Twatter, Fazeborg, and Gulagoogle

The big tech companies are treading dangerous ground. They are lying to their users, and by extension they are lying to their advertising. But before I explain, a quick note about twatter. Twitter, whose founder, Jack Dorsey, never saw a fascist jackboot he didn't want to shine with his own spittle, is an outrage amplification machine. Something about the media is addicting. And the more the outrage, the more addicting it feels. I honestly have been getting better night sleep by limiting my daily exposure to Twitter.

The basic problem with big tech is that their claim to be neutral in American politics in the dialogue between right and left is provably false. Everyone knows this intuitively, yet they all continue to claim how evenhanded they are.

Scott Adams has stated this more eloquently than I will be able to. In describing his position if he is in fact being shadowbanned, he said.

If one political party can use the machinery of social networks to reduce free speech, that is an attack on American values at the deepest level. As a patriot, I would feel obligated to help kill Twitter. (And you wouldn’t want to bet against me.) 

I understand Twitter is looking for a buyer. If management is shadowbanning me, that would be breach of fiduciary responsibility, screwing both the shareholders and the employees who hope the company can be purchased. In my view, shadowbanning would make Twitter too toxic to own. That toxicity – treason in my view – would transfer to the buyer.

There are two key issues, one moral, one legal.  Let's take the legal one first.  If the search/promotion/display policies of any of these platforms claim to be neutral, but in fact are being manipulated actively for political reasons but the stated policy of the network is to let the users decide, then they may run afoul of the law, as advertisers using their platforms aren't getting what is expected.  Scott Adams nails the ethical piece, as claiming to be a free speech platform, but secretly suppressing speech is tantamount to treason to our nation's founding principles.

I especially loathe Jack Dorsey and hope he eventually suffers the traditional penalty meted out to traitors.

UPDATE

Reader Foxfier provides a helpful link about a suit brought by American Freedom Law Center on this topic against Twitter and Facebook.  This suit will probably lose, but I like the "public square" argument, that these platforms form the equivalent of a street corner, where the free speech of individuals can't be suppressed based on viewpoint.

I would love to see lawsuits based on securities violations or false advertising by these corporations, because I think they are more vulnerable there.

The Surveillance State and the Erosion of Trust in San Diego

Revelations about the surveillance state are eroding trust in government and in law enforcement in particular.  Police officer involved deaths of civilians are also responsible. Setting the Ferguson incident aside, which details are murky; Eric Garner's death in New York and the death of Tamir Rices in Cleveland, both captured on video, cast doubt on the fairness and integrity of those police departments and the justice system.

Locally, this distrust played out in social media on my app, NextDoor,which allows people to connect with others in their neighborhood (the comments referenced below come from the Bay Park neighborhood news feed.)  Significantly on this app, anonymity is not allowed, which seems to improve on-line behavior.  SDPD Officer Hesselgesser posted an article about car break-ins by thieves capturing the key-fob signal. I applaud the SDPD for taking to social media in this way to work with the community.  But, subsequent commentary revealed the impact of the lack of trust.  Officer Hesselgesser advised against covering up the vehicle's VIN as a means of preventing thieves from getting fobs from the dealership. Some wondered why.

What's the valid, non big brother reason we should keep the VIN uncovered?

Asked Tom from PB in the comments.

Another interaction that reveals the mounting concern over surveillance comes from this posting about video cameras at a Balboa Ave. intersection.

At the intersection of Balboa Ave. and the Target store entrance driveway, there are 4 video cameras installed next to the hanging traffic signals. All 4 cameras are aimed toward the center of the intersection. Does anyone know why the cameras are there, and who is monitoring them?

And comments worrying about transparency:

I noticed those also. For sure those are video cameras. They are *not* traffic light sensors or Traffic Signal Preemption (TSP) sensors for emergency vehicles (turn traffic lights green). The TSP sensors don't look like cameras. That intersection is not on the 511 camera list: http://traffic.511sd.com/#cameras/search/layers=cameras
I'm guessing those cameras are for law enforcement against illegal use of Traffic Signal Preemption devices which are sold on the Internet. If you want to dig deeper, call councilmember Chris Cate's office and ask.

In case you are curious the cameras appear to be optical detection cameras to sense approaching vehicles and linked to the traffic light controls.

Cylindrical object is optical detection camera. (Source: WikiMedia Commons.)

Finally, there is the unresolved issue of how the San Diego police are using the cell phone tracking devices known as the Stingray.  (This stingray is much more pleasant.) The Stingray is a mobile cell phone device that masquerades as a cell phone tower, allowing law enforcement to get a suspect's (or average citizen's) cell phone to divulge information to the interceptor.  Because information on the operation of the device is being kept secret by the San Diego police, we have no way of knowing if bystanders or even love interests of officers, are under surveillance.  The Snowden revelations have made us realize that once a technology is in the hands of the government, it will likely be misused without oversight.

Law enforcement needs to be held to a higher, not lower, standard than the average citizen.  There should be consequences when the police don't live up to high standards, rather than the current culture that rallies the DA and fellow officers to get an exoneration.  Even when circumstances don't warrant prosecution, poor police conduct that results in the citizen deaths should be punished by dismissal.  Finally, local law enforcement needs to be transparent.  The San Diego police should release as much information about the Stingray that pushes the envelope of what the Justice Department has told them.  When they engage on social media, a good thing, they need to follow up on citizen's concerns.  Restoring trust that law enforcement is doing its job while protecting our constitutional rights will make us all safer.