The Sinister Facebook Farce

thanks for watching so we dont have to!

Good article. I, too, thought that video was ridiculous.

Nebulizer,

Your hapless half-researched work deserves rebuke. Considering your rant on the "liberal media's" alleged failures to fact-check ("Liberal Media Strikes Again"), I'm sure you would appreciate being held to a higher standard yourself. Had you done your homework, you'd have found that Vishal did not craft the argument in the video. Rather, that honor belongs to me, Josh Smith, when I authored a blog post in June, 2005 entitled "Big Brother, Big Facebook: Your Orwellian Community." Vishal, then unknown to me, had read the post and decided to publicize it by turning it into a video. I later discovered the video, met Vishal, and remain friends with him today.

This silly rant wouldn't be so terrible were it not for the fact that the post shows up as a top Google result for Vishal's name. Luckily any prospective employer who actually knows how to Google can quickly discover that Vishal is not a "she" (how much research did you even do?). And they would rest assured knowing that he is not some "ne'er-do-well," but, rather, one of the hardworking designers of Grooveshark and TinySong. By all means, have fun making half-reasoned arguments when responding to others' work. But please, don't impugn on someone else's character when you haven't even taken the time to find out who they are.

Now let's turn to the seemingly substantive portions of your post. Your criticism fails horribly upon close evaluation. Not only did you not, again, research basic facts, but you display an ignorance about public events that is distressing to find, even in a soapbox intellectual. First, your lack of research deflates your ultimate claim, that the argument was "sensational BS." Go and search for the original article. You'll soon understand that the privacy policy referenced was the one that existed in June, 2005, while you quote the privacy policy as it stood at the time of your post. There are major differences between those two policies, largely due to increased scrutiny of those very policies, which several times led to outcries from the Facebook community itself. Even just a tiny little bit of research would have left you far more informed.

Once we get past the bulk of your claim, you continue to make error after error in your research and analysis. Your defense of Thiel's character is odd considering your own character assassination, but I'll indulge you. Yes, a man may have, on the whole, a good moral character. Thiel's philanthropy is much appreciated by me. But he is also capable of moral flaws. His book, "The Diversity Myth," is strangely anti-libertarian and very right-wing. TheVanguard (formerly Vanguard PAC) is, in fact, a "radical conservative group." "'It is also startling to me that one of TheVanguard's advisers is Jack Wheeler, best known as an unofficial liaison to groups seeking to overthrow governments opposed by the Reagan White House, notably in Nicaragua, Mozambique, Afghanistan and Angola,' [Richard] Clarkson said." How else would you describe such an organization? This kind of muddling of facts continues on into the rest of the post.

Finally, we get to the point of your long-winded rant. "This doesn't really bother me." What doesn't? Unconstitutional actions by your government? Of course, you seem to be entirely ignorant about prior abuses of such power: "Any of these organizations has the capacity to do some pretty fantastically scary things (some more than others), but I sincerely doubt they actually are. Too much risk for not enough reward for too many of the involved parties." Apparently it has not been too much risk. Need I really refer you to the work that telecommunications companies have done in aiding illegal wiretapping? I hope not. Remember, some conspiracies are not just theories.

I believe in an open society. I believe we should ask questions of our government, and ask for clarifications of contracts from private businesses, as with Facebook's privacy policy. None of this means that Facebook was doing anything sinister. And that doesn't mean that they're not. Still, I continue to have a Facebook account (as does Vishal) in the steadfast belief that an open society demands openness from everyone. Paranoia on my part does nothing but weaken an open society.

Meanwhile, your post has done little to advance any cause. Rather, you've only made some weak arguments – no impressive feat on the internet) – and have half-wittingly engaged in dim-witted slander. You should seriously consider keeping your opinions to yourself, lest you risk becoming a ne'er-do-well.

The weak thing about Nebulizer's article is, that it does not have any substantial content really, except saying he "doesn't believe anything sinister" about Facebook. I think the fact alone that the founders of Facebook have these connections and have worked for the mentioned organizations, is alarming enough. And Nebulizer does not make anything better by saying "the CIA is good". It's not. But I leave it to anybody's own evaluation, what to think of it. I want to say something about the argument, that conspiracies are supposedly impossible, because "too many people" would have to be involved to keep the secret. I have heard this argument in many discussions now and then and it doesn't become any truer by repetition. In fact, if this was true, no company, developing marketing strategies f.i., no agency collecting classified information, no army planning battles, no group of people of any kind planning a project, that would fail, if the informations about it would leak into public prior to its execution, could work at all. The opposite is the case. It is entirely possible to keep secrets with many people for a long time. What about the "Manhattan Project"? The development of the first nuclear bomb was a top classified enterprise, successfully keeping its secret for many years. Same goes for the development of the Stealth bomber in the 80s, or think of the first satellite the Russians sent into space and totally taking American intelligence by surprise. Not possible? You cannot even say what's possible, until you design a detailed scheme of the actual conspiracy you are talking about. Only then you can really know how many people would be involved, how many would need to have informations about the whole plot, and how many just would work for that project without knowing the entire plot. So this entire argument is really pointless when you look at it. Just wanted to mention this.

The CIA is evil. DARPA is evil. The IAO is evil.

The CIA is evil. DARPA is evil. The IAO is evil.

...but you display an ignorance about public events that is distressing to find, even in a soapbox intellectual.

This is one of the most deliciously, magnificently condescending remarks I have ever read on Newsvine.

I mean that as a compliment -- this one's a keeper.

I followed a link from Craigslist and saw this video. I didn't think it implied a threat of identity theft at all, but it did suggest something I find even more disturbing. Identity theft is a much more cut-and-dried, gimme-your-money, kind of thing. This is totally different.

We all know that knowledge is power, right? So that must mean that the more information a group has about the people they want to influence, then the more powerful that group can become. We are under a constant barrage of information intended to convince us of one thing or another. Information is not only collected simply to sell us a product, but often to influence us to do something or think something. We all know that even something as mundane as a grocery store is very strategically planned-out based on studies of human behavior, with the sole intent of getting us to buy more. The most sugary cereals aren't placed at kids' eye-level by accident; the milk isn't way in the back by accident. You already know about that, but you see where I'm going with this, right?

So, what if a group is selling ideas instead of groceries? The more they know about people, the more they can manipulate them. There's just no denying that. I'm really not paranoid, but I think it's naive to believe that information is not being mined from Facebook, and that there is not some ulterior motive, positive or negative, depending on your politics. I heard that Facebook changed their terms of service last week stating that they had the rights to all the info on accounts even after they were deleted by the users. Granted, they did revoke that change after people freaked out, but why did they state it in the first place?

If this information found on Facebook weren't useful then it wouldn't be sought after. This Vanguard guy would not have put so much of his money into the startup, right? I guess I just don't like the thought of any group, be it ultra-conservative or ultra-liberal, having too much power to manipulate public opinion. Whether we accept it or deny it, we are very easy creatures to manipulate. From what we wear to what we think, we have been influenced somewhere along the line. I believe in moderation, and anything that gives a leg up on a group that is ultra-anything is to be avoided, in my opinion.

Oops. I meant to say "gives a leg up to a group," not "on."

I agree it's highly unlikely that Thiel is part of a (the?) New World Order or whatever you want to call them, but I also believe the current (alleged?) powers that be are quite capable of extraordinary methods of manipulation, due to their immense wealth and power. It's not an issue of the American people not allowing it. It's an issue of them not being aware what they are doing. The left vs right civil war for example is a hoax. The differences have been exaggerated on purpose to distract us from the truth and make each side totally discount anything the other side has to say. There are plenty examples in world history that prove it can happen. Hitler Youth? How about Homeland Security Explorer-Scouts? Reichstag Fire was a false flag operation? We've had PLENTY of those, too. It CAN happen here, and in fact appears to have been happening for quite a long time. It is dangerous to discount the possibility just because some theories can be proven wrong. That doesn't mean they are ALL wrong.

To be fair, though, I don't agree with Josh Smith re: "your post has done little to advance any cause". Exposing falsehoods is part of the process of revealing truths. Oh and by the way, I'm on facebook. Guess that makes me part of the chain of evil, too.