RUTHFULLY YOURS

Every time you think the left could not possibly sink any lower, you get proof they can. Here is a Canadian woman “journalist”, concerned that the contributions to families of the victims of the horrible bus crash of a junior hockey league team in Saskatchewan, are substantial only because they are going to families of white males, those who are privileged. This is where identity politics takes you, and the left is completely wedded to it (via Matt Vespa, Townhall):

MSNBC is part of NBC, so when MSNBC host Chris Hayes lets loose with his full blown anti-Israel hatred, spouting off Hamas propaganda as fact, this is a major network buying into this garbage, not a fringe cable channel. Tamar Sternahll in The Algemeiner:

In a completely biased report saying Israel is endeavoring to “pick off” unarmed Palestinian demonstrators, MSNBC’s Chris Hayes discarded any semblance of journalistic professionalism and embraced Hamas propaganda.

The MSNBC host insisted that the figure he provided for the number of Palestinians wounded by Israeli live fire during the Gaza border “March of Return” on March 30 was sound — despite the fact that it was unconfirmed data supplied by a terror group that has a long history of manipulating casualty statistics to suit its propaganda purposes. (snip)

In addition, the accompanying text stated — as fact — that 750 Palestinians were shot.

How is Hayes so certain “that is the correct number” and “that’s the fact” given that the information is supplied by Gaza’s Health Ministry — meaning Hamas itself?

At no point does Hayes attribute the unconfirmed information to Hamas, and nowhere does he point out that the United States, the European Union, Canada, and Israel have all labeled Hamas a terror organization, making it an unreliable source at best.

Indeed, no source has independently verified Hamas’ figure.

” The free press is a threat to freedom of the press, read about it in the mainstream media.”

The media took a brief break from its campaign against the Sinclair Media Group to go after the National Enquirer. The two don’t have anything in common except the perception of being pro-Trump.

In the good old days, going after rival media outlets meant writing nasty things about them. But these days the media doesn’t write nasty things for the sake of writing them. It writes nasty things to get someone fired, investigated or imprisoned. And that’s what its Sinclair and Enquirer stories are about.

CNN, the Washington Post and the New York Times had wasted barrels of ink and pixels, to warn that Trump’s criticism of their media outlets represented a grave threat to the First Amendment.

And what better way to protect the First Amendment than by destroying it?

In its story about the FBI raid on Trump’s lawyer, the Times managed to suggest that the Enquirer’s support for the President of the United States might strip it of its First Amendment protection.

The Times tells its readers that the “federal inquiry” poses “thorny questions about A.M.I.’s First Amendment protections, and whether its record in supporting Mr. Trump somehow opens the door to scrutiny usually reserved for political organizations.”

That’s a thorny question alright. And there’s plenty more thorns where that one came from.

In ’08, the New York Times published an op-ed by Obama, but rejected McCain’s response. It just published an editorial titled, “Watch Out, Ted Cruz. Beto is Coming” which appears to have no purpose other than to help Beto O’Rourke raise money from New York Times readers.

The Times has a sharp thorn. So sharp it could punch a hole in it and the entire mainstream media.

A Republican senator challenged Mark Zuckerberg on Facebook’s hate speech policies during his congressional testimony Tuesday, asking the Facebook boss if he could define it.

Senator Ben Sasse (R., Neb.) said he worried about policies that are “less than First Amendment full-spirit embracing in my view.”

“I worry about a world where when you go from violent groups to hate speech in a hurry,” Sasse told Zuckerberg. “Facebook may decide it needs to police a whole bunch of speech that I think America may be better off not having policed by one company that has a really big and powerful platform.”

“Can you define hate speech?” he asked.

Zuckerberg said it would be hard to pin down a specific definition, and mentioned speech “calling for violence” as something Facebook does not tolerate.

“I’m worried about the psychological categories around speech,” Sasse interjected. “We see this happening on college campuses all across the country. It’s dangerous.”

Zuckerberg said he did not think pro-life speech would fit any of Facebook’s definitions for hate speech, adding that he “generally agrees” with Sasse’s point.

In the age before cable, there was an iconic sci-fi program called The Outer Limits whose opening featured a series of test patterns; flickering screens; and a narrator who solemnly intoned, “Do not attempt to adjust your television set. We will control all that you see and hear.” Today, that is a chilling reality as social media giant Facebook censors what fans of social media icons Diamond and Silk, aka Lynette Hardaway and her sister Rochelle Richardson, see and hear from this dynamic pair of black conservative women on Facebook.

Racism is a term too easily bandied about these days, particularly by social progressives seeking to silence conservative thought and opinion which they deemed inherently racist in their chants of “white privilege.” Yet it is precisely the term liberals would use if, say, Michelle Obama or the likes of Maxine Waters were treated this way, their words censored because they were deemed “unsafe” to the community.” Indeed, Diamond and Silk themselves haVE raised the possibility that racism might be afoot here:

You are talking about two people here when you say Diamond and Silk. We are the brand. So, when you say things like we are ‘not safe’ for the community what are you trying to say? What are you trying to do? Are you trying to demonize us into something? Are you stereotyping us? What are you trying to do here? Because this doesn’t feel right. This here feels like racism. The left always cries racism. I see racism right here.

A nervous-looking Mark Zuckerberg, under heavy security, arrived on Capitol Hill Monday ahead of his planned testimony at a joint hearing of the Senate Judiciary and Commerce committees on Tuesday, and the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Wednesday.

The Facebook CEO met with lawmakers, including Democratic Senators Bill Nelson and Dianne Feinstein, on Monday to discuss the company’s recent security breaches and to explain how the company plans to protect users going forward. In his written testimony, released ahead of his appearances before Congress, Zuckerberg took full responsibility for Facebook’s failures and vowed to do better in the future.

“It’s clear now that we didn’t do enough to prevent these tools from being used for harm as well. That goes for fake news, foreign interference in elections, and hate speech, as well as developers and data privacy,” Zuckerberg said in the prepared remarks. “We didn’t take a broad enough view of our responsibility, and that was a big mistake. It was my mistake, and I’m sorry. I started Facebook, I run it, and I’m responsible for what happens here.”

In his remarks, Zuckerberg tallied up the known damages thus far—and the numbers are astounding:

In 2013, a Cambridge University researcher named Aleksandr Kogan created a personality quiz app. It was installed by around 300,000 people who agreed to share some of their Facebook information as well as some information from their friends whose privacy settings allowed it. Given the way our platform worked at the time this meant Kogan was able to access some information about tens of millions of their friends.
Our best estimate is that approximately 126 million people may have been served content from a Facebook Page associated with the [Russia-based] IRA [Internet Research Agency] at some point during that period. On Instagram, where our data on reach is not as complete, we found about 120,000 pieces of content, and estimate that an additional 20 million people were likely served it.
Over the same period, the IRA also spent approximately $100,000 on more than 3,000 ads on Facebook and Instagram, which were seen by an estimated 11 million people.
Echoing what COO Sheryl Sandberg told “Today” last week, Zuckerberg said there may be more breaches discovered in the weeks and months to come as the company continues its investigation. “We’re in the process of investigating every app that had access to a large amount of information before we locked down our platform in 2014,” he wrote. “If we detect suspicious activity, we’ll do a full forensic audit. And if we find that someone is improperly using data, we’ll ban them and tell everyone affected.”CONTINUE AT SITE

Professional clowns know what they are doing when they engage in slapstick stunts, such as stepping on a rake. Leftwing clown Jimmy Kimmel is different. The ABC Late Night host stepped on a rake of his own doing without any of the theatrical attention to planning and detail of professional comics. Now he has a key element of his ever-shrinking core audience angry at him.

The dolt went and insulted gays by making creepy, graphic, gross tweets about a broadcasting rival, Fox News’ Sean Hannity. with verbal images of Hannity supposedly engaging in gay sexual relations with President Trump, with graphic decriptions about sexual positioning, anal kissing, and other things, none of which is suitable for family viewing.

Since the tweets are public, here is one:

Don’t worry – just keep tweeting – you’ll get back on top! (or does Trump prefer you on bottom?) Either way, keep your chin up big fella..XO https://t.co/R4QJCoGYCL

— Jimmy Kimmel (@jimmykimmel) April 6, 2018 “>http://

Breitbart news has the rest.

Kimmel’s problem now is that his gay viewers are quite offended and now calling him out for insulting them. Apparently, they’ve heard a lot of this and aren’t interested in more from Kimmel in his bid to beef up his increasingly unfunny schtick. Breitbart has much of the offense taken here, as it happened on Twitter.

Facebook’s problems just keep accumulating, drip by drip—or more like splash by splash. It’s now been discovered that Facebook not only collects and uses the personal data of its members but also collects the data of those who never signed up for Facebook.

So if you’re one of those who blames Facebook users for allowing their personal data to be compromised, don’t be so smug. Facebook may be sharing your personal data as well.

Daniel Kahn Gillmor, senior staff technologist at the ACLU, discovered that, although he never joined Facebook or any other social network, Facebook has a detailed profile on him.

Facebook obtains information from those not on Facebook in two different ways: from other Facebook users and by tracking people who visit other other sites on the web.

When people sign up for Facebook, they’re encouraged to upload their contacts to make it easier for Facebook to connect them with their friends. That allows Facebook to access personal contact information for people who never signed up for the platform or gave their permission to share their information. Facebook knows that these contacts are friends of the new Facebook user, and can start compiling additional details on these non-members.

Gillmor explained, “I received an email from Facebook that lists the people who have all invited me to join Facebook: my aunt, an old co-worker, a friend from elementary school, etc. This email includes names and email addresses — including my own name — and at least one web bug designed to identify me to Facebook’s web servers when I open the email.” He added, “Facebook records this group of people as my contacts, even though I’ve never agreed to this kind of data collection.”

“Similarly, I’m sure that I’m in some photographs that someone has uploaded to Facebook — and I’m probably tagged in some of them. I’ve never agreed to this, but Facebook could still be keeping track.”

Facebook also tracks individuals when they visit other websites. Whenever they click a “like” button on the website, that information often gets fed back to Facebook, along with a list of the websites visited and any Facebook-specific cookies the browser might have collected. Facebook calls this a “third-party request.” As individuals do this over time, Facebook is able to accumulate a detailed profile, again, even though they never signed up for a Facebook account.

Now you might think, so what? Facebook could not possibly know who the person is. Gillmor notes that “the profiles Facebook builds on non-users don’t necessarily include so-called ‘personally identifiable information’ (PII) like names or email addresses, but they do include fairly unique patterns.”

He then conducted a test. “Using Chromium’s NetLog dumping, I performed a simple five-minute browsing test last week that included visits to various sites — but not Facebook,” he wrote. “In that test, the PII-free data that was sent to Facebook included information about which news articles I was reading, my dietary preferences, and my hobbies,” said Gillmor. “Given the precision of this kind of mapping and targeting, ‘PII’ isn’t necessary to reveal my identity. How many vegans examine specifications for computer hardware from the ACLU’s offices while reading about Cambridge Analytica?”

Any rational person’s list of the most intelligent and pungent columnists now writing will perforce include the name Kevin Williamson, late of National Review and, as of Thursday, late of The Atlantic as well.

And anyone with a working internet connection knows that Williamson, hired to a chorus of drooling leftoid obloquy by The Atlantic a few weeks ago, was summarily fired by the magazine’s preening, oleaginous editor, Jeffrey Goldberg, after having written only one article, “The Passing of the Libertarian Moment.”

That article was not the problem. The problem (prescinding from Goldberg’s obvious spinelessness in capitulating to the baying mob) was a remark Williamson made about abortion during a podcast with his former NR colleague Charles C. W. Cooke. Like nearly 50 percent of the American public, Kevin believes that abortion is a form of homicide, i.e., murder (“homicide” somehow sounds more antiseptic), and noted he was “absolutely willing to see abortion treated like regular homicide under the criminal code.” When asked how he thought those found guilty of abortion should be punished, he said although he was “kind of squishy on capital punishment in general,” death by hanging might be appropriate.

If you listen to the exchange, it is clear—or so I think—that the bit about hanging was a flip provocation. It was a provocation that Kevin apparently liked, however, for he repeated it in a tweet (since deleted). The weaponized cyber garbage-dispensing service known as Media Matters insinuated its tentacles into the recesses of social media to compile snippets of Kevin’s views about abortion and other matters about which there can be only one opinion, and dumped the lot into the contemporary equivalent of the public square, i.e., much-visited internet sites. Then its politically correct masters sat back and waited for the mob to do its work.

Which it promptly did.

Before I get into the firing of Kevin Williamson, let me say this: Williamson is a talented, unique, and compelling writer. I have complimented his work privately to him and publicly on social media. Even when I strongly disagreed with him—particularly with his harsh assessment of Trump supporters—I still envy his way with words. Kevin has a painful personal history that he is not afraid to share, and it clearly shapes his view of the world.

He is also Donald Trump’s harshest critic on the Right. He wrote a book about the president, The Case Against Donald Trump. Williamson has mocked Trump’s business acumen, his family, and his supporters in a vile way. His Twitter timeline—before he deleted his entire account at the behest of his now-former employer—was filled with even more vicious remarks. (He was once a clever, engaging personality on social media, but had recently devolved into a nasty crank.) He is not a sympathetic character.

Conservatives are outraged that Williamson was fired Thursday by Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, after a left-wing media watchdog released audio clips of Williamson supporting capital punishment for women who have abortions. He also referred to illegal immigrants as “peasants” and advocated waterboarding terrorists. But it was his view that women who abort their babies should endure “hanging”—and his dodginess in owning up to the remark—that primarily led to his ouster. (Williamson and his defenders originally downplayed it as an impetuous tweet.) But in an email to employees, Goldberg said:

The language he used in this podcast—and in my conversations with him in recent days—made it clear that the original tweet did, in fact, represent his carefully considered views. The tweet was not merely an impulsive, decontextualized, heat-of-the-moment post, as Kevin had explained it. Furthermore, the language used in the podcast was callous and violent.