Or the Jewish mafia...

Blinken is Jewish

Zelenskyy is Jewish...

Raised as a Reform Jew, Zuckerberg later identified as an atheist, but in 2016 said, "I was raised Jewish and then I went through a period where I questioned things, but now I believe religion is very important."

Stolzenberg is a surname of Germanic origin. However, it is prevalent among Jewish (Ashkenazic) people. It means 'proud mountain'.

----------------

Russia has demanded that US authorities take action to stop ‘extremism’ and threats against its citizens online, after Facebook’s parent firm Meta said it would permit calls for violence against Russians in the context of Moscow’s offensive in Ukraine.

“We demand that [US] authorities stop the extremist activities of Meta, take measures to bring the perpetrators to justice,” Russia’s US Embassy tweeted on Friday. “Users of Facebook [and] Instagram did not give the owners of these platforms the right to determine the criteria of truth and pit nations against each other.”

The statement follows remarks from Meta earlier in the day, which confirmed it would allow violent threats against Russians under certain conditions on both Facebook and Instagram.

“As a result of the Russian invasion of Ukraine we have temporarily made allowances for forms of political expression that would normally violate our rules like violent speech such as ‘death to the Russian invaders.’ We still won’t allow credible calls for violence against Russian civilians,” said spokesperson Andy Stone.

Read more: 

https://www.rt.com/russia/551669-meta-violence-russians-response/

READ FROM TOP.

SEE ALSO: 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Normally when the U.S. and its allies are involved in a war they’ll at least pay lip service to the notion that they have nothing but good will for the people of the enemy nation.

By Caitlin Johnstone

CaitlinJohnstone.com

Reuters reports that Facebook and Instagram are now allowing calls for the death of Russians and Russian leaders in exemption from the platforms’ hate speech terms of service due to the war in Ukraine:

“Meta Platforms will allow Facebook and Instagram users in some countries to call for violence against Russians and Russian soldiers in the context of the Ukraine invasion, according to internal emails seen by Reuters on Thursday, in a temporary change to its hate speech policy.” 

[In response, Russia has launched a criminal investigation of Meta, CNN reports.]

Twitter has also altered its rules against incitement and death threats in the case of Russian leaders and military personnel, as Ben Norton explains here for Multipolarista.

Last month we also learned that Facebook is now allowing users to praise the Ukrainian neo-Nazi Azov Battalion because of the war, a move that is arguably the most liberal thing that has ever happened.

Western institutions everywhere are rejecting all things Russia with such a savage degree of xenophobia it really ought to shock anyone who was born after the 1800s. Everything from Russian athletes to Russian musicians to Russian-made films to Russian composers to Russian Netflix shows to lectures about Russian authors to Russian restaurants to Russian vodka to Russian-bred cats to Russian trees to dishes that sound a little too much like “Putin” have been cancelled to varying degrees around the Western world.

Normally when the U.S. and its allies are involved in a war they’ll at least pay lip service to the notion that they have nothing but good will for the people of the enemy nation, claiming they only oppose their oppressive rulers. With Russia it’s just a complete rejection of the entire culture, the entire ethnicity. It’s a widespread promotion of hatred for the actual people because of who they are.

These are the people who are being smashed with crushing economic sanctions while Western pundits proclaim that “There are no more ‘innocent’ ‘neutral’ Russians anymore” and ask “At what point do you hold a people responsible for putting an evil despot in power?” This even as the Russian people are being arrested by the thousands in anti-war protests, putting to shame our own Western society that has generally slept through war after war in the years since 9/11 while our militaries have been killing of millions of people.

And this is all over a war that the Western empire knowingly provoked, almost certainly planned in advance and appears to be doing everything possible to ensure that it continues.

Antiwar’s Dave DeCamp reportsthat Washington is still to this day not engaging in any serious diplomacy with Moscow over this conflict, preferring to strangle Russia economically and pour weapons into Ukraine to make the war as painful and costly as possible. Both of these preferences just so happen to nicely complement the U.S. empire’s goal of unipolar planetary hegemony.

Meanwhile the entire Western political/media class seems to be doing everything it can to turn this from a regional proxy war into a very fast and radioactive World War III.

Calls for a no-fly zone over Ukraine, which would require directly attacking the Russian military and risking a nuclear exchange in the resulting escalations, are now ubiquitous. Claims that more directly confrontational military aggressions against Russia won’t start a nuclear war (or that it’s worth the risk anyway) are becoming more and more common in Western punditry.

READ MORE:

https://consortiumnews.com/2022/03/11/caitlin-johnstone-facebook-says-its-ok-to-kill-russians/

READ FROM TOP.

See also: 

https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/uncle-sams-nazi-warriors/

https://www.rt.com/news/551729-un-meta-hate-speech/

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW ∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞!!!

TRANSLATED AND ADAPTED BY JULES LETAMBOUR

BY Thomas Le Bonniec

The digital world of the last twenty years cannot be understood without Facebook. The appearance of this community of communities in the early 2000s, and its economic model based on the sale of advertising inserts and the tracking of its users off-site marked “Web 2.0” (1).

Facebook seemed to be one of those "too big to fail" companies, with such inertia that nothing could threaten its existence: neither the data protection scandals, nor the instrumentalization of the platform by agents of propaganda, nor competitors, nor economic crises. However, a fundamental wave has swept over Facebook – now Meta – during the year 2022, and which could well announce its next downfall.

Generation Facebook: Meta has passed the age

Facebook had survived an endless series of scandals almost unscathed. We can cite, without making an exhaustive list, Cambridge Analytica and the subversion of the 2016 American elections, operations to manipulate opinion by autocratic regimes without any measure of control by Facebook, or even Whatsapp loops exploited for propaganda purposes, especially in Brazil and India.

We also think of the moderators in charge of cleaning up Facebook, exposed for years to atrocious content, the absence of censorship for certain so-called "VIP" accounts, or the role of Instagram in eating disorders and dysmorphism, in particular among young ladies.

In short, despite disastrous policies, the Meta company and Mark Zuckerberg seemed to be able to get away with all the scandals without having to answer for their consequences.

In October 2021, Mark Zuckerberg announced that Facebook was changing its name: we must now talk about Meta, an entity overseeing three gigantic social networks (not to mention related activities): Facebook, Whatsapp and Instagram. Instagram was bought in 2012 for $1 billion, and WhatsApp in 2016 for $16 billion.

Facebook's policy then was to buy out any competitor likely to enter its niche, then gradually impose its own terms of use. But the situation changes somewhere in the middle of the 2010s. New competitors appear, who refuse to be bought out, and Facebook increasingly suffers from an outdated image. The social network no longer attracts the younger generations, who prefer to turn to other means of communication. Romaric Godin says in an article published on November 9, 2022:

“In reality, the crisis of Meta is that of a model that one could believe for a time unsinkable, but which rested on sand. Facebook's strategy has been for years to make itself indispensable in the social media market. He could thus occupy a dominant position ensuring him a rent of situation. In return, he could, he thought, dictate his law to users as well as to advertisers and hope for a permanently high profitability.

To implement this vision, Mark Zuckerberg resorted to a real logic of predation: we bought competing or complementary companies to widen the clientele and the circle of dependence on the group. »

[GUSNOTE: THIS IS NOTHING NEW: DURING THE 1970s and 1980s, "CAPITALIST ME" WORKED FOR COMPANIES THAT BOUGHT OUT THE COMPETITION FOR BIG BUX, BUT MADE BIGGER PROFITS THEREAFTER)

The phenomenon becomes particularly visible after 2020. When the company announces new terms and conditions of use for Whatsapp in February 2021 – announcing that the service will now share its users' data with Facebook – several million people suddenly left the application in favor of its competitors, Telegram and Signal.

Then the alarm bell rang: in February 2022, for the first time since its creation, Meta announced a slowdown in its growth in the number of active users. Nothing had hitherto damaged the confidence rating in the company, reflected in its stock market listing. In one day, it's the fall. Meta loses a third of its stock value, or $230 billion in value.

2022, Annus horribilis

If the reasons for this sudden crisis are internal, the latter manifests itself due to a tumultuous context. The upheaval that is taking place in the digital sector is described as follows by journalist Martine Orange:

“For these digital giants, the landing is hard. Since the bursting of the dotcom bubble in 2001, which most have not experienced, they have never had to face a crisis or even a slowdown. In 2008, when the world economy was on the brink, they were among the only ones to continue to develop, to hire. […]

For some groups, the fall is even more spectacular. Meta lost 70% of its value in one year, Netflix 50%, as did Alphabet, Amazon 45%, Microsoft 28%. Only Apple is floating: its price has only fallen by 3%. »

There is a set of economic factors that partly explain the crisis at Meta, which Romaric Godin partly attributes to the economic slowdown of 2022 and the end of the illusion of infinite growth in the digital sector. Martine Orange adds: “With falling prices and rising risks, [shareholders] are now demanding a return on investment, cash as soon as possible”.

If these exogenous factors have for the first time caught up with the digital sector, it is also the deliberate choices of Mark Zuckerberg that explain why Meta is falling so much, and so quickly.

Battles between giants: how Apple and Meta fight for the appropriation of data

Because Meta has gradually allowed itself to be locked up in a corner of the Web. Indeed, two other players act as a barrier to user entry: Apple and Google. Because these two companies master the "AppStore", they control users' direct access to the services provided by application developers.

However, Meta is dependent on its ability to track its users beyond its borders, which implies making them accept outrageous terms of use. But Apple decides in 2021 to modify its privacy policy. Apps are forced to ask for additional permission to track users, who can easily object. Called App Tracking Transparency, this choice is costing Facebook billions.

Data protection according to Apple

Apple's decision has long been hailed as a success for the privacy of its users. This would be a superficial analysis for two reasons. First, where Facebook would like a “free tracking for all” system, Apple wants to close access to its users. This model allows it to appropriate their data without sharing it with other companies, and imposes a substantial toll for all transactions that would take place within its system. Next, Apple claims to make its data protection policy a competitive advantage. The reality is that this company does not behave differently from those it denounces.

The long struggle between the two digital giants over their conception of data ownership has cost Meta dearly, which is now at the mercy of its better-positioned competitors. In a conference given at Sciences Po Paris in December 2022, Nathaniel Persily, professor of law and political science at Stanford, explains: "Apple has become the de facto regulator of the Internet", and by forcing Facebook to align itself with their privacy policy, is primarily responsible for their loss of advertising revenue.

Development Strategies: Beyond Meta

Meta is, however, the preferred network access intermediary for a large number of countries. The “Free Basics” project launched in 2015 consisted of offering free Internet access to users in around sixty (in 2017) so-called “developing” countries. The objective was to become the only access point to the network, and to substitute the services of Meta for the real Web. This expansionist (some would say colonialist) policy has allowed them to explode their number of users, especially in Southeast Asia, Latin America and some African countries. But she is now exhausted.

The number of users has stopped growing, and the constraints are piling up: India banned “Free Basics” in 2016, claiming that the service violated the principle of net neutrality. And Facebook has to do with the constraints of an Internet provider; the slightest failure has colossal repercussions. This is precisely what happened in October 2021, after a cut in access to Facebook, Whatsapp and Instagram.

Facebook's other major expansion project concerns the "Metaverse", a sort of immersive virtual space accessible via a headset. Zuckerberg's big bet was to bet everything on it (36 billion dollars spent since the start of the project) in the hope of making it the great innovation of the next decade. The disappointments, however, are linked: the first images have triggered a torrent of mocking reviews in view of their quality, the competitors begin to position themselves, and Meta's strategy proves to be very costly − Meta having announced a deficit of 10 billion on this project alone in 2022.

In short, the main strategic orientations and the innovation choices made by the company have turned out to be bad: too spendthrift, not profitable enough, and above all unable to respond to the devouring imperative of endless growth.

Does the end of Meta herald the death of digital monopolies?

Economist Robert Boyer, in his recent work on platform capitalism (2) explains:

“The emergence of ICTs [Information and Communication Technologies] has had a clear effect on the economic regime and institutions across entire societies. Economies of scale can be harvested globally. […]

For the moment, the plurality of economic models is a force that encourages the resilience of the ecosystem enabled by ICT. They present different objectives, ranging from the digitalization of traditional sectors to the creation of entirely new markets. Therefore, not all platforms have the same potential or the same structure. […]

The uncertainty around the socio-economic regimes explored by the platforms cannot be transformed into a search for the optimal trajectory: serendipity is the rule, rational expectations an anomaly. » (3)

If the downward dynamic of Facebook marked the demise of Meta, what would happen? From a macro-economic perspective, the failure of a platform model first, and the success of at least one other player: Apple. Because Apple has effectively decided to collaborate with regulators, even to anticipate their requirements (to guide them). By being more "presentable", and by ensuring the crucial control of user access points, it is indeed its model that is best adapted to survive in the present time.

For now, Meta still holds the bar. And if we trust the episode of the takeover of Twitter by Elon Musk, nothing indicates that the disappearance of the company would sign the end of its social networks. Even less that of the hyper-concentration of digital capitalism around Silicon Valley. The dismemberment of Meta might even suggest the opposite, at least initially.

That is to say, the increase in the power of the remaining firms under the regime of "market-driven platform capitalism" as described by Robert Boyer, having a power of "capture of state[s] ]” (4).

SOURCE: https://elucid.media/societe/adieu-facebook-chute-maison-meta-zuckerberg-donnees-plateforme/?mc_ts=crises

READ FROM TOP.

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....