Obviously the difference between March 2020 and now are power-mad Democrats, a Dr. Fauci who (after Biden was elected) blew off all safety protocols when it comes to “voluntary” vaccine trials and utilizing mass-bullying to coerce the unsuspected into Phase 3, and a greedy pharmaceutical industry that put political, globalist, monetary interests before the overall health of the world.

But it also appears Facebook, in particular, has been up to much more nefarious activities unbeknownst to their customers. It took having CEO Mark Zuckerberg under oath, in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, for some illuminating truth to come out.

Truth he knows very little about (again)….

Search “Facebook Centra”. Aside from medical institutions, you can’t find anything on it. Facebook’s consumer “Tasks” comes off as benign, but a lot of things over the course of history has appeared to be all nice before all hell broke loose.

Incredible, but not unexpected.

The problem is campaigns using data from Facebook to target potential voters is nothing new. While Zuckerberg and Senate Democrats are acting all shocked the activity happened, all was different in the ramp up to 2012’s Obama reelection campaign and Facebook was all too willing to assist.

TIME: Friended: How the Obama Campaign Connected with Young Voters

According to Obama’s former 2012 “director for media analytics” Carol Davidsen….

The media didn’t appear to object to the Obama campaign’s ability to obtain access to Facebook users and even got higher-ups within to almost brag about what they did.

The Obama leaders not only wanted all the lists to be able to talk to one another, they also wanted people to be able to organize their friends and family members.

But this third piece of the puzzle provided the campaign with another treasure trove of information and an organizing tool unlike anything available in the past. It took months and months to solve, but it was a huge breakthrough. If a person signed on to Dashboard through his or her Facebook account, the campaign could, with permission, gain access to that person’s Facebook friends. The Obama team called this “targeted sharing.” It knew from other research that people who pay less attention to politics are more likely to listen to a message from a friend than from someone in the campaign. The team could supply people with information about their friends based on data it had independently gathered. The campaign knew who was and who wasn’t registered to vote. It knew who had a low propensity to vote. It knew who was solid for Obama and who needed more persuasion — and a gentle or not-so-gentle nudge to vote.
— Washington Post, 7/28/13

Facebook’s allowing the Obama campaign to “do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side” may or may not have been legally ethical, but despite how Zuckerberg and the Democrats are portraying what happened in 2016, it’s been done before and on a far greater scale. This was also another example where the media said one thing (“the campaign could, with permission, gain access”) and reality being something else entirely.

Zuckerberg faced some rather uncomfortable music on Capitol Hill on the topic….

In 2012, the Obama campaign encouraged supporters to download an Obama 2012 Facebook app that, when activated, let the campaign collect Facebook data both on users and their friends. According to a July 2012 MIT Technology Review article, when you installed the app, “it said it would grab information about my friends: their birth dates, locations, and ‘likes.’ “

The campaign boasted that more than a million people downloaded the app, which, given an average friend-list size of 190, means that as many as 190 million had at least some of their Facebook data vacuumed up by the Obama campaign — without their knowledge or consent.
— Investors Business Daily

Maybe the hashtag #FacebookObamaCollusion is more apropos.

Facebook is a social medium and with that comes fact, rumor, and innuendo and to think you can clean that up without adverse affects, you’d have to be Mark Zuckerberg.

Facebook announced Friday that the company has discovered and dismantled a network of fake accounts that have been rising on the site over the last six months. The result of that purge has caused tremendous damage to one news outlet’s Facebook page in particular — USA Today.
— Daily Caller, 4/14/17

Facebook is a private company and can do whatever it wants, but when it comes to policing the distribution of fact versus fiction on a social media website, that’s a tall order and the motivation is not truly known. For example in response to the political whining of the losers, do you really think Facebook would be undertaking this “purge” of #FakeNews had Hillary Clinton won the 2016 presidential election or is this simply a response to the Russians-affected-our-democratic-process recitation? Maybe, because we all know the thin-skinned Hillary may have demanded any reminders of her dubious past also regulated and/or purged.

And besides the fact he’s made billions of dollars off a website, just who is Mark Zuckerberg to be the new gatekeeper of accurate information disseminated to the public?

Mark Zuckerberg is an American computer programmer and Internet entrepreneur. He is the chairman, chief executive officer, and co-founder of Facebook. His net worth is estimated to be US$58.6 billion as of March 2017, ranking him the fifth richest person in the world.

Zuckerberg launched Facebook from his Harvard University dormitory room on February 4, 2004. He was assisted by his college roommates and fellow Harvard students Eduardo Saverin, Andrew McCollum, Dustin Moskovitz, and Chris Hughes. The group then introduced Facebook to other college campuses. Facebook expanded rapidly, reaching one billion users by 2012. Meanwhile, Zuckerberg was involved in various legal disputes brought by others in the group, who claimed a share of the company based upon their involvement during the development phase of Facebook.

In no place in the Harvard dropout’s bio does it show anything that proves Zuckerberg’s qualifications to pick out a fake news story from the real deal. The same goes for his second in command at Facebook, Sheryl Sandberg.

Sheryl Sandberg is an American technology executive, activist, and author. She is the chief operating officer of Facebook and founder of Leanin.org (also known as the Lean In Foundation). In June 2012, she was elected to the board of directors by the existing board members, becoming the first woman to serve on Facebook’s board. Before she joined Facebook as its COO, Sandberg was vice president of global online sales and operations at Google, and was involved in launching Google’s philanthropic arm Google.org. Before Google, Sandberg served as chief of staff for United States Secretary of the Treasury Lawrence Summers.

Zuckerberg and Sandberg have liberal agendas that are at odds with the rise of anti-globalists around the world.

Facebook says it has targeted 30,000 fake accounts linked to France ahead of the country’s presidential election, as part of a worldwide effort against misinformation. The company said on Thursday it was trying to “reduce the spread of material generated through inauthentic activity, including spam, misinformation, or other deceptive content that is often shared by creators of fake accounts”.
— Stuff (NZ), 4/15/17

Are these accounts really “fake” or are they sharing information that advocates for a candidate the left desperately deems an enemy to the political views of people who are technically unqualified to reach such conclusions, and think about the arrogance involved here.

For years, people walk through supermarket check-out aisles and glance at the latest edition of the National Enquirer with all the sensational headlines that grab the eye. Most people have the ability to determine rather quickly what is real news and what is humorous bullshit. Then again, there are times the Enquirer gets it right (to the detriment of Democrats) and actually won a Pulitzer for a story the liberal Democrat media decided the public didn’t need to know.

There are topics that appear to be profitable to a Facebook that has the money to ward off potential moral and legal jeopardy.

Facebook is at risk of a criminal prosecution in Britain for refusing to remove potentially illegal terrorist and child pornography content despite being told it was on the site, The Times can reveal. The social media company failed to take down dozens of images and videos that were “flagged” to its moderators, including one showing an Islamic State beheading, several violent paedophilic cartoons, a video of an apparent sexual assault on a child and propaganda posters glorifying recent terrorist attacks in London and Egypt. Instead of removing the content, moderators said that the posts did not breach the site’s “community standards”.
— The Times (UK), 4/13/17

Again, Facebook is a private company and can do whatever they want with their product, regardless of how it affects their consumers. As typical with the arrogance of the leftist elite, Zuckerberg and Sandberg may believe their consumers will just conform and deal with whatever dictates and/or repercussions ensue.

Only time will tell.

One of the first questions to be asked is are Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg even qualified to screen ‘news’?

Don’t let a valid question get in the way of power-hungry narcissists.

Facebook is going to start fact-checking, labeling, and burying fake news and hoaxes in its News Feed, the company said Thursday.

A team of Facebook researchers will also review website domains and send sites that appear to be fake or spoofed (like “washingtonpost.co”) to third-party fact checkers, a Facebook spokesperson said. Of the 42 news organizations that have committed to Poynter’s fact-checking code of ethics, Facebook is starting out with the following four: Snopes, Factcheck.org, ABC News, and PolitiFact.
— Business Insider, 12/15/16

So, how is Facebook going to do this?

To combat fake news, Facebook has teamed up with a shortlist of media organizations, including Snopes and ABC News, that are part of an international fact-checking network led by Poynter, a nonprofit school for journalism in St. Petersburg, Florida.

We’re not sure how Snopes achieved the ultimate in fact-checking status.

Facebook ‘fact checker’ (Snopes) who will arbitrate on ‘fake news’ is accused of defrauding website to pay for prostitutes – and its staff includes an escort-porn star and ‘Vice Vixen domme’

Whoops.

Many news organizations have had their share of journalistic faux pas, but we’re now being informed of this “fact-checking network led by Poynter”?

The topic of funding is on the table because of the following paragraph on the Poynter website….

We are transparent about our funding sources. If we accept funding from other organizations, we ensure that funders have no influence over the conclusions we reach in our reports. We detail the professional background of all key figures in our organization and explain our organizational structure and legal status. We clearly indicate a way for readers to communicate with us.
— International Fact-Checking Network fact-checkers’ code of principles

Over the years during debates with hostiles, liberals are quick to demand to know where a conservative gets their funding, yet when asked about where said liberal gets their funding, we’re told to go to a website where the funding normally isn’t disclosed.

And does THIS look like a detailed “professional background” of their faculty?

Aside from an “ethics” report where they brag about getting a $1 million donation from Craigslist founder Craig Newmark to “fund a faculty chair in journalism ethics”, there’s no readily available funding disclosure on the Poynter website while they appear to expect that of others.

Craigslist in the same sentence as “ethics” could almost be a bad punchline.

Even more suspicious is what happened when we attempted to get some numbers from nonprofit watchdog sites on Poynter….

We’ve always been rightfully suspicious of non-profit liberal career mills where good intentions trump a lack of mission accomplishment while very generous salaries are paid in abundance. We DID manage to find an insight as to why funding numbers and donors may be an inconvenient truth….

A new course on Islam designed for journalists tries to minimize the impact and importance of ”jihad” by comparing it to the number of murders in America each year. That same course claims ”right-wing activists” tried to tie American Muslims to terrorism and doesn’t mention examples of Islamic attacks on press freedom.

That’s the way a prominent news organization is teaching journalists in a three-hour online course. The Poynter News University, part of the Poynter Institute, launched the free course ”Covering Islam in America” to guide the media on their coverage of Muslim communities.

The George Soros-funded Social Science Research Council, which received $50,000 from the Open Society Institute ”For Initiative on HIV/AIDS and Social Transformation,” is one of the groups behind the initiative, along with the Social Science Research Council at Washington State University. That fits with a theme for liberal financier Soros, who has spent more than $52 million on influencing the media. The Islamic course also links to another Soros-funded entity, the well-financed Center for American Progress.

This course is “A project of The Poynter Institute funded by The Knight Foundation.” Soros’s Open Society Foundations have worked closely with The Knight Foundation. They partnered up to start the Investigative News Network, which received $200,000 from the Knight Foundation and $100,000 from the Poynter Institute. The Knight Foundations President and CEO, Alberto Ibarguen, is also on the board for AOL and yet another key Soros backed group, the progressive investigative reporting start-up ProPublica.
— Media Research Center

Aside from a place where people see a news story and re-post it as if they were the insightful that found it in the first place, people should just use Facebook as a place to share your vacation and family pics.

UPDATE:

Is Snopes.com Really Going Broke While the Mikkelsons Live Large?

Ahmed Mohamed, in case you’ve been in a coma and missed this story, brought a clock he had made to school using a circuit board and spot welder. One of his teachers thought the wiry beeping contraption looked suspiciously like a bomb—speaking of cheesy spy movies—and called the principal, who called the cops, because you can never be too careful. The cops asked Ahmed some questions, found him insufficiently forthcoming, cuffed him and took him out of the school, because, you know, safety first.
— Time Magazine, 9/16/15

Of course, consistency and the left don’t mix, but let’s not forget how justified fear was when we were alerted to the fear caused teachers by a weapon made from a very dangerous piece of breakfast pastry….

A hearing examiner supported the decision of a Baltimore-area school principal to suspend a 7-year-old boy for chewing a Pop Tart into the shape of a gun. But his family’s attorney is reportedly vowing to take the case further if the decision is upheld. Andrew Nussbaum, a lawyer who serves as a hearing examiner for several school systems surrounding Washington, rendered a 30-page opinion Monday and agreed that principal Sandra Blondell of Park Elementary School in Anne Arundel County, Maryland acted properly when she removed the boy from school.
— CBS News, 7/1/14

If anything, this is an indictment of the educational system and those who run it because it’s clear those who felt more threatened by a Pop Tart than a device said to be a “clock” (and because of smartphone and similar devices, how many big stand-alone clocks are being sold nowadays?) are just plain stupid and unfit to be in a school.

Why do we say this?

Try walking past a TSA representative at an airport, a Secret Service officer near the White House, or any network television security desk with either item and see which one attracts more attention. And speaking of the White House and one who wants it….

As you all know, we’re no fan of the president and his policies and we’d never wish him physical harm, but think about this: Ahmed Mohamad has been invited to bring his “clock” to the White House. As Time Magazine made reference to “cheesy movies”, wouldn’t this be a great opportunity (thanks to political correctness) to bring an actual explosive device that wouldn’t be checked upon entry?

One trifling point: how many traditional clocks countdown to zero?

Thanks to society’s admiration and/or fear of all things “social media”, Ahmed Mohamed has become this reluctant hero to the online sycophants who still have this need to be a part of something they didn’t create.

The hashtag #IStandWithAhmed has been taking over Twitter. Besides Barack Obama, celebrities, leaders, and figureheads have supported Ahmed Mohamed through various social media platforms. Today, Texas police decided not to charge the Texas teen arrested for bringing a homemade clock to school that police mistook for a bomb.

On Wednesday, the morning after Mr. Mohamed’s arrest, #IStandWithAhmed was trending on Twitter along with an image of the baby-faced 14-year-old, who looks confused, handcuffed with a police officer in the background.

Yes, young Ahmed had no idea what he was stepping in…

I closed it with a cable, ’cause I didn’t want to lock it to make it seem like a threat, so I just used a simple cable so it won’t look that much suspicious.
— Ahmed Mohamed, NBCFW.com

Interesting choice of words for someone who didn’t seek to bring attention to himself or a cause, and certainly not exploit for monetary gain.

On Monday, 14-year-old Mohamed was arrested for taking a homemade clock to school that his teachers thought was a bomb. So crowdfunding platform LaunchGood started a campaign to raise $100,000 for the Muslim teen. In just one day, the site had raised over $10,000 from more than 200 backers. It’s hoping to raise $100,000 by October 1.

Not bad.

For such an innocent misunderstanding, Ahmed sure it getting a lot of attention.

Dallas Hackers Are Already Helping Ahmed Mohamed with His Next Inventions
Teen clockmaker gets offers from Twitter and MIT – and a T-shirt from space
Bruce Fenton Promises $250,000 Scholarship For Clock Making Teen Ahmed Mohamed

And the CAIR was never too far from the mix.

Council on American-Islamic Relations Dallas-Fort Worth chapter executive director Alia Salem told the Daily Beast while being questioned in the principal’s office, police officers refused to honor Mohamed’s requests to speak to his parents, but instead searched his bags and confiscated property. The Dallas Morning News reported he was also threatened with expulsion.

Going back to one of our first points, how many of those detained by school and later law enforcement authorities were allowed to call parents and/or lawyers during their initial detention and was this ever an issue? But when we’re talking about the left and their pets, it’s never about equal treatment; it’s always about special treatment.

Yes we do and the chances of survival of an attack by a Pop Tart gun and a Muslim with a wired device are quite the difference, but the school authorities didn’t know that, right Sally?

And look at the timing of this: we’re soon to receive hundreds, if not thousands of Muslim refugees into the United States. Hundreds, if not thousands of young men, many who look like Ahmed and we’re being told we need to look the other way because we all know Muslims NEVER shoot, bomb, maim, rape, behead, people in mass quantities.

Muslims are embraced and heartily welcomed into all cultures they wish to enter because they are the dictionary definition of people who assimilate and humbly embrace the traditions of the cultures they move into. Anyone whose Islamophobia won’t let them accept these truths deserves all the nasty names they can endure, so there!