Tag Archives: facebook

The art of dissembling

When a word fits you should use it


verb: dissemble; 3rd person present: dissembles; past tense: dissembled; past participle: dissembled; gerund or present participle: dissembling

conceal or disguise one’s true feelings or beliefs.
“an honest, sincere person with no need to dissemble”
synonyms: dissimulate, pretend, deceive, feign, act, masquerade, sham, fake, bluff, counterfeit, pose, posture, hide one’s feelings, be dishonest, put on a false front, lie; More
cover up, conceal, disguise, hide, mask, veil, shroud
“she is an honest, sincere person who has no need to dissemble”
disguise or conceal (a feeling or intention).
“she smiled, dissembling her true emotion”

That’s what Google provided as a dictionary definition. This is what prompted my query

Zuckerberg says Facebook is ‘not a traditional media company

One of the richest men in the world (don’t you love how capitalism rewards the deserving) is well practiced in the art of dissembling which may well explain why the platform itself is rife with so-called “fake news”.

Clean cut, intelligent but somehow struggles with defining what Facebook is. Well blind freddy can see it’s advertising company on steroids but I’m sure you will never get such a frank disclosure from Zucks. It also happens to occupy the space formerly dominated by mainstream media companies, which means it is a defacto media outlet even if they are at pains to avoid talking about it.

So while this “chat” might appear to be a public statement that recognises what anyone with media experience already knows, that is, one of the functional roles of Facebook is similar to that of a traditional media outlet, the “chat” also serves to obscure the economic reality which is the core business for the Facebook juggernaut.



Shorter Zucks, government spying is bad, Facebook spying is good

Brazen! Amazing how wealth translates into authority but there you go. Zuckerberg prances around the world stage telling others that the US government “blew it” on spying, meanwhile Facebook enables the most insidious spying on a fellow humans the planet has ever seen.

Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg says US ‘really blew it’ on surveillance.


NSA surveillance goes beyond Orwell’s imagination – Alan Rusbridger | World news | theguardian.com

Rusbridger said the NSA stories were “clearly” not a story about totalitarianism, but that an infrastructure had been created that could be dangerous if it fell into the wrong hands.

But there is something ironic in a story that cites Zuckerberg and his concerns about spying. Facebook prying and surveillance is ok because it’s a business? Isn’t the issue about any totalitarian surveillance, whether it is conducted by the state or a huge multinational business seems to miss the point.

via NSA surveillance goes beyond Orwell’s imagination – Alan Rusbridger | World news | theguardian.com.


Facebook Cracks Down on Adult Content, Spares Playboy? — The Good Men Project

In the end, Facebook is looking less like the community and branding builder it claims to be and more like an unpredictable enforcing entity that can without due warning block or delete your personal account and unpublish your Business or Fan Page, even after you have paid adverstising dollars to Facebook to grow it.

via Facebook Cracks Down on Adult Content, Spares Playboy? — The Good Men Project.


Facebook – charging you to message someone

I read it here but then it happened! Up popped the little ‘friendly’ facebook window with the added option of paying a $1 to send my message…wtf? You have to be fucking kidding me, an sms cost me a few cents, a phone call costs me 25 but a dollar for a facebook message ??? and I have no idea if the message gets read.

Zuckerberg must really think we are just suckers for his drug. No wonder Forbes thinks it is a good idea!

Screenshot - 090413 - 12:00:30


Facebook ‘erodes any idea of privacy’

Fortunately there is a simple fix, don’t put facebook on your phone. While it probably won’t make a lot of difference to your privacy in the real world, since the government can tap your mobile device on just about any whim and the telcos collect plenty of data, not to mention what Google, Apple and Microsoft do, at least you will have the small satisfaction of not making Zuckerberg’s business any bigger. And that ladies and gents is the bottom line, Zuckerberg Inc, the pimply college boy who borrowed his ideas from a friend is really all about selling your data to whoever can pay.

Deals with devils and so on…

Facebook ‘erodes any idea of privacy’.


The system works

All faith in the capitalist economic system has been restored by the public share offer of Facebook.

Almost instantly a small group of young people were promoted from lesser millionaires to instant billionaires, Zuckerberg the big winner at somewhere between $17.4 billion and $19 bil according to this site.

One man.

He also got married so maybe it’s a partnership.

Lesser mortals may ponder how one person suddenly becomes one of the richest in the world, possible those who are starving in Africa might think (if they can) that jolly young Mark is some sort of beacon shining out in the world of darkness and privation. The noisy rabble that grows daily in recession hit Greece and Spain might see it as some kind of conjurers trick, proof that money doesn’t come from working.

Frankly I see it as a con job. Facebook = $100 billion? You have to be fucking kidding! The public share float by Facebook organised by its backers Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan and Credit Suisse successfully hoovered $100 bil out of the market for virtually a non product, certainly something that has nothing fundamentally worth that sort of money.

Forget all the hype about how the web will be social and shit like that because no-one can say what will happen with any certainty, no-one for example thought Facebook would hit the market at it’s price 10 years ago which makes you wonder why smart heads invested in the company.

Perhaps the reason lies in the answer. The Facebook float was a float. End of story. The investors got paid. That’s all that mattered. What happens now is totally academic. When all the buzz, the “likes’ the facebook mania fades, at the end of the day when people go home and go to bed, the promises made by Zuckerberg and crew to the people who invested in the company were paid for. All the news about how Facebook was going to revolutionise the world, be a power for good are no more true of Facebook than any other means people have had that enable their actions. Facebook is not going to be a part of any revolution to overthrow the system because Facebook is the system.

If everyone decided tomorrow to stop using Facebook it wouldn’t cause Zucks to lose sleep. He’s got his loot. Everyone one of us suckers who joined his house of cards made it so grand that we all thought it was real. What a scam!


Web freedom faces greatest threat ever, warns Google’s Sergey Brin | Technology | The Guardian

Freedom of expression is a touchstone in western thought, one that follows from the idea of free will. We are free to think and those thoughts when expressed in words should also be free, free from persecution or censorship.

What can we make of Sergey Brin’s comments? His family fled a repressive regime in Russia but he is also a very rich man. On the one hand he probably has a deep seated belief in freedom of expression, on the other hand Facebook and Apple who he names in the Guardian article are effectively competitors in the technology world.

His concerns about state control of the web are I think quite valid. The link between secretive state surveillance and repressive regimes like China is a major problem in this day and age, particularly as so-called free democratic states like the US, UK and Australia continue along with measures to spy on their citizens via the web.

It also helps to explain why powerful vested interests like Hollywood can get support for their anti-piracy campaign. A state that condones and authorizes controls on a communication medium because it ultimately does not trust the public is also likely to be sympathetic to a player who has demonstrated allegiance to state propaganda in the past. Anyone who thinks the film and TV industry hasn’t broadly supported state ideological thinking and the status quo might disagree but there is plenty of evidence of collusion for those who want to look. In fact and in deed, Hollywood exists to tell people a story, one that perpetuates certain beliefs about how the world is. Protecting that existence is obviously important for governments who must resist anarchic tendencies within.

Brin’s comments about Facebook and Apple are not dissimilar but they run the risk of being overshadowed by the commercial threat posed to Google. It is possible to argue that Google does as much if not more than any other player to enable participation on the medium of the 21st century, not just with its products but also in its methodology, yet it is also possible to argue that it does so for a financial return. That return is likely to be threatened if Facebook in particular and Apple almost incidentally continue to exploit the technology to create dominant subnets within the broader internet.

Yet in another way the rise in popularity in these subnets and the way that tend to monopolise mind share is a consequence of the very things that Sergey Brin’s company has enabled. The idea of linking or sharing material for example is exploited in Facebook’s “social” terminology while connectivity and cloud based technology is critical to both Apple and Facebook.

Yet Apple and Facebook are not alike. Apple remains a hardware company that enables software and hardware with a style that panders to individualism. In so doing it cannot afford to be utterly dependent on any one technology and without universal connectivity is some form its product lose most of their value. Critically, Apple wants to be the hardware interface to the internet, a role Google is trying to assume with its Android platform.

Facebook on the other hand is rapidly becoming the location on the internet where people spend time and with that mindshare goes the opportunity to control what people look at and consume. It’s potentially a advertisers wet dream come true and one that helps explain the $100 billion IPO.

Google is to a certain extent caught between a rock and a hard place or to use another analogy, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Apple and Facebook are not directly competing for the same things. Apple and Google are in the mobile market and Facebook and Google are in terms of advertising which means that Google has to compete on two fronts, not an ideal situation.

Unlike the Guardian who placed this article in a series rather grandly called the battle for control of the internet, the story about Google, Facebook and Apple (who are all financial juggernauts in the tech world) is as much about money as it is about ideas about freedom. We should be concerned about state based surveillance and we should be mindful about how a dominant Facebook will eventually reduce our choices on the net and also make it easier to spy on our fellow citizens especially since Facebook snooping is one of the unwritten foundations of its appeal. And we should be very concerned about how all these vested interests affect our lives.

Ultimately the only power people have on the internet is to choose what they put there and what they connect to. If we choose to adopt one technology and use only one source for our information and entertainment then frankly we deserve the consequences. Perhaps something new will disrupt the game plans of Apple and Facebook. Hopefully state surveillance will fail to enslave. It is still up to us to choose how to act.

Web freedom faces greatest threat ever, warns Google’s Sergey Brin | Technology | The Guardian.


Is Facebook worth more than Google? • The Register

Social, not algorithms, is the basis for all human commerce. Facebook owns social. That’s got to be really, really big. At least as big as Google, and arguably bigger.

With every click on Facebook you add to their data store and increase their market reach, in much the same way as your clicks helped create Google’s data bank. As with Google, the convenience of doing something you want or need is fundamental to Facebook’s ascent. Critically, your friends in the real world are increasingly using Facebook so messaging, calling and visual sharing is now all in one place.

And as Asay points out, the lesson of Google were not lost on Zuckerberg. Facebook has kept the obvious commercialisation of the Facebook interface on the fringes. This has allowed Facebook to grow its primary asset and its core business, that is, its users.

With Myspace destined to become yesterday’s news of the IT world, Facebook has very few obstacles in its path to world domination and arguably quite a few friends. The question is, where will its competitor come from?

via Is Facebook worth more than Google? • The Register.