The Armageddon of Free Speech

My latest on American Thinker.

Let's hope Elon Musk at Twitter is prepared for an onslaught from the world's biggest players against freedom of speech.

Just a few days ago, as many will remember, Elon Musk trolled CNN by posting on Twitter a meme with a fake headline attributed to the the cable news network.  The image included a screenshot of anchor Don Lemon next to a stock photo of Musk.  The headline read, "CNN: Elon Musk could threaten free speech on Twitter by literally allowing people to speak freely."  Needless to say, CNN's public relations department quickly posted a screenshot of Musk's tweet, which included a disclaimer saying that the tweet was in violation of Twitter's rules.  In response, Musk brushed off CNN's response, tweeting: "Lmaoooo."  Those are the initials for "laughing my a-- off."

In addition to being funny, the episode was also in some ways incredibly meaningful and emblematic.  In other words, the "fake headline" was not so fake.  On the contrary, it was a brutal and effective synthesis of the way liberals, leftists, and progressives approach the issue of freedom of speech.  They put things less crudely; they are so often sophisticated intellectuals who speak elegantly and like to dance around things instead of getting straight to the point.  But the final result is always the same.  Their reproach for the supporters of freedom of speech — or what they call "free speech absolutists" —  is that "free speech is not simply about saying whatever you want, unchecked, but about negotiating complicated compromises."  According to the critics of Elon Musk, the "rhetoric of free speech absolutists" fails to understand that "for some speech to be free, other speech has to be limited."

It's curious that most of the time, their arguments are self-referential and self-assertive statements and propositions: "Like Trump, Musk has become the tribune of fascists and racists by way of adolescent contrarianism, an insatiable need to flaunt his control and a radicalising inability to cope with being told he's wrong on the internet.  For him, 'free speech' seems merely a vehicle for his delusional plan to make Twitter into a fawning 'digital town square' that he presides over."

Do you remember the medieval ipse dixit argument?  "He (Aristotle) said it himself," serving as a phrase capable of ending arguments.  Now it has become, "We (liberals, progressives, etc) say so."  It's true because we say it's true, and if you don't agree with us, you are a fascist/racist/homophobe, etc., and we don't want your kind here.  It's the contrary — o tempora, o mores! — of the answer Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis gave in 1927 to the question, "When someone says something we disagree with, should we shut them up?"  "The remedy to be applied," he said, "is more speech, not enforced silence." [...]  

Read more: The Armageddon of Free Speech

Ten Essential Guidelines and Tips for Social Media Users Who Put Truth First and Hate Fake News

 

Fed up with the spread of fake news? Well, here are a few survival tips… 

1. First and foremost, what is fake news? There are two kinds of fake news: a) stories that aren’t true, that is entirely invented stories designed to make people believe something false; b) stories that have some truth, but aren’t 100 percent accurate. For example, a journalist or a social media user—whether deliberately or by mistake—quotes only part of what a politician says, giving a false impression of their meaning. 

 
2. Although fake news makes headlines today, it is actually nothing new. But, what is new is how easy it’s become to share information—both true and false—on a massive scale. 

3. Social media platforms allow millions and millions of people to publish their thoughts or share stories with the world. Unfortunately, though, most people don’t check the source of the material that they view online before they share it, which can lead to fake news going viral faster than covid-19. 

4. Before helping to spread fake news, please check whether anyone else has picked up on the story and what other sources say about it. 

5. Please bear in mind that a credible news story generally includes plenty of facts and/or detailed, consistent, and corroborated eye-witness accounts from people on the scene. If this is not the case, be suspicious. 

6. The main reason why fake news is such a big issue is that, in addition to being almost always believable, it is written to create “shock value,” that is, a reaction of sharp disgust, shock, anger, fear, or similar negative emotions. Therefore, a dose of critical thinking will always be needed. 

7. Always be suspicious of the news you want to hear, especially the most spectacular and sensational… 

Last but not least, on behalf of fair play and to maintain a high standard of intellectual honesty, please note that: 

8. Quoting someone’s words without giving credit, especially when done intentionally, is plagiarism and is generally considered unethical. 

9. Attributing a quote to someone without previously checking whether or not he/she actually said what you say he/she did is unethical and unfair. 

10. The same applies to those who report that someone did/said something without mentioning the source and, what is more, without checking the reliability of the source itself. In turn, to a journalist, attribution simply means telling your readers where the information in his/her story comes from…

Why I Won't Delete My Social Media Accounts

A couple of days ago a good Facebook friend of mine asked me my thoughts on a couple of interviews released by Jaron Lanier. An American computer scientist who is considered by many to be one of the central figures in the history of immersive virtual reality, Lanier has now ascended to guru status in tech circles, issuing warnings about a digital world he helped make. In the interviews, like in his latest book—Ten Arguments for Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now (2018)—he talks about Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Google and how the tech and social media giants are using algorithms to record data about their users and to shape how we see the world and what we’re shown online. In particular, he contends that sites like Facebook and Twitter are dopamine farms that are reprogramming how you think and feel. He says they’re also causing political instability, and are changing the global economy for the worse.

At first, I thought I could write down a quick reply in the comment section, but then again I thought that the matter is too serious to be taken lightly, I mean I didn’t want to get off lightly. Therefore I realized it was worth writing a blog post at least. And here I am. Let me first say that I’m no expert on the subject here, even though last year, intrigued by a couple of reviews, I had a quick read of the above-mentioned book. (I also had the opportunity to read something about James Williams, yet another guru of computer science, a former Google product strategist who became a philosopher at the University of Oxford and whose research addresses the philosophy and ethics of attention and persuasion—in harsh opposition to the giant of the I-tech and on the same wavelength with Lanier, he argues that digital technologies privilege our impulses over our intentions, and are gradually diminishing our ability to engage with the issues we most care about.)

But let’s now get into some of the most fundamental and relevant concepts of Lanier’s thought. Take for instance the well-known concept of random reinforcement—addiction fed not by reward but by never knowing whether or when the reward will come. Well, Lanier puts it like this:

When the algorithm is feeding experiences to a person, it turns out that the randomness that lubricates algorithmic adaptation can also feed human addiction. The algorithm is trying to capture the perfect parameters for manipulating a brain, while the brain, in order to seek out deeper meaning, is changing in response to the algorithm’s experiments; it’s a cat-and-mouse game based on pure math. Because the stimuli from the algorithm don’t mean anything, because they genuinely are random, the brain isn’t responding to anything real, but to a fiction. That process—of becoming hooked on an elusive mirage—is addiction. As the algorithm tries to escape a rut, the human mind becomes stuck in one.

Roughly speaking, the reasons for freeing ourselves from social media include their tendency to trick us with illusions of popularity and success, to spend too much time isolating ourselves and disconnecting from the real world in order to maintain the perception of being connected, to twist our relationship with the truth, to rob us of our free will with relentless targeted ads, and to make politics terrifying. In other words, they bring out the worst in us. More specifically, here are “the ten arguments for deleting your social media accounts right now” (and the titles of the chapters of the book) in a nutshell:

1. You are losing your free will. Social media has become a space where everyone is posting for likes and comments…

• Sean Parker, first president of Facebook: “We need to sort of give you a little dopamine hit every once in a while, because someone liked or commented on a photo or a post or whatever....It’s a social-validation feedback loop... exactly the kind of thing that a hacker like myself would come up with, because you’re exploiting a vulnerability in human psychology....The inventors, creators -- it’s me, it’s Mark [Zuckerberg], it’s Kevin Systrom on Instagram, it’s all of these people -- understood this consciously. And we did it anyway...it literally changes your relationship with society, with each other...It probably interferes with productivity in weird ways. God only knows what it’s doing to our children’s brains.”
• Chamath Palihapitiya, former vice president of user growth at Facebook: “The short-term, dopamine-driven feedback loops we’ve created are destroying how society works.... No civil discourse, no cooperation; misinformation, mistruth. And it’s not an American problem -- this is not about Russian ads. This is a global problem... I feel tremendous guilt. I think we all knew in the back of our minds—even though we feigned this whole line of, like, there probably aren’t any bad unintended consequences. I think in the back, deep, deep recesses of, we kind of knew something bad could happen...So we are in a really bad state of affairs right now, in my opinion. It is eroding the core foundation of how people behave by and between each other. And I don’t have a good solution. My solution is I just don’t use these tools anymore. I haven’t for years.”

2. Quitting social media is the most finely targeted way to resist the insanity of our times. In this chapter, Lanier introduces an acronym under which all social media’s ills can be umbrellaed: “BUMMER” or “Behaviors of Users Modified, and Made into an Empire for Rent.” The Bummer machine is made up of six parts, indexed by the following mnemonic: A for Attention Acquisition leading to Asshole supremacy; B for Butting into everyone’s lives; C for Cramming content down people’s throats; D for Directing people’s behaviours in the sneakiest way possible; E for Earning money from letting the worst assholes secretly screw with everyone else; and F for Fake mobs and Faker society.
3. Social media is making you into an asshole. Meeting your inner troll, etc. This might be one of the most compelling reasons for either quitting or never joining social media.
4. Social media is undermining truth. Myths and lies spread across the internet like wildfire…
5. Social media is making what you say meaningless. Because it strips it of context.
6. Social media is destroying your capacity for empathy. “If you don’t see the dark ads, the ambient whispers, the cold-hearted memes and the ridicule-filled customized feed that someone else sees, that person will just seem crazy to you. And that is our new Bummer world. We seem crazy to each other because Bummer is robbing us of our theories of one another’s minds.” Hence the explosion of nastiness, a great blossoming of “assholes.”
7. Social media is making you unhappy. The author states that due to targeted advertisements, if you look up something unhappy you will start seeing ads similar to that search and will create an even greater sense of sadness…
8. Social media doesn’t want you to have economic dignity. The reason BUMMER is a huge issue is because the internet is free. Lanier thinks that if each user pays a small fee, advertisers will not be targeting audiences and people can live in greater harmony online…
9. Social media is making politics impossible. “There are so few independent news sites, and they’re precious … Our huge nation is only a few organizations away from having no independent newsrooms with resources and clout.“ But above all, BUMMER may have no party affiliation but, as stated before, is pro-asshole.
10. Social media hates your soul. A couple of quotes:

• “Usually Google has had a way of coming up with the creepier statements, but Facebook has pulled ahead: A recent revision in its statement of purpose includes directives like assuring that ‘every single person has a sense of purpose and community’. A single company is going to see to it that every single person has a purpose, because it presumes that was lacking before. If that is not a new religion, I don’t know what is.”
• “When you use BUMMER, you implicitly accept a new spiritual framework. It is like the EULA agreement—the user agreement—that you clicked “OK” on without reading. You have agreed to change something intimate about your relationship with your soul. If you use BUMMER, you have probably, to some degree, statistically speaking, effectively renounced what you might think is your religion, even if that religion is atheism. You have been inducted into a new spiritual framework.”

What shall I say about this book? Well, if I’m being honest, ever since I read Ten Arguments for Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now the first definition that comes to my mind when I think of Lanier is exaggerated. Don’t get me wrong, I think the book is interesting and thought-provoking. Maybe nothing really new—these or similar ideas have been debated for some years now—but a good summary and exploration of the big personal and broader societal problems associated with social media. Despite his critical approach to the whole social media thing, however, Lanier has not lost hope. Speaking in general terms, that is, without specific reference to social networks, he thinks that “we can definitely make better interaction devices than we have.” As he told Wired in 2017, “there are lots of displays and sensors yet to be built. There’s so much to improve. But I love that. […] We’re in a perilous time. But I really believe in the human capacity for increased creativity and intelligence and wisdom, and I think if we present the tech in such a way that people have an ability to really see it and master it, they’ll rise to the occasion.”

As for social networks, he argues that If users rebel, Facebook, Twitter, etc. have an incentive to change for the better. “Whoever you are,” he explains in the book, “I hope you have options to explore what your life might be, especially if you are young. You need to make sure your own brain, and your own life, isn’t in a rut. Maybe you can go explore wilderness or learn a new skill. Take risks. But whatever form your self-exploration takes, do at least one thing: detach from the behavior-modification empires for a while—six months, say? Note that I didn’t name this book Arguments for Deleting Your Social media Accounts Right Now and Keeping Them Deleted Forever. After you experiment, you’ll know yourself better. Then decide.”

Put down this way, it would seem a rather moderate and balanced approach. But this is only one side of the story. The other is the depiction of a dark future and an even worse future based on the systematic amplification and exaggeration of issues that are real but not that dramatic. To say nothing about the contradiction in which the author finds himself: he explains how social media is making America tribal, but at the same time he goes out of his way to add extraneous content attacking Republicans. He attacks president Trump for his alleged addiction to tweeting, while ignoring those who gang up on him using bot networks and troll factories. Unfortunately, the obsession with politics turns an otherwise interesting book into a partisan attack. He starts his book nicely—with a metaphor comparing cats and dogs to social media users to show a divide between those who use social media and those who don’t—and he ends up just another unashamedly biased political commentator.

In any case, if we were to follow what seems to be the logic of his reasoning, we should also stop reading books and newspapers, watching television, using email, etc. In reality, every progress brings with it negative side effects, new challenges but also new opportunities. Every innovation carries both advantages and unpredictability, both desired and unintended collateral effects. Social media is just a tool, and like most tools, it can be used well or horribly or anywhere in between. It is not social media that “makes politics impossible,” nor is it politics that makes social media awful. Both social media and politics are tools. Paraphrasing the NRA saying (“It’s not guns that kill people it’s people that kill people”), it’s not social media that makes people into assh*les, it’s assh*les that make social media a sh*tty place.

Fake News: An Emblematic Case

Ok, fake news is nothing new, we all know that. But we also know that today the amount of misinformation that is spread on the web is staggering. Bogus stories can reach more people more quickly via social networks and websites than what good old-fashioned viral emails could accomplish in years past. The hot topics for such misinformation, especially in the U.S., are politics, government policies, religion and various scams and hoaxes.

That’s why “fact-check” websites such as Snopes.com, FactCheck.org, Hoax-Slayer.com, etc., have taken up the task of spreading awareness against rumors by presenting evidence and hard facts. In other words, they monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews and news releases. As in the case of FactCheck.org, for instance, their goal is —in their own words—to be “a nonpartisan, nonprofit consumer advocate for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics” by applying the best practices of both journalism and scholarship and thus increasing public knowledge and understanding. Arguably this does not apply in the same degree to all of them, but that's roughly how they like to present themselves to the public.

With that being said as an introduction, let me relate a personal experience which is both significant and emblematic. A few days ago, last Friday to be precise, YourNewsWire—a news website I didn’t know existed until then—published an article asserting that Sebastian Kurz, the newly-elected Austrian Chancellor, has informed George Soros, the speculator turned philanthropist, that his Open Society Foundation has 28 days to cease and desist operations in Austria or face legal action for “attempting to undermine the democracy of the nation.” According to the above mentioned source, 31-year-old Sebastian Kurz, Austria’s youngest ever leader, has told colleagues that action must be taken immediately, after news broke that George Soros has donated $18 billion of his $24 billion dollar fortune to his Open Society Foundation.

Needless to say, this is the kind of news I like to read & share! That’s why, at first, I couldn’t hold back my virtual tears of joy and appreciation… but after a few moments I took back control of my emotions. “Ok, let’s check it out and get some more information first,” I said to myself. In fact, rule number one is: ensure that the story is written by a source that you trust, with a reputation for accuracy, and if the story comes from an unfamiliar organization, then check their “About” section to learn more. That’s exactly what I wanted to do, but couldn’t, in fact there’s no “About” section on the site. But I didn’t give up. As a second step I searched the Web in multiple languages, far and wide, high and low—the golden rule being that if no other news source is reporting the same story, it may indicate that the story is false, while if the story is reported by multiple sources you trust, it’s more likely to be true—but didn’t find a thing. Nothing, except a couple of other websites, both of them quoting YourNewsWire as their only source. Which is very strange in the face of an objectively relevant event, without ifs and buts—of course, provided that it really happened.. But in return I found a website called Media Matters for America claiming that “Fake news purveyor YourNewsWire is pushing a false narrative on its site and affiliated Facebook-verified page asserting that Sebastian Kurz has banned George Soros’s foundations from Austria..” As a consequence, I searched the Web in order to find more info about whether YourNewsWire is a fake news website or not. The result of the investigation was that it is highly probable that things are the way Media Matters says they are.

At the same time, I learned that, according to Breitbart News Network, Media Matters for America is… a George Soros-funded progressive activist organization! Now, what are we to make of that? What are we to think? Well, I personally think that the news about Sebastian Kurz’s decision regarding George Soros’ Open Society Foundation is most likely fake, and this not only and not so much because of what YourNewsWire is, or seems to be, but rather because of the lack of objective evidence and/or of other sources attesting to the facts asserted in the story. In other words, because the whole thing is self-referential. Paradoxically, even if the story were proved true, YourNewsWire’s reputation would continue to remain very low.

PS Fake News: What's the best way to deal with it? Here are a number of suggestions for further reading:

1. How to Spot Fake News
   
2. 10 Ways to Spot a Fake News Story
   
3. What is fake news? How to spot it and what you can do to stop it
   
4. 'Fake news': What's the best way to tame the beast?
   

UPDATE, October 27, 2017: Did Austria's Sebastian Kurz ban George Soros' organization? That's fake news

...The fake story goes on to quote Kurz describing Soros as "a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming his blood funnel into anything that smells like money" — language identical to a 2010 Rolling Stone piece about Goldman Sachs by Matt Taibbi.
Besides Soros’ massive donation and Kurz’s young leader status (he’s 31), this story is complete bogus.
Open Society Foundations, an organization with efforts in different countries all over the world, has no offices in Austria — and therefore nothing to "cease and desist."
We couldn’t find any record of Kurz describing Soros in that light or commenting on OSF.

UPDATE, November 3, 2017: I just came across yet another fake news by YourNewsWire. This time they reported that Hollywood icon Morgan Freeman stated that the best way to restore public faith in government institutions is to “send Hillary to prison“ and that unless the former First Lady’s crimes are seen to be punished, “everyday Americans will forever know, deep down, that there is one law for those with money and power, and another for the rest of us.” And this is what Snopes.com has to say about the article:

This is not a genuine quote from Morgan Freeman; YourNewsWire.com is a particularly vicious fake news blog that has a long history of publishing corrosive misinformation. The site claims that the actor made this comment while promoting his new documentary series “The Story of Us” during an event in New York, but, naturally, provided no video from the event containing Morgan’s alleged remarks, as none exists.
Furthermore, the “Story of Us” premiere was held on 28 September 2017, more than a month before Your News Wire published this article. It is possible that Freeman held additional promotional events (although it would be odd for the press tour to continue long after the premiere), but we could not find any news articles regarding a promotional event in New York for the series near this article’s publication date.
It is also unlikely that Freeman would ever suggest the idea that President Donald Trump should imprison Hillary Clinton. The actor openly supported of the Democratic candidate and even narrated several political ads for Clinton.

UPDATE, November 9, 2017: I just became aware of a May 16, 2016 tweet from Glenn Beck’s Twitter account in which he made reference to a position statement by the American College of Pediatricians on so-called gender identity disorder, or gender dysphoria (see also the talk show host’s website). The statement—which is still on the organization’s website—is prefaced with the following: “The American College of Pediatricians urges educators and legislators to reject all policies that condition children to accept as normal a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex. Facts—not ideology—determine reality.” Addressing parents giving children dangerous puberty blockers to impersonate the opposite sex, the statement explains that this practice requires cross-sex hormones into late adolescence, which are associated with health risks like high blood pressure, blood clots, strokes and cancer. In addition, the American College of Pediatricians makes it clear that “as many as 98% of gender confused boys and 88% of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty.” But what is perhaps the most striking part of the statement is that it claims that “conditioning children into believing a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse.”

That being said, and given the authenticity of the document itself, what is wrong with Glenn Beck’s tweet? What does that have to do with the subject at hand? He reported a true story! Well, let’s say that what we have here is something quite different—but not entirely unrelated—from what we mean when we use the expression “fake news.” What we are dealing with in this case is basically a misunderstanding due to and/or leading to misinformation or disinformation. In fact, as Snopes.com pointed out, “Beck’s tweet led many viewers to believe that the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) had taken that stance on childhood gender dysphoria, but the tweet linked to an article containing quotes from the American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) not the AAP.” In reality, the American College of Pediatricians and the American Academy of Pediatrics are vastly different entities: the former is a very small group—with an estimated membership of between 60 and 200 pediatricians—formed relatively recently in response to political disagreements over same-sex parenting, while about 64,000 such physicians are aligned with the AAP.

Now, to bring all this to a conclusion, once again I’m forced to acknowledge that the way I would like things to be is not the way things actually are. The truth is more important than what we want to believe.

UPDATE, January 13, 2019:

“It’s as though all the major media organizations read from the same playbook…” Thus reads a thought-provoking article in the online January 12 issue of The American Thinker focusing on fact-checking, “the latest trick” the mainstream media have pulled out of their hat to further their primary job, which is no longer telling readers and viewers the who, what, where, when, and why, because it has become telling the audience what to think, after filtering the news story through layers of bias and activism. Hence “fact-checking” President Trump in “real time” has become its own exhausting endeavor for mainstream reporters and media outlets. But, as the author rightly notes, “Who fact-check the fact-checkers?” And what happens when even fact-checking is fake news? Also, why the hell are we supposed to believe CNN or MSNBC and their supposed fact-checkers? These are the same media organizations that ignored the blatant lies about the Benghazi video or “hands up, don’t shoot.” They refused to fact-check “if you like your insurance and doctor, you can keep them.” They doctored George Zimmerman’s 911 call to make him sound like a racist. And why is President Trump the only person worthy of big media fact-checking? What about the numerous members of Congress or other Deep State operatives who spout off about Trump being a Nazi or a traitor?
But let’s look at the very clear examples of dishonest fact-checking the author uses to illustrate his point:

CNN tweeted after Trump’s address, “Fact check: President Trump misleadingly claims drugs will kill more Americans than the Vietnam War.” Time to fact-check the fact-checkers. According to the National Archives, there were “58,220 US military fatal casualties of the Vietnam War.” The Centers for Disease Control reports approximately 70,000 deaths in 2017 in the U.S. from drug overdoses. The Vietnam War is said to have lasted from 1955 to 1975, or 20 years. This translates to an annualized 3,000 deaths per year in Vietnam, less than 5 percent of the number of drug overdose deaths per year. Who is misleading? Obviously, CNN reporters are unable to perform simple research or do basic arithmetic.
If the fact-checkers can’t catch Trump lying, as they hope to do, they will claim he is “misleading.” The Washington Post actually published this on its website: “266,000 aliens arrested in the past two years: The number is right but misleading.” Wow—Trump was actually right. Imagine that.
The Washington Post’s beef is that “[t]he quarter million arrests cover all types of offenses, including illegal entry or reentry.” So what? Trump said “aliens arrested.” He didn’t specify why they were arrested. How is that misleading?
Is not “illegal entry or reentry” a crime? Shouldn’t those who commit such crimes be arrested and deported? Perhaps if such crimes were handled according to the rule of law, Kate Steinle and Officer Ronil Singh would still be with their families.
When “misleading” doesn’t cut it for the fact-checkers, they step in a big steaming pile of fake news, inadvertently making Trump's case for him. Here are two examples of this.
When President Trump claimed that one in three women are sexually assaulted on their trek through Mexico, CBS, rather than saying Trump was overstating and exaggerating, instead confirmed what he said, and then some. They cited Amnesty International data showing that 60 to 80 percent of women were being raped, bolstering Trump’s assertion.
CBS removed its tweet, as it was counterproductive to their fact-checking mission, but the internet remembers. Trump was right, and in their zeal to catch him in a fib, CBS actually confirmed the veracity of his claim.

Lastly, everyone’s favorite CNN stooge, Jim Acosta, stepped in it bigly on the southern border ahead of the president’s visit. He tweeted a video of himself standing in front of a border wall in McAllen, Texas consisting of steel slats and noting that the “community is quite safe.”
Poor Jim isn't smart enough to draw the obvious conclusion: that having a border wall makes America safer. Even a wall that doesn’t “run the entire length of the border” is still a deterrent to illegal crossings
and the associated crime. In other words, the wall is working – just as it’s supposed to and as Trump asserts. The smartest “resistance reporter” in the room unintentionally made Trump’s case.
He also neglected to mention that the area where he was walking was obviously safe and secure ahead of the president’s visit. Or that mischief and mayhem tend to occur under the cover of darkness, not in the middle of the day when he made his stroll.
If he wanted to report honestly, he would pitch a tent where there is no fence or wall and live there for a week. Then he can decide if things are “quite safe.”
The smuggest reporter of all doesn’t realize he isn’t as smart as he thinks he is and is truly “a smartass,” as White House adviser Kellyanne Conway noted.

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

Facebook Friends Lists

Recently a friend wrote in her timeline, “Evidently I've been talking to myself since Christmas. All my FB posts were privacy set to ‘Only me.’” That did automatically ring a bell for me, because something similar happened to me as well in the past—I don’t want to be too specific on that… Actually, it was frustrating and comic at the same time.

Nevertheless, such events have the power to bring attention to the wide range of opportunities Facebook offers us : you can decide—either once and for all or on a case-by-case basis—who (and where and when) can see your posts: Public, Friends, Friends of Friends, Only me, Custom (lists of friends, etc). Most users have their Facebook privacy set to Friends only or Friends of friends. As a rule I personally prefer the “Public” option, but from time to time and for specific purposes I may make exceptions—most of the times for reasons of respect and elegance.

However, and apart from specific preferences, what matters most is to make the best out of one’s Facebook account. For this purpose here are some suggestions and tips.

• How to Artfully Cull Your Facebook Friends List
• How To Manage Your Facebook Relationships With Friend Lists
• How to Create a Custom Facebook Friend List
• Facebook Friends List Can Help Control Your News Feed
• How to Hide Your Facebook Friends List

An Open Letter to My Social Media Friends

Dear Social Media Friends,
A few notes on my birthday, which occurred just yesterday. First, let me say a huge thank you to all of you that have been kind enough to stop by at my Facebook page and other social media, and leave your birthday wishes! All included—Facebook (timeline and chat), Twitter, LinkedIn, etc.—I received as many as several hundreds of birthday wishes from almost all over the world, especially from the United States of America, the UK, and the European Union. Let me just let you know that I appreciated each and every one of them and that I’m both grateful to you for your friendship and happy for the wonderful opportunities the new information and communication technologies offer to us. Especially for people of my generation, the state of the art of the ICT—which I consider a true blessing and a gift from God—is a continuous source of wonder and excitement.

However, I must say that what amazes me most about yesterday, is that my presence in the social media, and on the Internet in general, is not of the common kind, my most frequent posts being about political, philosophical and cultural issues: a bit boring for a lot of people, I’m afraid. At the same time I cannot but congratulate myself for choosing the right people to be friends with!

Of course, as always happens, birthdays are a great, if not unique, opportunity to unfriend and be unfriended... this time they were half a dozen, in addition to those—at least another half a dozen people—who have unfriended me in the last few weeks. But I don’t complain about that: I knew that supporting Donald Trump would have some consequences. Well, in a sense, I am grateful to them: I have never unfriended anyone on Facebook for political reasons, and never will, that’s contrary to my beliefs, but perhaps they were right in doing so. In other words, as we say in Italy, they pulled my chestnuts out of the fire.

Also, ever since I started supporting Trump things have cooled down with some of my best friends. No surprise at all, but then again every choice has a cost. I’m sorry about that, but I did what I had to do, and I’m proud about that. Do what is right, not what is easy. That’s integrity, I presume, or at least as much integrity as possible.

By the way, I want to point out one thing about the recent presidential election: Hillary was absolutely right when, in the immediate aftermath of her defeat, she said, “I want you to remember this: our campaign was never about one person or even one election…” That’s perhaps exactly the reason why so many people in America and around the world (including me) have spent their time and energies in fighting against her, her supporters, and what they stand for—the “values” they share, and the vision they hold—with all means at their disposition. The lesson is: whenever and wherever it’s needed, we’ll be there. 😏

That being said, thanks again, dear Friends, the special ones—those whom I have a certain degree of intellectual and/or spiritual affinity with—and all the others, which I deeply respect and appreciate. And may God continue to bless you and keep you in His loving hands forever.

My Newly Redesigned Website Is Up!

Dear readers,

I’m very pleased to announce that my newly redesigned website, www.srpiccoli.eu (also www.aninfiniteidea.org), is now up and running! Any feedback is welcome and really appreciated!

The purpose of my new website is to provide general information about myself, my interests and background, as well as details about my books, including extracts, reviews, interviews, and more.

There you will also find a page of favorite quotations—some 120 at the moment, but the number is expected to rapidly increase—along with an introductory note titled “Why Quotations Matter.” Another page is that devoted to Web resources. Both of them, in my humble opinion, may contribute significantly to a better understanding of myself, even though they are first and foremost tools I use regularly to explore and catalogue my passions and interests.

I hope I did my best to help readers find what they may be looking for. Otherwise, please let me know. Paraphrasing a famous quote by Ralph Waldo Emerson, everything in life is an experiment. Therefore, the more you experiment, the more you fail, the more you learn. And the more you learn, the more you realize how little you know, and how much more there is to know and to learn, and how much better you can get if you really work at it. But I'm getting slightly off topic here... so let's get back on track! I'd just let you know that I really appreciate any and all feedback, positive, negative, humorous, or whatever.

I'll be waiting for you at the door. See you soon!

Et Tu, Google? (A Little Help for Blogspot/Blogger Users)

And so Google, the owner of Blogspot/Blogger, has crossed the Rubicon of good manners by deciding to play a nasty trick—to say it as politely as possible—on bloggers outside the United States: now if you click on windrosehotel.blogspot.com (and any other blogspot.com blog) from your non-U.S. country, instead of the blogspot.com domain extension, you will see your country specific domain extensions. In the last few days, this change had been rolled out in India only, but over the last weekend the practice seems to have become general. This redirection is called “country-code Top Level Domain” (ccTLD).

Why are they doing this? This is how they themselves explain their decision:

We are doing this to provide more support for managing content locally. If we receive a removal request that violates local law, that content may no longer be available to readers on local domains where those laws apply. This update is in line with our approach to free expression and controversial content, which hasn’t changed.

Of course, there are immediate and unpleasant consequences of this “amazing trick,” such as the fact that, in Google’s own words,

After this change, crawlers will find Blogspot content on many different domains. Hosting duplicate content on different domains can affect search results. We are making every effort to minimize any negative consequences of hosting Blogspot content on multiple domains.

Did you get it? If we receive a removal request… Et tu, Google? Well, perhaps this is what the future holds for us. Be it as it may, a fix must be found for this… and I actually found it by surfing the net. To disable the “country-code Top Level Domain” you simply need to add a little code to your blog template. Just follow six simple steps… Believe me, it works perfectly!

Stop SOPA & PIPA

Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could fatally damage the free and open Internet. The two bills in question are known as the Protect IP Act, PIPA, in the Senate (“IP” stands for “intellectual property”), and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), in the House.

Both SOPA and PIPA would censor the Web and impose harmful regulations on American business. To raise awareness about this harmful legislation, the English Wikipedia, along with a dozen other major websites (including Google, Wordpress, Reddit, and Moveon) are protesting the PIPA/SOPA legislation by either completely blacking out their sites for 24 hours or by modifying their front pages. Read here to learn more. In my view, a very worthy cause to support. Needless to say, please spread the word!

Not Just the Daily Grind: Today’s Must Reads (or so) - Sept. 24, 2011

1. The burning question of Martin Luther must once more become our question too -
   The pope to the Evangelical Church of Germany. Ecumenism stands or falls on the question of God and of evil. The twofold challenge of "evangelical" Protestantism and of secularization. How to revive the faith without watering it down. (Also sprach der Papst von Rom - 2)
2. Slipping into darkness - How much longer can Silvio Berlusconi go on? (Good question!)
3. The Weakness Behind Sarkozy's European Vision - French President Nicolas Sarkozy has a vision for Europe, one which involves increased solidarity to save the euro zone. His attempts to convince Chancellor Angela Merkel are hiding his own country's weaknesses. Some are concerned that Germany may soon stand alone. (Might be not a bad idea) 
4. Facebook announces redesigned profile pages, introduces Timeline at f8 conference -
   Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced major changes in Facebook’s profile pages, introducing a Timeline that will replace the old user page layout. In addition: Video - Mark Zuckerberg unveils Facebook Timeline. (I'm kinda fed up with facebook right now...)
5. There's a Judge in Berlin. And He Wants King Solomon Back - After Regensburg in 2006 and Paris in 2008, the third grand lecture of this pontificate. Pope Benedict holds it in the German capital, and in heart of its political system. Citing Saint Augustine: "Without justice what else is the state but a great band of robbers?" (Also sprach der Papst von Rom - 1)
   
   
   

Google convicted: it was the profit's fault

“Judge Magi’s full judgment will make for interesting reading once it’s published,” someone said after (at the end of last February) three Google executives were convicted by the court of Milan for failing to prevent publication on the search engine of a video—posted in 2006 on Google Video, a now-defunct service that Google ran before it bought YouTube—that showed an autistic boy being bullied by four students at a Turin school. Well, now judge Oscar Magi has spoken (see also here). In a 111-page court document released on Monday (pdf, in Italian), he claims that what prompted his verdict were “attempts to profit” from the video on the part of Google. In other words, the reason Google didn’t remove the video was that the Internet giant wanted to sell ads on the video.

The judge said that the Internet was not an “unlimited prairie where everything is permitted and nothing can be prohibited.” He didn’t say, however, that Google had to monitor all the content uploaded to its platforms, but suggested that Google could be more vigilant, and that it had an obligation to make European privacy policies clear to third-party users of its platforms. “In simple words,” said Alfredo Robledo, one of the prosecutors, quoting a passage in Judge Magi’s ruling, “it is not the writing on the wall that constitutes a crime for the owner of the wall, but its commercial exploitation can.”

Google, in turn, said in a statement that it was studying the decision, but…

as we said when the verdict was announced, this conviction attacks the very principles of freedom on which the Internet is built. If these principles are swept aside, then the Web as we know it will cease to exist, and many of the economic, social, political and technological benefits it brings could disappear. These are important points of principle, which is why we and our employees will vigorously appeal this decision.

Along with defenders of Internet freedom worldwide and many Internet experts, I couldn’t agree more with this. For instance, as the NYT reports, according to Juan Carlos de Martin, the founder of the Nexa Center at the Polytechnic University in Turin, which studies Internet use in Italy, the judge’s reasoning would throw a lot of organizations and institutions into legal limbo as they awaited a final ruling on the case by Italy’s highest court, which could take years. “The legal uncertainty could discourage business and social initiatives; no one wants to be criminalized because of what they host online,” he said. But one does not need to be an Internet expert, nor a genius (I’m afraid, however, that this is not the case with the Milan judges, if I may say so), to predict what will almost inevitably happen.

Oscar Magi is the same judge who last November sentenced (in absentia) 23 American citizens to up to eight years in prison for their part in the secret abduction of a Muslim cleric in 2003 and his rendition for questioning in Egypt, where he was imprisoned and tortured.

Italy vs Google - 2 (Is it still Berlusconi's fault?)

Seattle Times editorial page editor Ryan Blethen on “the already puzzling case” of Google versus Italy (see my previous post for details):

The cynic in me wonders if Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi left fingerprints on the case. He owns nearly all of the country’s private media and as prime minister influences Italy’s public media. Berlusconi’s critics worry that he is pushing for greater control of the media by clamping down on the Internet.

In other words Mr Blethen suspects that Berlusconi put pressure on the Milan Public Prosecutor’s Office and judges in order to have the three Google execs convicted.

Well, the Good Samaritan in me wonders if Ryan Blethen needs to be taken care of, to be nurtured with good thoughts and fine feelings, and above all with accurate information, to acquire a better knowledge and understanding of what he is talking about. In fact, he seems to know very little about Italy (life, Institutions, politics, recent history, etc.). He seems to ignore that Milan prosecutors are as much in love with Silvio, and have as good an opinion of him, as the devil loves the holy water and the hanged the rope…

But then again, perhaps Mr Blethen is better informed than it seems at first glance. Perhaps the truth is that he is just doing his job, which may sometimes require some “flexibility” in dealing with facts, opinions and personal beliefs. Of course I am not saying that he is trying to “rig the game” (not at all!), because I am sure he is “an honourable man,” as well as Rachel Donadio of the New York Times and Tasha Kheiriddin of National Post are “honourable women”—if I may quote my favorite playwright.

After all, we must bear in mind that journalists and newspapers have the right to pursue and advocate their political preferences (provided they don’t claim to be “objective,” ça va sans dire…). And Mr Blethen is no exception: being a left-winger—he is “a strong supporter of all of the finest liberal causes, including gay marriage, a larger and more powerful government and ending global warming and climate change immediately,” as one of his critics wrote in a comment here—he has the right to fight the right-wing Prime minister of Italy.

In any case, nothing to do with the truth. Freely paraphrasing another of my favorite playwrights, “Right you are if you say you are.”

Twitter's the fastest-growing social-networking service

Twitter “is growing really, really, really, really fast,” according to Nielsen. A new survey about the five fastest growing “member community destinations” in the U.S. reveals that Twitter is at the top: from February 2008 to February 2009, it clocked in at a whopping 1,382 percent growth rate …