Facebook si difende dall'accusa di essere un gangster digitale dicendo che tutti i social media sono gangster digitali

 

Facebook is a ‘digital gangster’ that urgently needs more regulation, UK lawmakers say

Key Points
  • A new report published by U.K. lawmakers Monday after an 18-month investigation found Facebook “intentionally and knowingly” violated data privacy and anti-competition laws.
  • Lawmakers from the U.K. Digital, Culture, Media and Sport committee called for the creation of an independent regulator for social media sites and a mandatory code of conduct that, if breached, could result in “large fines.”
  • The committee accused Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg of showing “contempt” toward parliament.
Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerberg
Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerberg
Matt McClain | The Washington Post | Getty Images

Facebook “intentionally and knowingly” violated U.K. data privacy and anti-competition laws and urgently needs to be regulated and investigated, a scathing new report by British lawmakers said.

The final report issued Monday by the U.K.’s Digital, Culture, Media and Sport committee concluded an 18-month investigation into Facebook and other social media companies for their role in spreading “fake news” and disinformation. In the 108-page document, lawmakers called for the creation of an independent regulator for social media sites and a mandatory code of conduct that, if breached, could result in “large fines.”

“Companies like Facebook should not be allowed to behave like ‘digital gangsters’ in the online world, considering themselves to be ahead of and beyond the law,” the report said.

The committee accused Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg of showing “contempt” toward U.K. parliament for declining to testify in front of lawmakers. Zuckerberg appeared in front of U.S. and EU lawmakers to discuss the company’s data collection practices last year but sent other company representatives to testify in Britain.

“Mark Zuckerberg continually fails to show the levels of leadership and personal responsibility that should be expected from someone who sits at the top of one of the world’s biggest companies,” Damian Collins, chair of the committee, said on the committee’s website.

In a statement, Facebook said it made a “significant contribution” to the investigation, answering more than 700 questions with four senior executives providing evidence, adding it supports “effective privacy legislation.”

“While we still have more to do, we are not the same company we were a year ago,” Karim Palant, U.K. public policy manager at Facebook, said.

The U.K. committee’s report builds on preliminary findings issued in July calling for more oversight of social media companies and adds to growing demands for increased regulation and scrutiny of big tech firms. Much of the report published Monday focused on Facebook’s data collection practices and the Cambridge Analytica data scandal that exploited millions of users’ personal data.

Lawmakers also published new internal Facebook emails on Monday related to a California lawsuit between Facebook and app developer Six4Three. A batch of emails published by the committee in December showed Facebook had considered giving companies special access to users’ personal data. At the time, Facebook said the documents omitted important context and only revealed “one side of the story.”

British lawmakers on Monday said they found evidence Facebook was willing to “override its users’ privacy settings in order to transfer data to some app developers.” Their report urged both the U.K. data protection commission and the anti-competition authority to carry out detailed investigations into its practices.

“It is evident that Facebook intentionally and knowingly violated both data privacy and anti-competition laws,” lawmakers said.

The report welcomed the findings of an independent U.K. government report published last week calling for antitrust investigations in search and social media companies like Facebook and Google for their dominance in online advertising.

The committee also backed a “Code of Ethics” that would be overseen by an independent regulator, similar to Ofcom which regulates broadcasting ethics in the U.K. The code would require social media companies to remove “harmful content” from their platform or face penalties including fines.

VIDEO02:13
Facebook co-founder: Amazon not guaranteeing you any privacy

Facebook e Zuckerberg definiti gangster digitali dal parlamento inglese

 

Facebook labelled 'digital gangsters' by report on fake news

This article is more than 2 years old

Company broke privacy and competition law and should be regulated urgently, say MPs

Mark Zuckerberg
Mark Zuckerberg testified in Washington, but refused to give evidence to the UK parliament. Photograph: Andrew Harnik/AP

Last modified on Mon 18 Feb 2019 09.41 GMT


Facebook deliberately broke privacy and competition law and should urgently be subject to statutory regulation, according to a devastating parliamentary report denouncing the company and its executives as “digital gangsters”.

The final report of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport select committee’s 18-month investigation into disinformation and fake news accused Facebook of purposefully obstructing its inquiry and failing to tackle attempts by Russia to manipulate elections.

“Democracy is at risk from the malicious and relentless targeting of citizens with disinformation and personalised ‘dark adverts’ from unidentifiable sources, delivered through the major social media platforms we use every day,” warned the committee’s chairman, Damian Collins.

The report:

  • Accuses Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s co-founder and chief executive, of contempt for parliament in refusing three separate demands for him to give evidence, instead sending junior employees unable to answer the committee’s questions.

  • Warns British electoral law is unfit for purpose and vulnerable to interference by hostile foreign actors, including agents of the Russian government attempting to discredit democracy.

  • Calls on the British government to establish an independent investigation into “foreign influence, disinformation, funding, voter manipulation and the sharing of data” in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, the 2016 EU referendum and the 2017 general election.

Labour moved quickly to endorse the committee’s findings, with the party’s deputy leader, Tom Watson, announcing: “Labour agrees with the committee’s ultimate conclusion – the era of self-regulation for tech companies must end immediately.

“We need new independent regulation with a tough powers and sanctions regime to curb the worst excesses of surveillance capitalism and the forces trying to use technology to subvert our democracy.”

The culture secretary, Jeremy Wright, who is to meet Zuckerberg this week to discuss harms resulting from social media, will likely come under pressure to raise the committee’s concerns with the Facebook chief executive directly.

Launched in 2017 as concern grew about the influence of false information and its ability to spread unscrutinised on social media, the inquiry was turbocharged in March the following year, with the Cambridge Analytica data-harvesting scandal.

The Observer revealed the company had secretly acquired data harvested from millions of Facebook users’ profiles and was selling its insights to political clients to allow them to more effectively manipulate potential voters. The company has since collapsed into administration.

The committee argues that, had Facebook abided by the terms of an agreement struck with US regulators in 2011 to limit developers’ access to user data, the scandal would not have occurred. “The Cambridge Analytica scandal was facilitated by Facebook’s policies,” it concludes.

The 108-page report makes excoriating reading for the social media giant, which is accused of continuing to prioritise shareholders’ profits over users’ privacy rights.

“Facebook continues to choose profit over data security, taking risks in order to prioritise their aim of making money from user data,” the report states, accusing the company of covering up leaks of user data. “It seems clear to us that Facebook acts only when serious breaches become public.”

Zuckerberg is also personally criticised by the committee in scathing terms, with his claim that Facebook has never sold user data dismissed by the report as “simply untrue”.

“Mark Zuckerberg continually fails to show the levels of leadership and personal responsibility that should be expected from someone who sits at the top of one of the world’s biggest companies,” Collins added in a statement.

Watson agreed. “Few individuals have shown contempt for our parliamentary democracy in the way Mark Zuckerberg has,” he said. “If one thing is uniting politicians of all colours during this difficult time for our country, it is our determination to bring him and his company into line.”

The report warns Facebook is using its market dominance to crush rivals, shutting them out of its systems to prevent them from competing with Facebook or its subsidiaries.

The committee also released new internal Facebook documents obtained from the company’s legal dispute with the company Six4Three, which it said “highlights the link between friends’ data and the financial value of the developers’ relationship with Facebook”.

“Companies like Facebook should not be allowed to behave like ‘digital gangsters’ in the online world, considering themselves to be ahead of and beyond the law,” the report warns.

Tom Watson
Tom Watson: ‘The era of self-regulation for tech companies must end immediately.’ Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian

In a distinctly measured response, Facebook said it was “pleased to have made a significant contribution” to the committee’s investigation. “We are open to meaningful regulation and support the committee’s recommendation for electoral law reform,” said Karim Palant, the company’s UK public policy manager.

“We have already made substantial changes so that every political ad on Facebook has to be authorised, state who is paying for it and then is stored in a searchable archive for seven years.

Palant said Facebook supported privacy legislation, and that “while we still have more to do, we are not the same company we were a year ago”. He said Facebook had increased its team working on abusive content to 30,000 people and invested in machine learning and artificial intelligence to tackle the problem.

The DCMS report calls for sites such as Facebook to be brought under regulatory control, arguing “social media companies cannot hide behind the claim of being merely a ‘platform’ and maintain that they have no responsibility themselves in regulating the content of their sites”.

It proposes comprehensive new regulations, including a mandatory code of ethics and an independent regulator empowered to bring legal proceedings against social media companies and force them to hand over user data.

It cites the example of Germany, which passed a law in January 2018 forcing tech companies to remove hate speech within 24 hours or face a €20m (£17.5m) fine. As a result, it claims, one in six of Facebook’s moderators work in Germany.

It also warns electoral law is out of date and vulnerable to manipulation by hostile forces, with urgent need of updating. “We need reform so that the same principles of transparency of political communications apply online, just as they do in the real world,” Collins said.



  • Zuckerberg sa che il silenzo e' d'oro

     

    [UPDATE: We’ve learned a bit more about what happened in the real life dispute, as I blogged about here, and the NYTimes has taken a stab at whether Zuckerberg could sue for defamation, concluding the answer is “maybe.”

    UPDATE II: Six months after my post, long after The Social Network has been released to widespread acclaim, there’s still been no lawsuit. Zuckerberg just went on Saturday Night Live to jokingly “confront” the actor who played him in The Social Network. Told you so!]

    Some time ago, I heard that this fall was the release of The Social Network, a movie based on the founding of Facebook.

    That is, a movie about geeks in their bedrooms, but without bionic women, giant lasers, or nuclear weapons. Instead, all of the action happens on computers or in meetings.

    Thrilling.

    Intriguingly, the script was written by West Wing creator Aaron Sorkin, who knows a thing or two about storytelling, and it was odd to see David Fincher directing it, given prior works like Se7ev, Fight Club, and The Game, but I just assumed everybody, including Sorkin and Fincher, has a mortgage to pay. Orson Welles rounded out his career selling frozen peas.

    Last week, we learned who was doing the score: Trent Reznor.

    David Fincher started inquiring about my interest in scoring his upcoming film, The Social Network. Yeah, the movie about the founding of Facebook. I’ve always loved David’s work but quite honestly I wondered what would draw him to tell that story. When I actually read the script and realized what he was up to, I said goodbye to that free time I had planned. …

    Months later, I’m happy to tell you we’re nearing the completion of this and I couldn’t be happier with how it’s turned out. The level of excellence that David operates on is inspiring and the entire process has been challenging and truly enjoyable. …

    Speaking of the film… it’s really [ ] good. And dark!

    “And dark?”

    It seems there’s a bit more to the story:

    Based on the book The Accidental Billionaires – The Founding of Facebook: A Tale of Sex, Money, Genius and Betrayal by Ben Mezrich, Sorkin’s script purports to tell the inside story of the beginnings of Facebook and its spectacular rise from Harvard-undergrad networking tool to worldwide media phenomenon. Some of the material is already familiar Internet legend: How Zuckerberg conceived of an early version of the site by posting pictures of female classmates so that other students could rank their hotness (original, huh?). How his early backers, the handsome, rich, athletic Winklevoss twins, ended up suing the geeky, awkward, middle-class Zuckerberg and settling out of court for $65-million (U.S.) – the same deal that’s now being disputed in appeal courts – before going on to compete for the U.S. Olympic rowing team. And, of course, how Zuckerberg cemented his image as the sophomore CEO by attending meetings in tracksuits and shower sandals.

    What is surprising is the way the script explodes the myth of the idealistic, pimply software geek writing code in his dorm room in an attempt, as Zuckerberg writes on his own FB profile, “to make the world a more open place by helping people connect and share.” This is the utopian vision that Zuckerberg has peddled all along – a vision that stands in sharp contrast to the increasingly invasive practices of the site (i.e., new settings that automatically default to share all your personal information with the world – including advertisers). In the movie, Zuckerberg’s character comes off as a grasping, driven, sexually frustrated borderline sociopath who would gladly sell his best friend for a chance to get into the right nightclub, his inspiration for Facebook driven less by the hope of financial success than by the urge to control his own social destiny. While in real life Zuckerberg wasn’t invited to the party, online he invented the coolest party in town.

    I know what you’re thinking. Stop the presses. Geek seeks social revenge through trappings of success. But there’s more to be gleaned from The Social Network than a gossipy back story of the digital generation’s answer to Bill Gates. Zuckerberg’s dramatized misanthropy only makes him more enigmatic. What delicious irony that the wunderkind who connected hundreds of millions of people online has difficulty connecting with people himself. As his co-founder marvels in the script after finding out Zuckerberg has betrayed him, “I was your only friend. You had one friend.”

    Since this is a legal blog, you can tell where this is going:

    The movie, which clearly takes liberty with historical details, is presumably relying on the fact that Zuckerberg is a public figure and won’t have a case for libel. How else to explain the brazen use of real names and regurgitated conversations that couldn’t possibly be confirmed by either the author of the book or Sorkin? (While successful and entertaining, Mezrich’s non-fiction work has come under attack in the past for being less than accurate.)

    We’ve discussed libel-in-fiction here before, like with Sgt. Jeffrey Sarver’s suit against the producers of The Hurt Locker. As I wrote there:

    False light and defamation are highly similar claims, and often analyzed together. As THR, Esq. said, there’s precedent out there for “libel-in-fiction,” and Sgt. Sarver’s case seems similar to the The Red Hat Club case linked above: taking an already incredible, but nonetheless real, story and scandalizing it some more. It’s a little bit harder for Sgt. Sarver here, though, since it seems that anyone who recognized him from the film would also know the differences between him and the character, and the complaint admits that he already had substantial family troubles and that he broke military regulations, such as drinking after missions. Those issues, however, are typically issues for a jury, not a judge, to decide.

    (If you’re itching for more about libel-in-fiction, peruse the cases citing Bindrim v. Mitchell.)

    If The Social Network does indeed “take liberty with historical details” to make the story more salacious, while still retaining the undeniable connection to the real-life Mark Zuckerberg, then it could make the producers, writer and director liable for defamation. He could theoretically hook the actors into it, though that’d be a tough sell.

    Mark Zuckerberg’s status as a public figure does make it harder for him to prove defamation — since, under First Amendment law, he’ll have to show the defendants’ “actual malice” against him — but it doesn’t make it impossible.

    So what’s going on here?

    Here’s one speculation (in When Is Fiction Just Fiction? Applying Heightened Threshold Tests to Defamation in Fiction) about why people don’t sue over defamation-in-fiction:

    In 2006, New Republic columnist Michael Crowley authored a critical profile of author Michael Crichton. Shortly thereafter, Crowley noticed a strong resemblance between himself and the character “Mick Crowley” in Crichton’s latest novel, Next. In addition to having nearly identical names, both Crowleys are graduates of Yale University and political journalists in Washington, D.C. In the novel, Mick Crowley’s appearance is brief but notable. He is a pedophile on trial for sodomizing a two-year-old child and, Crichton writes, his “penis was small.”

    Crichton has apparently resorted to employing the small penis rule, a “sly trick” used in publishing to ward off defamation lawsuits. Assuming no man would come forward claiming to be a character with a small penis (or would invite such an inquiry), the scheming author simply depicts his target as less than fully endowed. The author then defames as he pleases and hopes his subject forgoes legal action due to the possible embarrassment of coming forward. Thus, the small penis rule is not really a rule, merely a tactic for discouraging litigation. In the end, Michael Crowley appears disinclined to file suit. Although “grossed out,” Crowley says that he was “strangely flattered” by his “sliver of literary immortality.”

    Emphasis mine.

    The issue isn’t really whether or not Crowley is poorly-endowed, nor whether or not Mark Zuckerberg is a “grasping, driven, sexually frustrated borderline sociopath.”

    The issue is whether or not Crowley wants to put his manhood, or Mark Zuckerberg his history, on trial.

    Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. Even if a defendant had only scant information about a person before they published their defamatory remark, once a lawsuit is filed, the defendant is entitled to use all of the means of civil procedure to discover any information that is relevant to the case or could lead to the discovery of relevant information.

    Being a plaintiff in a defamation case — really, any case — is no walk in the park. The movie itself apparently tells the story of Facebook through flashbacks during court testimony; that’s how invasive — or thorough, depending on your perspective — a civil lawsuit can be.

    If sued, the makers of The Social Network will have access to information that Mezrich and Sorkin could have only dreamed of when writing, respectively, the book and the script. They’ll be able to depose Zuckerberg and his friends under oath. They’ll be able to subpoena any email he wrote to people about the book or the movie. If he claims financial losses, they’ll be able to dig into his income and his assets.

    They can depose his mom.

    All so they can prove, at trial, that their allegations were true, which puts Zuckerberg in an additional conundrum: if any of the accusations actually are true, their proof at trial through testimony under oath will likely do more damage to Zuckerberg than either the book or the film did.

    That’s why, for example, when Orson Welles (in his pre-frozen peas days) allegedly defamed the bejesus out of William Randolph Hearst in Citizen Kane, Hearst did not sue, but instead embarked on a campaign against Welles and the film:

    Citizen Kane was a brutal portrait of newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst. When Hearst learned through Hopper of Welles’ film, he set out to protect his reputation by shutting the film down. Hollywood executives, led by Louis B. Mayer, rallied around Hearst, attempting to buy Citizen Kane in order to burn the negative. At the same time, Hearst’s defenders moved to intimidate exhibitors into refusing to show the movie. Threats of blackmail, smears in the newspapers, and FBI investigations were used in the effort.

    Hearst’s campaign was largely successful. It would be nearly a quarter-century before Citizen Kane was revived–before Welles would gain popular recognition for having created one of cinema’s great masterpieces.

    It seems Zuckerberg has decided to respond via public relations:

     On Friday, as Zuckerberg celebrated his 26th birthday, he faced another tsunami of anger, this time from Facebook users who turned the socially awkward youth into the world’s youngest billionaire.

    Zuckerberg wanted to enjoy his birthday in the Caribbean. Instead, the pale-faced supergeek is spending the weekend in crisis meetings in California, seeking ways to calm many of Facebook’s users who fear that website changes mean he is going to sell details of their on-line lives to the highest bidder.

    A horrified Zuckerberg told colleagues he wants to establish himself as a “good guy”, a task made more difficult as the draft script of the film leaked online.

    Time will tell if Zuckerberg sticks with the positive public relations or if he begins a more sinister campaign, becoming the Citizen Kane of the 21st Century.

    Maybe they’ll make a movie out of that, too.

    Zuckerberg, Facebook e la pedofilia

     

    The real reason for Facebook’s pedophile ban

    How concerned was Facebook three years ago when pedophiles starting using its social media site to do their perverted things?

    Not very, as it turns out.

    But then co-founder Mark Zuckerberg and his executive team became very concerned once they learned advertisers might bolt if they learned that some users were advocating sex with children, according to new information I just came across.

    In fact, Facebook’s full board of directors met to discuss the matter and, ultimately, the company pleaded with one group to stop alerting advertisers about the pedophiles.

    A couple of weeks ago, Facebook signed an agreement with New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman under which the two sides would come up with some nifty computer software to identify children who were being marketed for sex on Facebook.

    That’s the good Facebook.

    The bad Facebook, in 2012, didn’t care at all when I started a crusade against it for turning a blind eye to the perverts who infested its site. Zuckerberg’s minions got all First Amendment on me — saying degenerates had every right to talk about crimes against children. There was nothing they could do about it, they said.

    When I asked Facebook back then to bar the pedophiles from using its site, I got stonewalled. When I started contacting advertisers so they could pressure Facebook, I started making progress.

    But I never knew then what was going on behind the scenes. Now I do.

    As part of my crusade, I asked readers to contact Facebook advertisers, since a groundswell of complaints would be more effective. One of those who jumped in was James P. Molinaro, who was then the borough president of Staten Island.

    In fact, Molinaro — who contacted me at the time — got his whole staff working on the problem.

    Prompted by the recent Facebook deal with Schneiderman, Molinaro wrote me a letter last week that filled in some of the blanks about Facebook’s reaction to the advertiser assault that he, I and others undertook.

    Here’s what Molinaro said: “I took it upon myself to call [Facebook] … and was politely told that this was freedom of speech and that there was not much that could be done about it.”

    “I then set out having my staff [draft] letters to all their advertisers,” Molinaro wrote. He said one letter, sent to Toys ‘R’ Us, seemed to hit pay dirt. After that letter, Molinaro said, he got “a visit from an individual from Facebook who came to assure me that they had discussed it with the full board of directors and felt that not much could be done.”

    The Facebook rep said that “they were being hurt by our correspondence with the advertisers,” according to Molinaro.

    Other readers were also calling advertisers at my urging. And I was making plenty of calls myself. But Molinaro, as far as I know, is the only one who was contacted by Facebook.

    “I gave [the Facebook representative] a message,” Molinaro says. “I asked him to bring back to his board of directors that what was being proposed [pedophilia] was a criminal act and not freedom of speech.”

    Facebook — as I was well aware at the time — was a new publicly traded company. So it was especially vulnerable to the loss of advertising revenue and bad publicity.

    But, hell, we were talking about people talking about their dreams of molesting kids. Did Zuckerberg’s board really have to be told this was wrong? No paper, no matter how much we believe in free speech, would allow that kind of perversion.

    So here are my last thoughts on the matter.

    One, I’m glad Facebook has suddenly become a model corporate citizen that is working with the law. And, two, if Facebook misbehaves again, we know how to spank it.

    But let’s hope we won’t ever have to resort to guerrilla tactics again. Thanks, Mr. Molinaro, for getting down in the muck with me.


    I’ve already patted myself on the back vigorously for correctly predicting that the last employment report would be bad enough to tie the Fed’s hands on interest rates.

    Since that employment report on Oct. 2, stocks have gone bananas, rising 8.9 percent in October. It was their best month in four years.

    In my next column, I’ll give you my view of the October jobs report that’ll be released on Friday. Don’t miss it — you’ll find it very exciting.


    How’s the corporate earnings season going? To answer that question, you have to look at revenues.

    According to Thomson Reuters, revenue is down 3.6 percent for the 70 percent of the S&P 500 companies that have so far reported third-quarter results.

    Fifty-six percent have reported revenues below what Wall Street was expecting. In a typical quarter, only 40 percent miss revenue expectations.

    So far, not so good.

    Earnings of those companies that have reported are down 0.9 percent.

    And 71 percent of companies are beating expectations, which is average.

    But, remember, earnings expectations aren’t hard to beat, because companies can always cut back expenses to make profits look better.

    And, yes, a lot of the profit fall-off is due to troubles in the energy sector of the economy.

    But remember this as well: Almost every other company is benefiting from lower energy prices. So, while the lower prices of oil and gas may be hurting a few businesses, they are beneficial to the profits of most companies.

    So let’s toss away that excuse as inane.

    L'educazione sessuale secondo Facebook

     

    Facebook is accused of helping to 'brainwash' children as young as five with maths lessons that teach pupils to use 'correct' pronouns for 'non-binary' people

    • The social media giant is main sponsor of School Diversity Week
    • Campaign is endorsed by Gavin Williamson's Department for Education and adopted by hundreds of head teachers
    • Lesson packs for Key Stage 1 pupils aged five to seven tell children that people have a 'gender identity' that may not match their sex at birth

    Facebook has been accused of helping to 'brainwash' children as young as five with maths lessons that teach pupils to use the 'correct' pronouns for 'non-binary' people.

    The social media giant is the main sponsor of School Diversity Week, a campaign endorsed by Gavin Williamson's Department for Education and adopted by hundreds of head teachers.

    Lesson packs for Key Stage 1 pupils aged five to seven tell children that people have a 'gender identity' that may not match their sex at birth, and that some people feel like they are neither male nor female. 

    Facebook has been accused of helping to 'brainwash' children as young as five with maths lessons that teach pupils to use the 'correct' pronouns for 'non-binary' people. Above, a maths question included in the Just Like Us lessons pack

    Facebook has been accused of helping to 'brainwash' children as young as five with maths lessons that teach pupils to use the 'correct' pronouns for 'non-binary' people. Above, a maths question included in the Just Like Us lessons pack

    The packs include lessons which appear to give more importance to the use of pronouns than sums.

    One question says: 'Harley, (a non-binary and gender-non-conforming person using they/them pronouns) has volunteered to give bottles of water to runners of a Marathon [sic]. They have 15 bottles of water but there are a total of 25 runners in the marathon. How many more bottles of water does Harley need to buy?'

    In accompanying notes, teachers are told: 'Explain that Harley does not like to be referred to as he/she or him/her so when we describe Harley we use they/them.'

    The lesson plan adds: 'If any children ask why, then you could explain 'Harley doesn't feel like a boy or a girl, so by using they/them pronouns they don't have to feel they are either'. Ask the children to discuss with their partner.'

    The social media giant is the main sponsor of School Diversity Week, a campaign endorsed by Gavin Williamson's Department for Education and adopted by hundreds of head teachers

    The social media giant is the main sponsor of School Diversity Week, a campaign endorsed by Gavin Williamson's Department for Education and adopted by hundreds of head teachers

    The campaign pack also tells teachers to give Key Stage 1 children the following definition of 'transgender': 'When a person is born they are assigned a gender. For a transgender person the gender they have been assigned does not match how they feel inside.

    'So someone who is told they are a boy feels like they are a girl, or someone who is told they are a girl, feels like they are a boy.'

    Another maths problem reads: 'Jas (a gender non-conforming person using she/her pronouns) is making an apple pie for their friends and family...' before going on to pose a question about the number of apples required to make the pie.

    The teaching materials were produced by Just Like Us, a charity whose director of education is Emma Fay, a self-described 'queer' charity worker.

    Despite growing concern in Conservative circles about trans activists' influence in the public sector, the Department for Education has publicly backed the Just Like Us campaign, tweeting an endorsement and encouraging schools to take part. 

    The materials were revealed by the Safe Schools Alliance, a group of parents and teachers worried about trans activism in education. The group has written to Mr Williamson (above) about their concerns

    The materials were revealed by the Safe Schools Alliance, a group of parents and teachers worried about trans activism in education. The group has written to Mr Williamson (above) about their concerns

    'We're proud to support Just Like Us #SchoolDiversityWeek,' the department said on Twitter.

    The campaign was also endorsed by senior Labour MPs including Lucy Powell, the shadow housing minister, and Diane Abbott.

    Ed Davey, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, also tweeted his support.

    In a video message, Nick Baughan, a Facebook executive, said that the firm was proud to support the campaign.

    The social media company has promoted multiple gender identities to its users worldwide, offering as many as 71 different genders for user profiles.

    The materials were revealed by the Safe Schools Alliance, a group of parents and teachers worried about trans activism in education. The group has written to Mr Williamson about their concerns.

    Tanya Carter, a spokeswoman for the alliance, described the materials as 'political indoctrination'.

    She said: 'There is nothing 'diverse' about Just Like Us UK's resources for School Diversity Week. All the materials are riddled with an obsession with pronouns.

    'This is not inclusion. This is indoctrination into a contentious political viewpoint.'

    Baroness Foster, a Conservative peer, described the materials as 'brainwashing to the nth degree,' adding: 'This is just appalling.'

    A spokesman for Facebook said: 'Our employee Pride group in the UK is pleased to be supporting School Diversity Week again this year – an important initiative which thousands of schools across the country are taking part in.'

    Facebook 'helps to brainwash' five-year-olds with 'non-binary' pronouns in maths lessons

    FB e Zuckerberg non sono ad un gradino sotto dio

     

    Texas Supreme Court Allows Lawsuit Against Facebook for Participating in Sex Trafficking to Proceed

    A set of three lawsuits against Facebook for its participation in sex trafficking will continue, after a ruling from the Texas Supreme Court.
    June 28, 2021
    https://thetexan.news/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Facebook-Mark-Zuckerberg-Texas-Supreme-Court-Ruling-1280x853.jpg
    The Texas Supreme Court ruled last week that a lawsuit against Facebook for sex trafficking may proceed in state district court. 

    The claims were brought under a Texas statute that makes a party liable “who intentionally or knowingly benefits from participating in a venture that traffics another person.”

    In its opinion, delivered by Justice Jimmy Blacklock, the court found that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act does not protect Facebook from liability for intentional participation in human trafficking which the plaintiffs alleged in their original lawsuits.

    However, the court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims for common law torts, including for negligence, gross negligence, and products liability.

    The original lawsuits were filed by minors who became entrapped in sex trafficking after interacting with adult men on Facebook or Instagram. All of the plaintiffs allege that they suffered repeated harm, including being raped. 

    The Texan Tumbler

    Facebook filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims, arguing that the claims were barred by the protections afforded it under Section 230. The district courts denied the motion to dismiss, as did the Texas Court of Appeals for the 14th District.

    It then sought a writ of mandamus from the Texas Supreme Court. A writ of mandamus orders a government official to take an action where there has been an abuse of discretion in an earlier decision. 

    In allowing the plaintiffs’ claims against Facebook based on Texas law to proceed, the justices clarified that “we express no opinion on their viability at any later stage of these cases.” In other words, the plaintiffs must prove their allegations against Facebook and have only won the right to continue with the litigation.

    The doctrine of preemption has long held that the federal law supersedes the state law when the two are in conflict. However, in this instance, the court found that the state law providing the plaintiffs with a civil liability claim against Facebook was not in conflict with federal law. 

    In 2018, Congress passed the “Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act” (FOSTA), which includes a civil action for sex trafficking and provides that “nothing in section 230 shall be construed to impair or limit any claim in a civil action brought under [FOSTA].”

    The Texas Supreme Court justices agreed with the plaintiffs that FOSTA “reflects Congress’s judgment that such [state civil liability] claims were never barred by section 230 in the first place.”

    In other words, there is no conflict between state and federal law because the court believes Section 230 and FOSTA allow for state civil liability for intentional participation in sex trafficking, which the plaintiffs alleged in their lawsuit. 

    In its dismissal of the common law claims of negligence, gross negligence, and product liability, the Texas Supreme Court noted that the weight of precedent from other courts, including the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, grants Facebook immunity from suit based on Section 230. 

    Other courts have made clear that a “failure to warn of or protect against” others, the substance of the plaintiffs’ common law tort allegations, is not enough to impose liability on Facebook. 

    “This Court, while bound only by decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, is generally hesitant to contradict the ‘overwhelming weight of authority’ from both lower federal courts and state courts on federal questions.” 

    Simply put, a federal question involves a matter of federal law, which Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is. 

    Notwithstanding its decision dismissing the common law torts, the Texas Supreme Court recognized that the “Supreme Court has not addressed the scope of section 230,” and acknowledged Justice Clarence Thomas’s view that ‘the sweeping immunity courts have read into section 230’ should be scaled back or at least reconsidered.”

    The civil district courts were urged by the justices to comply with its opinion, but “a writ [of mandamus] will issue only if they do not.”

    Specchio, specchio delle mie brame, chi e' il maggior detentore di titoli di debito pubblico americani del reame?

     

    Prepararsi al peggio: la Cina vende il debito pubblico USA per via della svalutazione del dollaro

    Bandiere Cina e USA - Sputnik Italia
    Seguici su
    La Fed sta emettendo denaro a ritmi serrati: infatti, l’ente regolatore statunitense tenta di contrastare la crisi economica pompando nel mercato nuova liquidità. Solamente nel primo trimestre le emissioni monetarie hanno superato i 2.000 miliardi.

    Di conseguenza, il debito pubblico è salito a 26.000 miliardi ed è aumentato il rischio di svalutazione del dollaro. La Cina che è il secondo maggior creditore straniero degli USA ha deciso di non aspettare la svalutazione e sta svendendo in massa i titoli di debito statunitensi.

    Nuova liquidità 

    Bandiera cinese e bandiere statunitensi davanti alla Casa Bianca a Washington - Sputnik Italia
    Calano gli scambi commerciali tra USA e Cina: -12,7% dall’inizio del 2020
    Per via della pandemia di coronavirus la Federal Reserve ha adottato misure senza precedenti: ha portato a zero il tasso chiave, ha avviato un programma di acquisto senza tetto di bond governativi e di titoli garantiti da ipoteca. Nel primo trimestre la Fed ha pompato l’economia statunitense con più di 2.000 miliardi di dollari. È bastato semplicemente stampare questi soldi.

    Chiaramente, così facendo l’interesse degli speculatori sul dollaro ha registrato un brusco calo, ma la Fed non aveva alternative se non continuare a ridurre i tassi.

    Gli analisti di una delle maggiori banche al mondo, la britannica Standard Chartered, hanno già avvisato che la Fed ricorrerà a tassi di interesse negativi. Anche la banca statunitense Goldman Sachs osserva che alla luce della profonda e duratura crisi economica questo scenario è altamente probabile. La Fed deciderà in merito il 10 giugno.

    Come ipotizzano gli economisti di Standard Chartered, i tassi sui fondi federali compresi tra -0,5 e -1% registreranno una perdita importante dei rendimenti sui bond governativi, il che semplificherà a Washington il pagamento del debito. Ma questa situazione non gioverà al dollaro: il deficit generalizzato della valuta statunitense scomparirà ma quest’ultima si svaluterà.

    Corsa alla svendita

    Come scrive il portale cinese Sohu, le autorità cinesi hanno deciso di non attendere l’eventuale svalutazione del dollaro e hanno cominciato a vendere buona parte del debito pubblico statunitense. Pechino è giunta alla conclusione che Washington non è in grado di risolvere i propri problemi economici senza riversare liquidità nell’economia, pertanto gli investimenti in debito pubblico americano sono oltremodo rischiosi.

    Il presidente statunitense Donald Trump e il presidente cinese Xi Jinping - Sputnik Italia
    Trump non sa se Usa e Cina riusciranno ad avere buoni rapporti

    In effetti, se dal 2008 la Fed ha emesso in tutto circa 8.000 miliardi di dollari, entro la fine del 2020 ne aggiungerà altri 5.000. Con tutte le evidenti conseguenze che questo avrà sui tassi di cambio.

    L’anno scorso la Cina si è sbarazzata di treasuries per 110 miliardi, di recente ne ha venduti altri 10 miliardi. A maggio Washington ha minacciato Pechino di rifiutarsi di onorare le proprie obbligazioni debitorie. Secondo la Casa Bianca, il mancato pagamento sarebbe la vendetta statunitense contro la Cina, accusata di aver contribuito alla diffusione del coronavirus e di aver nascosto dati relativi alla pandemia.

    Già allora il celebre quotidiano anglofono di Hong Kong South China Morning Post scriveva che la Cina avrebbe continuato a disfarsi dei titoli statunitensi indipendentemente dall’evolversi della situazione legata alle compensazioni. Ma ora si è aggiunto il rischio di svalutazione del dollaro, valuta nella quale è investita una quota significativa delle riserve cinesi.

    Come osservano gli esperti, la svendita ad opera della Cina anche solo di una parte del proprio portafoglio in treasuries genera diverse criticità per gli USA. Pechino, infatti, sta colpendo il mercato dei bond governativi proprio in un momento in cui Washington ne ha aumentato fortemente l’emissione al fine di finanziare i programmi di contrasto alla pandemia e alle sue conseguenze economiche.

    Un bitcoin in tasca - Sputnik Italia
    Concesse le successioni di bitcoin in Cina

    Per via della guerra commerciale con gli USA la Cina aveva già comunque deciso di disfarsi di questi titoli. Infatti, verso giugno 2019 la Cina ha ceduto al Giappone il primo posto come Paese straniero detentore di debito pubblico statunitense: Tokio, infatti, detiene treasuries per 1.120 miliardi di dollari. Come dimostra l’ultima relazione del Ministero delle Finanze, a febbraio il portafoglio cinese è sceso a 1.090 miliardi rispetto ai 1.320 del novembre 2013.

    A marzo la Russia ha tagliato gli investimenti in bond governativi statunitensi fino a 3,8 miliardi di dollari sebbene tra il 2010 e il 2013 le allocazioni in questi strumenti finanziari fossero pari a 170 miliardi. Mosca era tra i maggiori detentori di treasuries, ma si decise di vendere così come fecero anche altri Paesi. Stando ai dati del Ministero delle Finanze, a marzo si è registrata una fuga senza precedenti degli investitori stranieri sia pubblici sia privati: si sono venduti treasuries per 256 miliardi dollari riducendo il portafoglio globale a 6.810 miliardi di dollari.

    Questo non lascia ben sperare Washington in quando il debito pubblico da 1.500 miliardi di dollari viene assicurato principalmente grazie all’emissione di bond governativi. Stando alle stime delle maggiori banche, nel 2020 si è registrata una differenza tra entrate e uscite pubbliche pari a 4.000 miliardi, la più significativa dai tempi della Seconda guerra mondiale.

    Il denaro gestito della Fed alla fine della crisi da coronavirus, secondo gli esperti, arriverà a quota 10.000 miliardi. Poiché tutto questo denaro è in sostanza il risultato di emissioni di liquidità, continuerà la fuga degli investitori da una valuta in alcun modo garantita.

    Specchio, specchio delle mie brame, chi e' il maggior detentore di titoli di debito pubblico americani del reame?

     

    Cina, Giappone e… USA: ecco i maggiori detentori del debito pubblico americano

    La Cina e il Giappone sono grandi detentori del debito statunitense, che tuttavia per il 70% è in mano agli americani. Ecco i dettagli dei 21,21 miliardi di dollari del debito USA.

    debito pubblico
    31 Agosto 2018 - 9:22

    Chi possiede l’enorme e crescente debito nazionale degli Stati Uniti? Per quanto possa sembrare strano, la stragrande maggioranza del debito a stelle e strisce è in mano agli americani. Infatti, in base ai dati resi noti dal Tesoro degli Stati Uniti, circa il 70% del debito nazionale è di proprietà del governo nazionale, degli investitor, di istituzioni e della Federal Reserve: meno del 30% è invece riconducibile a entità straniere.

    DEBITO USA A 21,21 MILA MILIARDI DI DOLLARI

    Ma procediamo con ordine. Il debito nazionale statunitense è salito ad un nuovo record di 21,21 mila miliardi di dollari alla fine di giugno, con un aumento del 6,9% rispetto all’anno precedente. I più grandi detentori risultavano essere le istituzioni americane, ovvero fondi pensione privati e statali e singoli investitori: complessivamente detenevano 6,89 mila miliardi di dollari di debiti e nell’ultimo anno sono stati i sottoscrittori più attivi di nuovo debito USA, comperando circa i quattro quinti dell’incremento delle emissioni nell’ultimo anno.

    GOVERNO USA E FED TRA I MAGGIORI POSSESSORI DI TITOLI

    Il governo degli Stati Uniti, invece, possedeva 5,73 mila miliardi di dollari di debiti, principalmente attraverso la previdenza sociale e i fondi pensione federali. Alla Federal Reserve, invece, facevano capo titoli del Tesoro USA per 2,38 mila miliardi, sebbene la banca centrale americana abbia alleggerito la propria esposizione al debito USA di 85 miliardi di dollari da giugno 2017. La Fed, infatti, l’anno scorso ha iniziato a dismettere parzialmente il vasto portafoglio che aveva accumulato in Treasury subito dopo la Grande Recessione al fine di abbassare i tassi di interesse e inondare l’economia di liquidità.

    CINA, GIAPPONE E BRASILE I MAGGIORI CREDITORI

    Gli stranieri, infine, possedevano 6,21 mila miliardi di debito USA con il podio costituito, nell’ordine, da Cina (1,180 mila miliardi), Giappone (1,03 mila miliardi) e Brasile (300 miliardi). I dati aggiornati sui possessori del debito statunitense consentono un paio di considerazioni.

    FINANZIAMENTI PER I PROGRAMMI DI TRUMP

    La prima riguarda il fatto che benché si tratti del paese più indebitato al mondo, la dipendenza degli Stati Uniti dagli investitori esteri per finanziare il proprio debito risulta relativamente contenuta. Questo significa che le maggiori emissioni attese di Treasury per finanziare i programmi espansivi dell’amministrazione Trump non dovrebbero avere grossi problemi ad essere assorbite da un mercato che resta alla disperata ricerca di rendimento e di valuta solida: due fattori che già attualmente i titoli di stato americani soddisfano pienamente.

    L’ARMA DI RICATTO CINESE

    In secondo luogo, la dipendenza degli Stati Uniti dalla Cina risulta importante ma comunque non sufficiente a fornire a Pechino un’arma di ricatto determinante da giocarsi nella partita della guerra commerciale. In pratica la Cina potrebbe minacciare di non sottoscrivere nuovo debito statunitense o, addirittura, di alleggerirne le posizioni in portafoglio ma sortirebbe probabilmente un effetto limitato (in termini di implicazioni negative sui rendimenti dei bond USA) pagandone un prezzo salato (per effetto di riduzione delle quotazioni dei titoli in portafoglio a seguito dell’aumento dei rendimenti che si muovono in direzione opposta ai prezzi).

    Tempo 10-15 anni la Cina si compra l'America, non pianifica alcuna guerra di conquista: NON E' NECESSARIA. Quello che non dice e' che la Russia e' socia.

     

    Biden says China believes it will ‘own America’ within 15 years

    President Biden dropped an ominous note into his remarks to American service members at a Virginia military base Friday, telling them that his Chinese counterpart believes Beijing will “own America” inside the next 15 years.

    “We’re in a battle between democracies and autocracies,” Biden told troops at Joint Base Langley Eustis in Hampton. “The more complicated the world becomes, the more difficult it is for democracies to come together and reach consensus.

    “I’ve spent more time with President Xi [Jinping] of China than any world leader has — for 24 hours of private meetings with him with just an interpreter, 17,000 miles traveling with him in China and here,” the president added. “He firmly believes that China, before the year [20]30, ’35, is going to own America because autocracies can make quick decisions.”

    The president did not elaborate on what was meant by “own America.” He made no other mention of China during his 23-minute remarks.

    Chinese President Xi Jinping attends a global health summit via teleconference in Beijing, China on May 21, 2021.
    Biden said Friday that he’s spent more time with Chinese President Xi Jinping “than any world leader.”
    Xinhua/Sipa USA

    “America is unique. From all nations in the world, we’re the only nation organized based on an idea …” Biden said in the address. “None of you get your rights from your government; you get your rights merely because you’re a child of God. The government is there to protect those God-given rights. No other government has been based on that notion. No one can defeat us except us.”

    After opening his speech with an emotional remembrance of his late son Beau, who served in the Iraq War, the president discussed the final withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan.

    Military troops watch President Joe Biden’s speech at Joint Base Langley Eustis in Hampton, Virginia on May 28, 2021.
    Biden’s comments about China came during a speech at Joint Base Langley Eustis in Hampton, Virginia.
    AP Photo/Patrick Semansky

    “You all just showed up and did your job, and it helped make sure there hasn’t been another attack on the homeland from Afghanistan for the last 20 years,” he said. “And you never gave up until we delivered justice to Osama bin Laden.”

    Later in his remarks, Biden claimed that “the greatest threat and likelihood of attack from al Qaeda or ISIS is not going to be from Afghanistan; it’s going to be from five other regions of the world that have significantly more presence of both al Qaeda and organizational structures, including ISIS.”

    Praising servicemembers as “1 percent of the population” who are “defending 99 percent of the rest of us,” the president concluded his remarks by saying: “Thank you for your commitment to our country, because … you are the spine of America … And I can’t tell you how much it matters. I think you underestimate just the consequence of who you are and what you do. So, thank you.”

    President Joe Biden insists terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda and ISIS are no longer major threats to the military.
    Biden also said Friday that terrorist organizations such as Al- Qaeda and ISIS are no longer major threats to the military.
    REUTERS/Ken Cedeno

    Earlier this week, Biden ordered the intelligence community to begin a 90-day review of evidence to determine whether the coronavirus emerged from the Wuhan Institute of Virology in the central Chinese city.

    Lettera aperta al signor Luigi di Maio, deputato del Popolo Italiano

    ZZZ, 04.07.2020 C.A. deputato Luigi di Maio sia nella sua funzione di deputato sia nella sua funzione di ministro degli esteri ...