore, can hide behind censorship. But in fact, Facebook is one of the world's largest publishers and advertising companies, which specializes in the collection and sale of user data. The formation of Facebook’s “Supreme Court” – as a body to oversee content – confirms Facebook’s legal liability and role as a publisher rather than a platform.



    The time has come for US, UK and EU politicians to realize that Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp are publishers. As such, Congress must remove Facebook’s exemption under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which affords tech platforms, not publishers, with immunity from lawsuits arising out of their decisions to host (or not to host) user-generated content.



    In the 1940s, George Orwell warned of a tyrannical world government where all citizens were subjected to constant surveillance and censorship. Well, Zuckerberg, with help from Silicon Valley's Google, Twitter, YouTube and Amazon, is very close to realizing Orwell's dystopian nightmare.


    In Orwell's 1984, “Oceania” was one of three fictional authoritarian superstates ruled by a KGB / CIA -like thought police known as “The Party.” The Party prohibited critical thought and individuality and relied upon mass surveillance and propaganda to rule the masses. Two constant themes repeated throughout Orwell's totalitarian novel were “Big Brother” and “Big Brother is watching you.”



    Zuckerberg's Facebook has become “Big Brother,” and its power grab is a censorship-based mass surveillance superstate designed to usurp personal freedoms, liberty and democracy.
    It’s time to break-up Facebook and regulate it like a utility.




    Zuckerberg is just one of the Deep State puppets. Gets paid huge fortunes for carrying out their agendas while the Deep State hide behind the scenes.


    Look better, it is the jewish cabal....


    Jews have destroyed the family structure the man woman relationship the fundamental units of a society ,on which entire society is based on materialistic approach to every thing from sex to education every thing is up side down , white man is so socially dizzy he isn't able to see it or fix it .



    The white doesn't have a clue when, how, who changed their entire social political family structure.,Never once have Jews worked for humanity. In the last 2000 years they have have killed, expelled, tortured, etc. for the same reason but each time trying their best to harm humanity they cause more regression. They are the people with worst philosophy.



    Value your freedoms and privacy? Don't sign-up!





    Zuckerberg really must think we’re all ‘dumb f**ks’: Filling his ‘Supreme Court’ with like-minded liberals is just window dressing

    13 V 2020.


    Atheism is a religion in itself, which creates idiots. People no longer think for themselves. As the religion of the socialist left atheism seduces the millions into blind obedience to the crazy jewish run Deep State.

Similar Threads

  1. Did Mark Zuckerberg Really Create Facebook?
    By Chlodovech in forum Internet, Security, & Privacy
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Tuesday, July 9th, 2019, 05:34 PM
  2. Mark Zuckerberg: 'Let Children Under 13 Use My Website'
    By celticviking in forum Parenthood & Family
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Tuesday, June 28th, 2011, 07:12 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •