Facebook

Current Issues  /  Fashion  /  News & Comment
Don’t Put Legal Gripes On Facebook
March 13, 2017

charles i. letbetter - don't put legal problems on FacebookWhat you say on social media can be used against you

 

 

The Short Story

Even the president of the United States has to play by certain rules when using social media. What we put on Facebook and Twitter can be used against us and, in some cases, prevent us from seeking legitimate legal action. While it’s natural to be angry when one has been legally wrong, Facebook is the last place one should go to vent if one wants to maintain a legal case against the person who did you wrong.

Legal Disclaimer:

I am not an attorney and nothing that follows is intended to be viewed as legal advice. If you feel you have been wronged or are a victim of fraud, you should consult your District Attorney or your personal lawyer.

The Background Info

Even though Facebook and other social media tools are over ten years old now, we’re still trying to figure out how to conduct ourselves without getting into trouble. There are things you can say, things you can’t say, things you can’t share, and pictures you can’t post. Keeping up with what you can and cannot do is rather difficult and at times runs quite contrary to what we want to do.

You’re not alone, though. Even the 45th president of the United States seems to be having difficulty figuring it all out. Last week, two Congressmen from the House Oversight Committee sent a letter to the White House counsel warning that the president could be violating the Presidential Records Act if he deletes a post from Twitter. The President frequently deletes tweets, especially when they have spelling errors. However, the Presidential Records Act requires that everything the president says or writes while in office must be preserved. This law was passed in 1978 largely as a result of the Nixon Watergate affair. Not many people knew about the predecessor to the Internet back then. This situation couldn’t have been foreseen and there’s no allowance for it.

There have been some other interesting ways in which a post on social media has come back to bite someone. For example, back in 2013, a Hawaii man was arrested after posting a video on Facebook that appeared to show him drinking a bottle of beer and then driving. While no one stopped him at the time, he was caught by surprise when police showed up at his door after he posted the video and arrested him for driving while drinking an alcoholic beverage and driving without a license. He shouldn’t have been surprised. Posts on social media have caught robbers, thieves and resulted in more than one arrest for rape on college campuses.

Rarely do we stop to think that the frustrated rant we make online can actually be used against us. Worse, we don’t realize how our words on Facebook can affect legal action in which we might be involved. When a federal Judge in Washington stayed the president’s initial travel ban he said statements by the president on social media factored into his decision against the White House.

Oops isn’t quite a big enough word to cover serious gaffes being made.

Where This Hits Home

Over the weekend, a 2016 story was re-circulated regarding a class action lawsuit against New York modeling agencies. The charges were that the agencies named “have systematically taken advantage of the models they claim to represent by unlawfully diverting millions of dollars in value from the models to themselves.” This suit is a re-submission of a suit first filed in 2012 that floundered because the plaintiffs didn’t pay sufficient attention to details and have their evidence prepared when it was needed. The second suit appears to be suffering from similar issues.

This isn’t the first time allegations have been made against modeling agencies. All kinds of serious allegations. in 2015, UK agencies Storm Model Management, Premier Model Management and Models 1 were charged with price fixing. Then, just this past September, IMG, Next and Elite were fined in Paris for the exact same thing.

Matters with models are serious business. Just the past season, fashion house Balenciaga came under severe criticism and eventually fired its casting directors amidst charges of racism and cruelty.

Against this background, Facebook pages began overflowing this weekend against yet another Midwestern modeling agency. The charges are familiar: Models not being paid on time, or at all. Underage models being exposed to inappropriately sexual situations. Models being sent to live in “flop houses” rather than hotels while on assignment. Models exposed to drug use and paraphernalia. Money charged to clients for models’ appearance diverted back into the agency rather than paying the models. Pretty serious stuff, and much of it legally challengeable.

However, any chance at legal action actually taking place and having the desired effect began to crumble by Sunday evening as the excess of related claims, from one aspiring model after another, piled onto Facebook, causing the situation to mount with claims of wrong-doing while failing to produce any actual evidence. This is a problem.

What we fail to realize is that when one posts information, especially accusations, on social media such as Facebook, it carries the exact same legal status as if it had been published by the local newspaper. Charges of libel apply if one deliberately makes a statement with the intention of doing harm to another person and/or their business. Even though we think that no one else sees what is posted on our “personal” accounts, the fact is that all social media posts are subject to subpoena and can be used as evidence.

Dangers here vary. One runs the risk of perjuring themselves if the testimony they give in court differs from accounts given on social media. Testimony can be thrown out if it differs from what was previously published on Facebook. Entire lawsuits can be found to be without merit of the judge determines the charges are nothing more than Facebook ranting. The agency may be able to claim damages for statements resulting in the loss of business.

We’ve seen this situation before. In 2007, a number of models brought a class-action suit against an Indianapolis-based model agency, claiming that they had not bee paid for services rendered. They won the civil suit. However, they saw very little of the money owed them. After making an initial payment through the court, the agency’s owner fled the state and has not returned.

What should be done instead? Again, I am not an attorney and this should not be construed as legal advice. The course of action that seems to stand a chance of being most effective, however, is to assemble and take to the District Attorney sufficient evidence as to warrant filing fraud charges against the agency and its owner(s) rather than filing a civil suit. Why?

We continue to see these situations with modeling agencies gone bad because there’s very little to stop them. There’s no oversight. There are no governing standards. If an agency gets caught doing wrong in one state, they pack up, change names, and start back up in another. However, fraud charges filed by the District Attorney brings with it the chance of actual jail time in addition to fines, and the possibility of a criminal record. If the alleged fraud took place across multiple states, there is the possibility for felony charges that could hinder a person from engaging in similar activities anywhere else.

What’s important, though, is that the accusations be presented in court, through the District Attorney, and not on Facebook. Putting such information on Facebook makes the charges all the more difficult to prosecute, especially if it is not hard, factual evidence assembled that back up the claims. District Attorneys need firm dates, places, and times. Receipts for anything resembling payment, and invoices or some other document that confirms how much was owed. Every accusation must be backed up with verifiable facts. Not a note from someone’s mother. Not a Facebook post swearing that it’s true. If there are not verifiable facts, there is no case.

Conclusion

Social media is a great place to talk with friends, share pictures and videos, and keep up with your community. It is not the place to discuss legal matters that have yet to be adjudicated in court. Bad modeling agencies are not stopped by a group of disgruntled models dropping out. If you feel you are the victim of a crime, consult the District Attorney for your county or your personal lawyer. Venting on Facebook might make one feel good for a few moments, but it does not stop people from doing bad things.

Not everything belongs on Facebook or Twitter. Intelligent people understand the value of restraint. Please, be intelligent.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  News & Comment
The Nation of Facebook
February 17, 2017
charles i. letbetter - the nation of facebook

Mark Zuckerberg lays out the future for the world

 

charles i. letbetter - the nation of facebook

The Short Version

In a 5,800-word essay delivered yesterday, Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg described what he sees in the future for the social media giant and how that future could impact the world. The manifesto was so sweeping that it raises the question of whether the company might one day become more powerful than governments.

A Bit More Detail

There are some 1.85 BILLION Facebook users around the globe. Pretty much the only place you won’t find people on Facebook is China, where it is illegal, and even there some people manage to get around the laws. Approximately 1.23 billion of those people use Facebook daily. In a strictly digital sense, one could say that Facebook is its own country, which is interesting. If Facebook owned enough real estate to house all its users, it would be the largest country in the world.

Stop and think about that for a moment. Facebook—the largest digital country in the world.

When we couch it in those terms, that makes yesterday’s missive by Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg the equivalent of a State of the Union address. All the same points are there. He addresses the current state of Facebook, recognizes some challenges, they lays out some long-term plans for making everything better—just like a good State of the Union speech only with more thought and cohesion than we’re likely to ever see from the 45th president.

Zuckerberg bases his statement around the question: are we building the world we all want? Looking at that question as the head of a giant global technology firm is one thing. What we see in how Mark answers that question, though, is something broader. He uses the word “communities” in both an online and offline context, effectively blurring the line between the two. As the two merge, the possibility of creating an actual nation-state based not on physical geography but on digital interconnectedness becomes a genuine possibility.

Consider what he says early on in his essay:

Our greatest opportunities are now global — like spreading prosperity and freedom, promoting peace and understanding, lifting people out of poverty, and accelerating science. Our greatest challenges also need global responses — like ending terrorism, fighting climate change, and preventing pandemics. Progress now requires humanity coming together not just as cities or nations, but also as a global community.

I’m sorry, is this a software company or the United Nations he’s addressing? What he’s attempting to tackle are issues that traditional governments have not had much luck in successfully solving. Does he actually think that Facebook can do a better job?

Yes, he does, and he could actually be correct. Facebook does a much better job of building cohesive communities around topics and ideas and convincing those communities to take action than even the best of governments. Facebook also had a broader reach than do most governments, successfully reaching to almost every country in the world. Facebook’s biggest limitation at the moment is the 4.2 billion people who are still without Internet. Solve that problem, and Facebook’s ability to drive community action could well become limitless.

How does this nation develop?

To fuel growth and address the challenges he’s raised, Zuckerberg says five questions must be answered:

  • How do we help people build supportive communities that strengthen traditional institutions in a world where membership in these institutions is declining?
  • How do we help people build a safe community that prevents harm, helps during crises and rebuilds afterwards in a world where anyone across the world can affect us?
  • How do we help people build an informed community that exposes us to new ideas and builds common understanding in a world where every person has a voice?
  • How do we help people build a civically-engaged community in a world where participation in voting sometimes includes less than half our population?
  • How do we help people build an inclusive community that reflects our collective values and common humanity from local to global levels, spanning cultures, nations, and regions in a world with few examples of global communities?

He then divides the remainder of the essay into sections addressing each of those questions. His words are well thought out, intelligent, and realistic given what he has already proven he is capable of doing. Facebook has the ability to reach across borders without needing to sign treaties or worry about bureaucratic policies. The software company can effect change simply through the will of its users without having to worth through an argumentative congress or parliament.

Should Facebook be successful in matters such as recognizing and shutting down things such as bullying and terrorist recruitment, it will have addressed global violence more thoroughly than all the armies of the world and will have proven that it can be done without firing a single shot or levying the first sanction. I don’t know that we would necessarily consider this online diplomacy, for there would be little need for negotiation. The software would assist the affected communities in eliminating the problem for themselves.

I strongly encourage you to read Zuckerberg’s treatise in full. Think carefully about everything he has to say. Then, consider, if you were offered digital citizenship in the Nation of Facebook, would you take it?

That reality could be closer than we think.

 

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  News & Comment  /  video
5 Things You Should Know: 01.12.2017
January 12, 2017
charles i. letbetter - 5 Things You Should Know

04:31:02 01/12/2017

 

Sponsoring 5 Things You Should Know won’t make bad news go away, but it can help us be more accurate. Contact us today!

 

Some days you need a compass

charles i. letbetter - 5 Things You Should Know

Wow! Here it is Thursday and the wind is back as it blows us toward a weekend of freezing temperatures and possibly icy conditions across the Midwest. The Northwest is still getting pummeled by rain and snow in record-setting amounts. In fact, they’ve had so much snow that officials closed Crater Lake National Park due to avalanche concerns.

Trying to look at the world through media reports is confusing as hell. When there’s no actual news, we get a lot of news-looking articles that don’t really tell us anything of value. Sometimes you have to piece the information together to get the full picture. That’s what we’ve done this morning. We’ve sifted through the actual facts and have 5 Things You Should Know.

 

Making corporate crime personal

charles i. letbetter - 5 Things You Should Know

Americans are known for having notoriously short-term memories so don’t feel too bad if you thought the whole mess over the Volkswagon emission-cheating scandal was over. Nope, far from it. These things take time to wind their way through the court and it gets all the more complicated when multiple countries are involved. The US can’t just reach across the Atlantic ocean and demand that someone from another country follow our laws. So, the fact that we’re just now seeing a resolution to the scandal really isn’t that surprising.

What we’ve seen in the past two days is that VW has pled guilty to criminal charges after installing software in diesel engines on nearly 600,000 VW, Porsche and Audi vehicles in the U.S. that activated pollution controls during government tests and switched them off in real-world driving1. The software allowed the cars to spew harmful nitrogen oxide at up to 40 times above the legal limit. As a result, the US has fine the company $4.3 billion, the largest fine against an automaker ever, and yes, VW is going to pay the fine.

What you should know, though, is that the Department of Justice also indicted six high-level VW executives yesterday, which is seen as a major step in holding individuals responsible for corporate crimes, something that has been extremely difficult in the past. Now, since all six are German citizens, actually arresting them is difficult. Germany doesn’t extradite their own citizens outside the EU. However, it effectively prevents those executives from traveling outside Germany. This is a huge win for consumers and the Justice Department.

 

They China Syndrome

charles i. letbetter - 5 Things You Should Know

While everyone has been distracted by possible spying and interference from Russia, another larger and potentially far greater danger has been growing in the South China Sea as China has made some very strong and deliberate moves that the US should find more than a little worrisome. Earlier this week, Taiwan was intimidated into launching fighters and naval vessels as China’s only aircraft carrier sailed through the Strait of Taiwan in a very obvious display of power2. This is just the latest in a series of military events where China essentially shakes its fist at the small country.

Then, yesterday, Secretary of State nominee and former head of Exxon Mobile, Rex Tillerson, told the Senate Confirmation Committee that China should be denied access to the islands it built and then militarized in the South China Sea3. Tillerson didn’t state what legal justification the US might use in interfering in matters in the South China Sea, but it puts further stress on the relationship between China and the incoming administration.

What you should know now is that earlier this morning China launched a new electronic intelligence ship4. Care to guess where they put it? That’s right, the South China Sea. The activity we’ve seen in that region over the past few months is some of the strongest China has made in the past 50 years. We need to remember, though, that China is also deeply embedded in the US economy. Any action we might take against them would likely be met with a response from Beijing that could send the US economy into a tailspin. The ramifications are extremely troubling.

 

Redefining the press

charles i. letbetter - 5 Things You Should Know

If it seems as though every media outlet on the Internet is talking about the president-elect’s news conference yesterday5, the reason may be because not since the Nixon administration has the relationship between the press and the White House been so strained. While I strongly agree that the exchange between the Great Orange and CNN’s Jake Tapert was one of the most childish displays of narcissistic bullying we’ve seen to date, the fact remains that he is the new reality and media needs to adjust to deal with him more effectively.

One of the ways that is happening is that Facebook has decided to take on a larger role in journalism6. What makes this something you should know is that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg was very adamant in defending the social media powerhouse against charges that fake news posted on the site may have contributed to the outcome of the presidential election. What we now know is that roughly 40% of American adults get their news from Facebook7. What we see on Facebook we generally consider to be true, whether we admit it or not.

The Facebook Journalism Project, which was announced on the website yesterday, works in three ways:

  1. The collaborative development of news products
  2. Training & tools for journalist to enable better use of Facebook
  3. Training & tools for the general public, including efforts to curb hoaxes

Exactly how legacy media outlets will respond to the project is still uncertain, but at least Facebook is stepping up and recognizing its role in the dissemination of news. This won’t make presidential press conferences any less vile, but hopefully, it will prevent the kind of unsubstantiated news stories at the center of that exchange from becoming a problem.

 

Up, up and away

charles i. letbetter - 5 Things You Should Know

So, with all the stress and anxiety going on across the US at the moment, perhaps you’re thinking it might be nice to get away for a while, maybe enjoy a Spring Break somewhere different, even if you’ve not been a college student for 30 years or more. The problem is, you’re an adult. You have too many responsibilities and too little expendable cash. How can you afford to go anywhere? The Icelandic airline WOW would like to solve that problem for you by offering tickets from the US to Europe for as little as $708.

Oh yeah, there are some catches to that price. What you should know is that not every seat on the plane qualifies for the severely discounted rates. You’ll pay to check your bags and if you want anything to eat or drink during the long trip you’ll need to bring those yourself. WOW is only offering the service from LAX and SFA to Stockholm, Sweden; Bristol, England; Copenhagen, Denmark; and Edinburgh, Scotland. Oh, and there’s no Wi-Fi on the planes, either.

Still, this low-cost discounted rate for international travel may be the wave of the future. WOW’s CEO Skuli Mogensen thinks that eventually you might not pay for a ticket at all and that airlines will make their profit through ancillary costs and fees. Norwegian Air plans to make similarly discounted flights available later this year when it adds new planes9. This particular sale only last through April 5, though, so if you’re going you might want to make that reservation sooner rather than later.

 

And finally …

charles i. letbetter - 5 Things You Should Know

I’m beginning to think that there’s not anything that Taco Bell won’t try to stuff into or wrap around a taco. The fast food favorite of munchie-ridden stoners and college students everywhere has announced, and I swear I am not making this up, that it plans to go nationwide later this month with a taco shell made entirely of—are you ready?—fried chicken9. You may now take a moment and pick your jaw up off the floor. This is really coming to a Taco Bell near you.

This new culinary curiosity is being called the Naked Chicken Chalupa and, according to the chain, the entire shell is made of all-white seasoned chicken. They then fill that thing with lettuce, tomatoes, cheddar cheese and avocado ranch sauce. Apparently, this mess has tested well for two years in Bakersfield and Kansas City, though I don’t know that I would necessarily consider either of those places culinary capitals by any stretch of the imagination.

There’s no word yet as to how much this new source of indigestion might cost you. Remember that you’ll want to eat the thing immediately and not let it sit on your dashboard or coffee table overnight. Being chicken, it should be consumed hot to avoid any chance of contracting salmonella. Of course, if you’re eating at Taco Bell you’re probably not too worried about food poisoning in the first place, are you?

 

That’s all the time and space we’re willing to commit to this morning. If you’re in the Midwest, watch out for possible Thunderstorms midday. Wherever you are, please stay safe. We like you. Both of you. Until tomorrow, good day!

 

###

Continue Reading

News & Comment  /  video
5 Things You Need To Know: 12/16/16
December 16, 2016
charles i. letbetter - 5 things you need to know: 12/16/16

https://youtu.be/oF6T8wd7nMc

Do Friday’s Matter Anymore?

 

charles i. letbetter - 5 things you need to know: 12/16/16

Hi there. I would say, “Thank goodness it’s Friday,” but I’m not sure Friday matters that much anymore. The news keeps churning and we’ll be watching it all through the weekend. I’m up at 4:00 AM every morning making sure the world hasn’t completely blown up while we were asleep. There really should be at least six people doing all this work, but it’s just me. Yes, I’m patting myself on the back, and perhaps that’s the value of Fridays. Find a reason to pat yourself on the back, even if it’s only because you managed to survive the other four days of the work week.

We’re skipping over the war between North Carolina’s governor and it’s state legislature for now. We’re also refusing to enter into the speculation of what cabinet nominees might or might not do. We only work with news we can verify as being accurate and you should be doing the same. So, that being said, let’s take a look at our top five stories for today.

 

1. The White House Says Russia Hacked US

charles i. letbetter - 5 things you need to know: 12/16/16

One of the many questions we have this morning is whether the whole Russian hacking scandal has gotten out of control? If you were watching yesterday afternoon, White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters, “Only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities,1” in reference to reports from three US intelligence agencies that not only was Russia involved in hacking the servers of political parties, but that Putin himself knew and directed the attacks. That the White House would officially support the intelligence reports is a pretty big deal since both the Kremlin and the president-elect has been denying them.

If you’re listening to NPR this morning, you’re hearing President Obama tell Steve Inskeep,  “I think there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections … we need to take action. And we will — at a time and place of our own choosing. Some of it may be explicit and publicized; some of it may not be.”2

If the statement from the president sounds just a little ambiguous, it is. That might be because, at least from a public information perspective, actual evidence of Russian involvement is a little ambiguous. Yes, the White House likely has access to evidence that the public does not. What we see on this side of the fence, though, is a bunch of anonymous sources, none of which can be confirmed. We need some names, we need some faces, and we need their butts sitting in front of a Congressional hearing to give validity to all these accusations.

Furthermore, there is no precedent for how to react to this situation if the reports are indeed true. There’s nothing in the Constitution that adequately covers direct intrusion into an election by a foreign power. What President Obama might have up his sleeve isn’t clear, either, but we know he doesn’t have long if he’s going to do something before he moves out of the White House.

 

2. Venezuelan Parents Are Giving Away Their Children

charles i. letbetter - 5 things you need to know: 12/16/16

We talked earlier this week about the Venezuelan government confiscating some four million toys and promising that “every child will get a toy.” News coming out of the beleaguered country yesterday shows us that those toys may be all many Venezuelan children have. Reuters is reporting that three local councils and four national welfare groups are all confirming a rise in parents giving their children away, sometimes to other family members, sometimes to neighbors, because they can no longer afford to feed them and keep them safe3.

If you’re a parent or plan on ever being one, I want you to stop and think a moment about just how desperate one has to be and how devastating it must feel to have little choice but to give up your child. Average wages in Venezuela are less than the equivalent of $50 a month. Normally, in places where wages are so low, we see food prices around the same level. Not here. Food prices are in some cases higher than they are in the US, and that’s when food is available. Food scarcity across the country has caused unrest there for over a year.

Children’s rights groups say that the increase in parents giving away children is exponential, with many of the children already suffering from malnutrition. Plunging oil prices are partly to blame, as well as social policies of president Nicolas Maduro. Yet, more than politics, this is a humanitarian disaster of untold proportion. Some parents are simply abandoning their children, leaving them to die on the streets.

So much for a merry fucking Christmas.

 

3. Dyllan Roof Found Guilty Of Murder

charles i. letbetter - 5 things you need to know: 12/16/16

We knew when the jury left the South Carolina courtroom yesterday that they would come back with a guilty verdict. Roof has been convicted of a total of 33 counts involving hate crimes in the shooting of nine people in a Charlotte, South Carolina church4. He never shied away from the fact that he was guilty. In fact, at one point during the trial, he fired his attornies and disastrously tried defending himself. Immediately after the verdict was announced, Roof fired his attornies again.

The jury returns on January 3 to determine exactly what his sentencing will be. There are only two options available: life in prison or death by lethal injection. Roof has already said he doesn’t want to introduce embarrassing evidence that might save his skin. Yet, as we saw last week, lethal injection hasn’t necessarily been going all that well with multiple botched attempts around the country over the past couple of years. There are also plenty of arguments against capital punishment.

One thing for certain is that this horrible massacre has left a lasting impression upon the state of South Carolina. The confederate flag no longer flies at the state capitol. The effects of hate are very visible and efforts to defuse that hate are strong. Dyllan Roof is a good example of why we cannot allow the alt-right white supremacy movement to go unchecked. We don’t need another incident like this to happen anywhere in our country. Ever.

 

4. A Colorado School Approves Guns in the Classroom

charles i. letbetter - 5 things you need to know: 12/16/16

As incredible as it may seem, a school district in Colorado has actually approved a measure allowing some teachers and other school employees to carry guns inside classrooms5. That this decision would come the same day as the third anniversary of the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary shouldn’t be ignored. The Board of Education for Hanover School District #28 voted 3-2 to approve the resolution on Wednesday night.

Now, before we all go off on some knee-jerk reaction, we should be aware that the Hanover School District is very small and very remote. The board’s president, Mark McPherson, who didn’t vote in favor of the plan, told the press that it was the town’s distance from any kind of assistance that fueled support for the resolution. The school is 30 minutes away from the nearest law enforcement. The resolution lists “national events” and, get this, potential trouble from marijuana grows, as the justification for the action.

Now, for any teacher or staff member to actually carry a gun on campus, they must first volunteer for extra duty as a security officer. Then, they must complete training before receiving their permit to carry. There is no limit as to how many of the school’s 20 teachers can carry weapons. Let’s just hope their finals weeks never get too stressful.

 

5. And Finally …

charles i. letbetter - 5 things you need to know: 12/16/16

Facebook announced yesterday that they’re going after fake news and enlisting a number of partners, including Snopes, the Associated Press, and ABC News, to help validate stories6. The announcement comes as the world’s most dominant social media company attempts to wrestle with accusations that fake news shared on its site contributed to the outcome of the US presidential election.

Understand, Facebook has yet to say that it would actually remove content that is flagged as being fake. Instead, the content will be marked as “disputed” with a link to the reasons for the decision. In fact, they’re only focusing on what they call “the worst-of-the-worst” of fake news producers, those who create deliberate lies for financial gain.

However, this hasn’t kept publications with a right-leaning tilt from going all boo-hoo over the new policy7. Ben Shapiro, editor-in-chief of the conservative-leaning Daily Wire wrote, “It’s an attempt to restore gatekeepers who have a bias as the ultimate arbiters of truth.”8 Perhaps someone should tell the whining little brats that if they’re not producing fake news then they don’t have anything to worry about. Facebook’s efforts are gentle compared to what they could have done. Hell, you’ll still get in more trouble for posting a picture of women’s nipples on your profile than you will for distributing blatantly false news. Some alleged news sources need to grow the fuck up.

 

But hey, this whole fake news thing is exactly why we bother bringing you these reports every morning. We always verify our stories and provide links to our sources. We want news we can trust and know that you do as well. Thank you for your time. Here’s hoping your Friday kicks some ass.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  pop culture
You Can’t Handle The Post-Truth
November 17, 2016
charles i. letbetter - you can't handle the post-truth

Exchanging facts for whatever stokes our emotions can only end in fiction

 

charles i. letbetter - you can't handle the post-truth

If I told you that mac & cheese was legally the official food of six-year-olds, would you believe me? Probably not, because you’re not likely to have much, if any, emotional connection to the subject. However, if I told you that red meat had been outlawed and you were only allowed one soda a month, then you might respond. You’d at least read whatever article followed and if it appeared that your dietary habits were being forcibly altered you would be more likely to actually share the article so as to express your outrage. How dare anyone tell you what you can or cannot eat?

Welcome to the post-truth world.

What is post-truth? Post-truth is the Oxford Dictionaries word(s) of the year.  Defined as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief,” the use of the adjective has been dominant in discussions of  both the UK decision to leave the EU and the US presidential election. Since use of the word shows no sign if slowing down, both the UK and US versions of the dictionary are adding the word to their pages.

The prevailing question, at least in my mind, is whether we can “handle” the post-truth. Societies generally rely on factual information is they are to survive. If we replace objective facts with something derived purely from emotion, what does that do to our society? Can we survive if the bulk of information we’re receiving is fiction? The danger seems to be very real and very pertinent.

 

Who is making up this nonsense?

charles i. letbetter - you can't handle the post-truth

There’s been a lot of talk recently about who is to blame for all the false post-truth news that is circulating on the Internet. A lot of people seem to enjoy blaming Facebook (FB), but FB’s CEO, Mark Zuckerberg plays down that idea. Zuckerberg says, “Personally, I think the idea that fake news on Facebook — it’s a very small amount of the content — influenced the election in any way is a pretty crazy idea.”

Something tells me Zuckerberg’s newsfeed looks a lot different than mine does. I’ve blocked a number of sources already, but every time I do a dozen more seem to pop up in their place. How does that happen? WHY does that happen?

As it turns out, there are a bunch of pimply-faced teens in Macedonia who think creating propaganda websites is great fun. According to BuzzFeed:

Over the past year, the Macedonian town of Veles (population 45,000) has experienced a digital gold rush as locals launched at least 140 US politics websites. These sites have American-sounding domain names such as WorldPoliticus.com, TrumpVision365.com, USConservativeToday.com, DonaldTrumpNews.co, and USADailyPolitics.com. They almost all publish aggressively pro-Trump content aimed at conservatives and Trump supporters in the US.

Isn’t that lovely. Our entire nation is being trolled by a group of teenagers who are stuck in the Balkans. I understand their boredom. What I don’t understand is why we fell for it all so very heavily. Why does the post-truth content bait us so very easily? I can’t find any direct reasons but one has to assume, based on everything else I’m reading, that we believe the nonsense because it fits the version of truth we have created in our own heads. If we want Mrs. Clinton to be prosecuted for some email offense, then we’re more likely to believe a story that follows that narrative, even if there is nothing else that corroborates that story. We are willing making ourselves gullible fools.

 

There is no good, only bad and ugly

charles i. letbetter - you can't handle the post-truth

With the whole post-truth problem comes the challenge of knowing which sources are legitimate and which are not. There are times when they all look the same. The number of so-called “media outlets” has exploded over the past five years making it nearly impossible for the average person to keep up with those that are actually trying to present the correct information and those that are intentionally making us look like fools.

To that end, Melissa Zimdars, assistant professor of communication & media at Merrimack College in Massachusetts, created a list named “False, Misleading, Clickbait-y, and Satirical ‘News’ Sources.” The list started with only a couple dozen sites but has expanded considerably. Ms. Zimdar states in one of the updates to the list:

I’ve received hundreds of emails with suggestions, very few of which are duplicates, so it will take me a while to sift through and verify them. I will add them as appropriate.  

She is also receiving help from librarians and plans on adding more details to her list as time allows. The problem is a serious one. At the very least, those who are conscientious about separating truth from fiction would do well to go through Ms. Zimdars’ list and make sure all the sites are blocked from their newsfeeds. Remember, the people behind this are only in it for the money. If we take away their access to our newsfeeds, they don’t make money and will move on to other activities, hopefully, something along the line of finding a cheaper wi-fi solution.

Oh, but this problem gets so much worse the longer we look at it.

When Adm. Michael Rogers, who leads both the NSA and US Cyber Command, says there shouldn’t be “any doubt in anybody’s mind” that there was “a conscious effort by a nation-state” to sway the result of the 2016 presidential election, we should begin trembling with fear. Specifically, it seems almost certain that Russian hackers obtained email from the Democratic National Committee and then only release to Wikileaks those it felt would most damage Mrs. Clinton’s campaign. Wikileaks then, in a very post-truth manner, ran with the emails, couching them in terms that gave an appearance of wrong-doing even though such was not the case.

When post-truth tactics are used to alter the democratic process, we have to make very sure that we are doing something to eliminate this danger to national security.

 

So, here’s what ya’ gotta do

charles i. letbetter - you can't handle the post-truth

No! Do NOT go take a nap, even if you do look so nice and innocent when you do. At the very least, as we mention above, one needs to black every known fake news source from their social media feeds. Facebook has had that ability for quite a while and Twitter just recently added similar capabilities as well. Use them . Block the nonsense before it ever has a chance to get into your brain.

Ms. Zimdars also offers the following suggestions:

  • Avoid websites that end in “lo” ex: Newslo (above). These sites take pieces of accurate information and then packaging that information with other false or misleading “facts” (sometimes for the purposes of satire or comedy).
  • Watch out for websites that end in “.com.co” as they are often fake versions of real news sources  
  • Watch out if known/reputable news sites are not also reporting on the story. Sometimes lack of coverage is the result of corporate media bias and other factors, but there should typically be more than one source reporting on a topic or event.
  • Odd domain names generally equal odd and rarely truthful news.
  • Lack of author attribution may, but not always, signify that the news story is suspect and requires verification.
  • Some news organizations are also letting bloggers post under the banner of particular news brands; however, many of these posts do not go through the same editing process (ex: BuzzFeed Community Posts, Kinja blogs, Forbes blogs).
  • Check the “About Us” tab on websites or look up the website on Snopes or Wikipedia for more information about the source.
  • Bad web design and use of ALL CAPS can also be a sign that the source you’re looking at should be verified and/or read in conjunction with other sources.
  • If the story makes you REALLY ANGRY it’s probably a good idea to keep reading about the topic via other sources to make sure the story you read wasn’t purposefully trying to make you angry (with potentially misleading or false information) in order to generate shares and ad revenue.
  • If the website you’re reading encourages you to DOX individuals, it’s unlikely to be a legitimate source of news.
  • It’s always best to read multiple sources of information to get a variety of viewpoints and media frames.

Post-truth tactics only work when we don’t. If we’re paying attention, verifying our sources as we were taught in high school, then the power of post-truth nonsense is tremendously diminished. We can eliminate this threat simply by removing the profit incentive for those who create such trash. If the concept of having a bigoted, fear-mongering, xenophobic, homophobic, backward-driving administration bothers you, then you have to take responsibility for shutting down the post-truth information that makes its way in front of your eyes.

This is your country you’re saving. Can you handle the post-truth? I hope you can.

Continue Reading

pop culture  /  PotD
Consider The Source
July 6, 2016
charles i. letbetter - consider the source

Crazy old people are our entire source of polling information. —P. J. O’Rourke

 

charles i. letbetter - consider the source

We have become careless about what information we believe, even when the source is obvious

As long as there has been verbal communication among humans there has been a propensity to exaggerate and distort facts to make oneself look good or persuade others to agree with their opinion. Many mistakes have been made because people chose to believe rumor and conjecture over evidence and reason. This isn’t something we can blame on the Internet. We were already very good at believing stories without regard as to the source of information.

Rumor mills exist in every small community, feeding on the presumption that someone did something wrong or unethical without bothering to check for facts. Such rumor mills were especially strong in the churches we attended while growing up. There was almost always an accusation that some poor soul, who had fallen out of favor with someone else, had been caught “sinning.” Perhaps it was the rumor that the school superintendent had a glass of wine with his meal while attending a conference out of state. Or maybe the idea that Widow Jones had a male friend she would visit over in the next county and sometimes she didn’t come home until the next morning.

Those pushing such rumors were almost always the same few people. As a result, any time such a story made it’s way back to my father, the pastor, he would simply roll his eyes and say, “Consider the source,” and move on. He understood that giving a rumor any attention only helps it to grow.

Welcome To The Internet

One of the great promises of the Internet is its ability to give almost anyone and everyone a chance to make their voice heard. Information is not limited to media or official government sources. When something major happens, there is frequently someone on hand either live tweeting or even live streaming the event. The challenge comes when accounts from official sources differ from pedestrian sources.

A perfect example is the case of last night’s shooting by police of a man in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. If one clicks that link, you can read the account of the incident as reported by the Associated Press, a generally trusted news source. Their story is that a man leaving a convenience store called police after allegedly being threatened with a gun by a man selling CDs. Police arrived, an altercation ensued, and the CD seller was shot.

However, if one looks at all that is on Twitter regarding the incident, including a video that might be disturbing for some, one might come away with a very different opinion.  The video alone is enough to sway opinion dramatically. I fully expect this event to explode as the day grows and more people find out about it. Rumors and conjecture will dominate the story. Figuring out which details are fact and which are fiction becomes difficult in moments like this.

Don’t Believe Everything You Read

We were given that instruction back in high school, were we not? At the point that teachers begin assigning projects that require research, we are warned that not every source is reliable. Again, this happened long before the Internet. Just because information is printed somewhere doesn’t make it reliable. An account of an event from Associated Press, for example, was considered more reliable than one from Time magazine. The tendency of the latter source to editorialize opened the door to rumor and supposition that might not be based on evidence.

Unfortunately, we’re now willing to believe anything that comes in meme form and agrees with our own opinions.  We’re not even bothered that sources aren’t cited. In fact, I’m frequently alarmed that, despite my continued effort to cite sources in all my articles here, rarely does anyone actually click those links and verify the source.  I could be feeding everyone a truckload of bullshit. As long as what I write is consistent with what one normally expects from me, no one questions anything.

How do we know which information is correct and which is a lie? Unfortunately, we can’t always know for certain. However, on major issues, two primary sources have come to bear that are generally more reliable than most. Those are Snopes and Politifact. Between the two, they address the majority of rumors getting the most amount of traffic on the Internet. While they’re not authoritative in getting anything corrected, they at least provide us the ability to check sources. Let’s take a look at some trending topics they’re dealing with today. [Headings are links to source stories.]

Sharpie Marker Giveaway

This is an example of dozens of other retailer giveaway scams, none of which are valid. In this case, the image that pops up in your Facebook newsfeed claims that Sharpie is giving away a set of 24 markers just for liking and sharing their page. The problem is, when one clicks the link, they are not directed to anything owned by Sharpie at all.  Sometimes the links even appear to be random.

While Snopes doesn’t accuse the perpetrators in this case of operating a phishing scam, any time a link takes you somewhere you weren’t expecting to go your information is in danger. Almost nothing is free. Both retailers and manufacturers have found better and more reliable ways of getting your attention. If someone wants to give something away, consider the source. Nonprofits still do occasional giveaways, but major corporations don’t.

Britons Did Not Understand The Brexit Before Voting

Even I fell for this one. With sources such as the Daily Mail and the Washington Post making claims based on their interpretation of Google trend data, it was extremely easy to be taken in. However, it turns out that the headlines were wrong. Journalists who didn’t understand how Google trends work misinterpreted the data. As a result, what the newspapers were printing was inaccurate. Still, assuming that the source was reliable, every other news agency then ran with the same story.

Oops.

Politifact goes to great length in attempting to explain how the mistake in reading the Google trends data could result in less-than-accurate statements. Turns out, that a) the data is a sample, not the whole search set, b) it is impossible to tell if people were making the same searches before the vote, and c) other more detailed and informed questions wouldn’t be included in the survey set.

Marti Hearst, a professor for the University of California at Berkeley’s school of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, said: “Only the most common (and therefore the most ignorant-sounding) search queries will make it to the top”

Think When You Read

We have an obligation when reading to test the validity of any source. Just because someone says something we like doesn’t make it true. Richard Harrison of Pawn Stars is not dead. When we share and perpetuate such false and misleading information, we contribute to the problem. How does anyone know what to believe? If even the Washington Post can be fooled, how do we ever know which source is reliable?

The answer is that we have to examine the evidence ourselves to the extent possible. We’re not always going to get everything correct, but we can minimize the amount of dishonest and misleading information we share. Don’t take anyone at their word. Not even me. Any time you see text in a different color, that’s a link to a source. Chase them. If I’m wrong, let me know.

We are all part of the information system now. We have an obligation to get it right.

Continue Reading

Music  /  pop culture  /  PotD
Unfriended, Bothered, and Bewildered
June 28, 2016
charles i. letbetter - unfriended, bothered and bewildered

You don’t need to have Asperger’s to feel bewildered in a culture that relies so heavily on inconsequential chit-chat to grease the wheels of day-to-day life. —Lynn Coady

 

charles i. letbetter - unfriended, bothered, and bewildered

We don’t like admitting that Facebook relationships matter, but being unfriended by a friend leaves one hurt and bewildered. Is this serious?

Wise at last
My eyes at last
Are cutting you down to your size at last
Bewitched, bothered and bewildered no more
—Lorenz Hart

Those words, which appear late in the familiar song, keep going through my head this morning as I look through my Facebook feed. I’ve always found it interesting how emotions and events move in waves across my friends list. If one gets sick, at least a dozen more will do the same, even though they are not only unacquainted but don’t even live in the same region of the planet. If one has a baby (or grandbaby, more frequently), then I’ll start seeing baby pics from twenty different people.

What leaves me bewildered a bit, though (and I’m using that word a lot today), is when mass unfriending happens. We seem to be riding that wave at the moment. I’ve seen seven people allude to either unfriending or being unfriended in the past twenty-four hours. Each one has two things in common: they were “breakups” with someone they’d known a long time, and the split was over socio-political issues. Emotions ranged between anger, sadness, and resignation. With each, though, they were bewildered that they could know someone for so long and just now hit a topic of such severe disagreement as to part ways.

Unfriend or Unlike

I’ll admit that I rarely unfriend someone. I might unfollow them so that their all-too-frequent posts don’t clog my newsfeed, but I reserve unfriending for either blocking the rare person who is a complete asshole or weeding the list of people with whom I share no interest or relationship. Few people ever argue with me on a topic, which I appreciate. My need to unfriend someone is quite rare.

Neither am I someone who feels a need to “collect” friends. I am bewildered by those who do. I don’t understand the so-called advantage to having 5,000 friends one doesn’t know. The way Facebook limits who sees your posts changes so frequently that the only sure way to communicate with  someone is through private message. On other social media platforms, one’s reach is more of a pure numbers game, so having high numbers of followers makes sense.  Facebook doesn’t work the same way, though.

At the beginning of 2015, I did something drastic. I culled my friends list by a thousand people and started a professional page. My hope was to direct more professional contacts, such as models, makeup artists, stylists, photographers, etc., to that location so that I could be more personal on my personal page. Plan backfired. Not everyone got the message about the professional page. Not everyone cared. Roughly 800 of those unfriended stayed that way. Bewildered? Yes, totally. I don’t “get” this whole unfriend and unlike scenario.

Oh, But There’s Science

After seeing all the talk about unfriending, I thought I’d check and see if there was anything close to real research about on the topic. I wouldn’t have been too surprised to find nothing. After all, the whole concept of unfriending someone, even the word, has only been in the global lexicon about seven years. Proper studies take time.

What I found was a couple of studies done at the University of Colorado that were published in 2014. Christopher Sibona, a doctoral student, was the research behind both studies. He looked at 1,700 cases and came up with some interesting results. First, there’s the matter of who we unfriend in the first place:

  • high school friends;
  • other;
  • friend of a friend;
  • work friends;
  • common interest friends.

Look at that very top result. High school friends. Why do we unfriend high school friends? Because our opinions have changed, matured, and become more deeply rooted. We are more likely to defend our positions after 10-20 years than we were back in high school. I’m starting to feel a little less bewildered by the whole thing.

How Does That Make You Feel

What may be the stronger study, though, is how one feels after being unfriended. You’re in a heated conversation with someone, and suddenly, they’re gone. You check, and you’ve been unfriended. Ouch! That hurts!

Or does it? Sibona’s study found four core factors for predicting someone’s response to being unfriended. You might respond negatively (sadness, disappointment, or anger) if the other person was a close friend, or if you monitor your friends list constantly. You might respond positively (relief, amusement) if differences were discussed both prior to and after the act of unfriending.

Equally interesting in this study is that the unfriending is more likely to occur with someone to whom one was once close. Those are the people with whom we are more comfortable engaging in deep conversation. Thus, we are more likely to find areas of severe difference.

More Unfriending To Come

One of the things we learned from the last presidential election is that as political tensions become more severe the number of severed social media relationships go up. There’s no reason to expect this year’s election season to be any different. The candidates themselves are about as polarizing as two people possibly can be. Political sentiment and a deep feeling of frustration have more people talking about the election and its related issues than ever before.

We have some decisions to make. Which is more important to you, maintaining a friendship with someone who is philosophically opposite of you, or holding firm to your position? I suppose, to some extent, that the exact issue on which one disagrees plays into that decision.

Perhaps we take old friendships too seriously. After all, one can’t expect people to stay the same forever. Should we really be surprised when someone 300 miles away decides the online connection is no longer worth the frustration?

At the same time, the answer may lie in being more compassionate with those who don’t see things the way we do. Even though we differ on very serious matters, are they not still our brothers and sisters in the universal sense? Maybe we can find that seed of love within us and share that rather than our differing opinions.

Don’t be bewildered by being unfriended. We are all different people with different experiences. Let each one go their own path. We’ll all have less stress for doing so.

 

Continue Reading

pop culture  /  PotD
Reacting To Reactions
February 25, 2016
charles i. letbetter - reacting to reactions

If you make decisions based upon people’s reactions or judgments then you make really boring choices. —Heath Ledger

 

charles i. letbetter - Reacting to reactions

How we react to others reactions, especially on social media, reveals our character

Almost from the moment Facebook opened participation to everyone on the planet, there was a cry for a “dislike” button to counter the “like” button. After all, not everything people post needs to be liked. Let’s say a pet or a family member dies. We’re not really supposed to “like” that, are we? Yet, pleas for an unlike button have gone unheeded.

Yesterday, the world’s largest social media site introduced “reactions,” a group of emojis that gives one a greater range of options when responding to a post. Guess what: we still don’t have a “dislike” button. Instead, we have love, haha, wow, sad, and angry in addition to the overused like. To access the extra emojis, all one has to do is mouse over the like button on a desktop, or press and hold the like button on a mobile device.

Of course, this is going to cause problems, primarily because a) people don’t pay attention to what they’re doing on social media, and b) people are stupid. Put those  two together and relationship disasters are just waiting. Already, the folks at Mashable released a short list of “How to Use Facebook Reactions Without Pissing Everyone Off.” Unfortunately, their list is short, only five items, and that leaves a tremendous amount of room for error.

So, we would like to offer a slightly more complete list of when one should and shouldn’t use each of the new emojis. You may want to bookmark this page for later reference. Things could get dicey.

First, another look at those famous emojis:

charles i. letbetter - reacting to reactions

When to use “Like”

  • When a friend goes to dinner with their spouse
  • When a friend has a good day
  • When a friend posts a selfie that 147 other people have already liked
  • When a friend posts a recipe that looks good but you’ll probably never actually try
  • When your boss posts to the company profile praising your work

When NOT to use “Like”

  • When a friend goes to dinner with all their friends except you
  • When a friend has a bad day
  • When a friend posts a selfie with your spouse and you didn’t know they even knew each other
  • When your mom posts that one picture from second grade … you know the one.
  • When your boss posts that the company is closing and moving to Mexico

When to use “Love”

  • When a parent, sibling, child, or significant other posts a significant accomplishment
  • When your spouse or significant other posts something gooey and romantic
  • Any baby picture
  • Any picture of small animals playing
  • Pictures of your adult children moving out of the house

When NOT to use “Love”

  • Anytime your ex posts anything. ANYTHING. Not appropriate.
  • When your neighbor gets fined for playing their stupid music too loud at 1:00 AM
  • Any “shared” post that turns out to be a fundraising scam
  • When a politician dies, no matter how much you’re tempted
  • When that kid on whom your child has a crush moves to another city

When to use “Haha”

  • Every time I tell a joke
  • When thieves get what they deserve at the scene of the crime
  • When someone else’s kids do something unexpectedly hilarious
  • Any time cake and face meets
  • When your boss posts a cartoon and it’s not about you

When NOT to use “Haha”

  • When your ex tells a joke and it’s obviously about you
  • When someone gets hurt from doing something really stupid
  • When a politician opens their mouth, despite the temptation
  • When a friend posts something they think is funny but it’s really in bad taste
  • When a rival loses

When to use “Wow”

  • When your favorite team wins at the buzzer
  • Anytime a new world record is set
  • In the event SpaceX actually lands a rocket
  • Every time Niel Degrasse Tyson explains the universe
  • In the unlikely event a politician actually tells the truth

When NOT to use “Wow”

  • When your favorite team loses at the buzzer; not cool
  • Anytime weather rears its ugly head and kills people
  • Every time a politician says something unbelievably stupid (it gets redundant)
  • When someone posts something inappropriately personal
  • When a friend posts a 15-paragraph rant

When to use “Sad”

  • When someone has a death in the family
  • When a friend loses a job
  • When a friend gets dumped by someone they really loved
  • When someone is in an accident
  • Anytime someone posts bad news

When NOT to use “Sad”

  • When an ex or former crush gets married
  • Anytime something good happens to someone you don’t especially like
  • When someone posts a conspiracy theory
  • When someone goes all anti-science or denies obvious fact
  • When a friend’s mom post their bad picture from second grade

When to use “Angry”

  • In the face of obvious injustice
  • When someone hurts one of your family members
  • Anytime someone gets away with a crime
  • When models fail to show up or call
  • When friends are treated unfairly

When NOT to use “Angry”

  • Just because you’re not getting your way, you spoiled little brat
  • Every time someone says something with which you disagree
  • Every time a politician opens his/her mouth (again, redundant)
  • When someone disses you; take the high road
  • When someone tells a joke at your expense and you damn good and well it was funny

There’s going to be some inevitable chaos: Fingers slip and post an unintended reaction, or grandma doesn’t quite understand exactly what the “haha” emoji is. There’s going to be an adjustment period, so we should all be careful to not respond to accidental reactions.

Also, know that when you “love” something, you’re going to see more of it in your newsfeed. Facebook didn’t give you this new tool just to make someone happy.

These new reactions are really a big deal. Use them wisely and carefully, though. The last thing Facebook needs is emoji drama.

Continue Reading