RFK Jr Does Not Agree that Lee Harvey Oswald Acted Alone

[Cliff Varnell]

42 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

TBH you are making yourself a target here with the straw man argument.

What straw man argument?

Quote

On the contrary, I am the one with a life, who isn't spending the day with empty eyes glued to a computer screen in case someone replies.

You spend a lot of time insulting people who challenge your conclusions.  

Quote

I think you need to take a break. For me to get "butt hurt" which I guess is a colloquial term for "offended", I would need to view you as my equal or superior, not just some internet xxxxx. It's so easy to spot, as oddly Facebook, which you hate because you are scared it will propagandise you, 

I didn’t say anything like that.  The extent you take this all personally is noted, and notable.

Quote

 

and YouTube are full of people very much like yourself seeking attention. I can tell you without any shadow of a doubt that this back and forth is only going to leave you feeling lower, not me. Do some exercise, stick to a circadian rhythm with sleep, eat right and you'll up your serotonin and dopamine levels and as a result you won't find yourself being a negative online. The recipe is that simple. 
 

Wow...just wow.

Quote

This is what I actually said:

"The public perception of big tech and the separation from the state is interesting. If we thought about any other significant power in the world, not from the west, we'd automatically assume there is state interference with the tech firms of that country, as its in the national interest.
 

Your “automatic assumption” is purely a product of your imagination, a conclusion you’ve reached prior to investigation.

Facebook favors right-wing news sites.

FACEBOOK BOMBSHELL REVEALS MAJOR RIGHT-WING BIAS

https://voters.us.com/facebook-bombshell-reveals-major-right-wing-bias/

You wrongly assume the American state you accuse of interference is a monolithic entity.  The American Deep State is multi-polar.  The right-wing Bible-thumping Dominionist Proto-Autocracy maintains a strong force in the intelligence and military communities.

Trumpistan.
 

But, in the USA the opposite is assumed, that there is this separation and no direct or subversive interference. Is that a logical conclusion? Not really. 
 

But you have no clue as to the factional interests within the interfering bodies.

Edward Snowden waged internecine war within the US intelligence community which resulted in a legislative takedown of the NSA/DEA bulk communications collections — the fingerprints of the CIA all over it.

 

Are the government able to access your cellphones at the touch of a button, are they able to access your Facebook, Insta, Youtube, Gmail etc? Absolutely. Are they able to do that with the blessing of these tech firms? Definitely. The 5G network debacle between Britain and Huawei, with the US pressuring Britain not to accept Huawei on security grounds has been interesting to watch. The reason being claimed is China state interference. The other side is the claim that the USA doesn't have an easy access backdoor into the network, like they do with others. Is it in he best interests of our security, maybe. The better the devil you know argument is always made. 

The double standard is always that if someone else is doing something invasive, it's a threat to national security and if our own country is doing it, then it's also because of national security, protecting us. We have also seen the propensity for misuse by the state, whether that's in the Oliver Stone film "Snowden" or in terms of intellectual property theft, sexual blackmail, surveillance etc. We are all sold this lie about terrorists coming to take away our freedoms, very sophisticated networks of terrorists that live in caves or villages without internet and obviously match the Pentagon in sophistication and resources. 

Some of you may want to look into DARPA, the ARPA-NET, the origins of Google, Stanford research institute and even the lifelog / facebook coincidence. If the government wants someone censored on social media platforms, it will be done. If you think RFK Jr had 700,000 followers, do you have any idea how his social media reach will scale up on a post that's interesting? The power is immense. If you then consider vaccines are the hot topic, at a time the populations of the globe are hysterical with fear of Covid19, then if his message is warning of dangers or contrarian in general, it means everyone on earth is likely to hear about it. He has credibility as an author, lawyer, activist and mostly because he is the son and nephew of two very well liked guys on a global level. Whether you believe his views and others on certain vaccines, autism or Covid19, is another matter. But, I can see why government would want to censor him and free speech, whether he is right or wrong."

If that's confusing to you, fair enough. 🙂 

No, it’s quite clear.  You wrote:

To me the idea that the tentacles of government security agencies are not deeply involved in big tech is patently absurd.  </q>

Given that the factional interests within “government security agencies” are far from transparent, all you can do is speculate as to the nature of Intel/Big Tech collusion.

Your speculation is not proof, Chris.

Quote

 

Edited February 19, 2021 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Free Speech Is Not the Same As Free Reach
https://www.wired.com/story/free-speech-is-not-the-same-as-free-reach/

THE ALGORITHMS THAT govern how we find information online are once again in the news—but you have to squint to find them. 

“Trump Accuses Google of Burying Conservative News in Search Results,” reads an August 28 New York Times headline. The piece features a bombastic president, a string of bitter tweets, and accusations of censorship. “Algorithms” are mentioned, but not until the twelfth paragraph.

Trump—like so many other politicians and pundits—has found search and social media companies to be convenient targets in the debate over free speech and censorship online. “They have it RIGGED, for me & others, so that almost all stories & news is BAD,” the president recently tweeted. He added: “They are controlling what we can & cannot see. This is a very serious situation---will be addressed!”

Trump is partly right: They are controlling what we can and cannot see. But “they” aren’t the executives leading Google, Facebook, and other technology companies. “They” are the opaque, influential algorithms that determine what content billions of internet users read, watch, and share next.

These algorithms are invisible, but they have an outsized impact on shaping individuals’ experience online and society at large. Indeed, YouTube’s video-recommendation algorithm inspires 700,000,000 hours of watch time per day—and can spread misinformation, disrupt elections, and incite violence. Algorithms like this need fixing.

 

But in this moment, the conversation we should be having—how can we fix the algorithms?—is instead being co-opted and twisted by politicians and pundits howling about censorship and miscasting content moderation as the demise of free speech online. It would be good to remind them that free speech does not mean free reach. There is no right to algorithmic amplification. In fact, that’s the very problem that needs fixing.

TO SEE HOW this algorithm amplification works, simply look to RT, or  Russia Today, a Russian state-owned propaganda outlet that’s also among the most popular YouTube presences. RT has amassed more than 6 billion views across 22 channels, more than MSNBC and Fox News combined. According to YouTube chief product officer Neal Mohan, 70 percent of views on YouTube are from recommendations—so the site’s algorithms are largely responsible for amplifying RT’s propaganda hundreds of millions of times.

How? Most RT viewers don’t set out in search of Russian propaganda. The videos that rack up the views are RT’s clickbait-y, gateway content: videos of towering tsunamis, meteors striking buildings, shark attacks, amusement park accidents, some that are years old but have comments from within an hour ago. This disaster porn is highly engaging; the videos have been viewed tens of millions of times and are likely watched until the end. As a result, YouTube’s algorithm likely believes other RT content is worth suggesting to the viewers of that content—and so, quickly, an American YouTube user looking for news finds themselves watching Russia’s take on Hillary Clinton, immigration, and current events. These videos are served up in autoplay playlists alongside content from legitimate news organizations, giving RT itself increased legitimacy by association.

The social internet is mediated by algorithms: recommendation engines, search, trending, autocomplete, and other mechanisms that predict what we want to see next. The algorithms don’t understand what is propaganda and what isn’t, or what is “fake news” and what is fact-checked. Their job is to surface relevant content (relevant to the user, of course), and they do it exceedingly well. So well, in fact, that the engineers who built these algorithms are sometimes baffled: “Even the creators don’t always understand why it recommends one video instead of another,” says Guillaume Chaslot, an ex-YouTube engineer who worked on the site’s algorithm.

These opaque algorithms with their singular purpose—“keep watching”—coupled with billions of users is a dangerous recipe. In recent years, we’ve seen how dire the consequences can be. Propaganda like RT content is circulated far and wide to disinform and worsen polarization, especially during democratic elections. YouTube’s algorithms can also radicalize by suggesting “white supremacist rants, Holocaust denials, and other disturbing content,” Zeynep Tufekci recently wrote in the Times. “YouTube may be one of the most powerful radicalizing instruments of the 21st century.”

The problem extends beyond YouTube, though. On Google search, dangerous anti-vaccine misinformation can commandeer the top results. And on Facebook, hate speech can thrive and fuel genocide. A United Nations report about the genocide in Myanmar reads: “The role of social media is significant. Facebook has been a useful instrument for those seeking to spread hate, in a context where for most users Facebook is the Internet … The extent to which Facebook posts and messages have led to real-world discrimination and violence must be independently and thoroughly examined.”

So what can we do about it? The solution isn’t to outlaw algorithmic ranking or make noise about legislating what results Google can return. Algorithms are an invaluable tool for making sense of the immense universe of information online. There’s an overwhelming amount of content available to fill any given person’s feed or search query; sorting and ranking is a necessity, and there has never been evidence indicating that the results display systemic partisan bias. That said, unconscious bias is a concern in any algorithm; this is why tech companies have investigated conservative claims of bias since the Facebook Trending News debacle of 2016. There hasn’t been any credible evidence. But there is a trust problem, and a lack of understanding of how rankings and feeds work, and that allows bad-faith politicking to gain traction. The best solution to that is to increase transparency and internet literacy, enabling users to have a better understanding of why they see what they see—and to build these powerful curatorial systems with a sense of responsibility for what they return.

There have been positive steps in this direction. The examples of harms mentioned above have sparked congressional investigations aimed at understanding how tech platforms shape our conversations and our media consumption. In an upcoming Senate hearing next week, the Senate Intelligence Committee will ask Jack Dorsey of Twitter and Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook to provide an accounting of how, specifically, they are taking steps to address computational propaganda.

It’s imperative that we focus on solutions, not politics. We need to build on those initial investigations. We need more nuanced conversations and education about algorithmic curation, its strange incentives, and its occasionally unfortunate outcomes. We need to hold tech companies accountable—for irresponsible tech, not evidence-free allegations of censorship—and demand transparency into how their algorithms and moderation policies work. By focusing on the real problem here, we can begin addressing the real issues that are disrupting the internet—and democracy.

Edited February 19, 2021 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

What straw man argument?

You spend a lot of time insulting people who challenge your conclusions.  

I didn’t say anything like that.  The extent you take this all personally is noted, and notable.

Wow...just wow.

Your “automatic assumption” is purely a product of your imagination, a conclusion you’ve reached prior to investigation.

Facebook favors right-wing news sites.

FACEBOOK BOMBSHELL REVEALS MAJOR RIGHT-WING BIAS

https://voters.us.com/facebook-bombshell-reveals-major-right-wing-bias/

You wrongly assume the American state you accuse of interference is a monolithic entity.  The American Deep State is multi-polar.  The right-wing Bible-thumping Dominionist Proto-Autocracy maintains a strong force in the intelligence and military communities.

Trumpistan.
 

But, in the USA the opposite is assumed, that there is this separation and no direct or subversive interference. Is that a logical conclusion? Not really. 
 

But you have no clue as to the factional interests within the interfering bodies.

Edward Snowden waged internecine war within the US intelligence community which resulted in a legislative takedown of the NSA/DEA bulk communications collections — the fingerprints of the CIA all over it.

 

Are the government able to access your cellphones at the touch of a button, are they able to access your Facebook, Insta, Youtube, Gmail etc? Absolutely. Are they able to do that with the blessing of these tech firms? Definitely. The 5G network debacle between Britain and Huawei, with the US pressuring Britain not to accept Huawei on security grounds has been interesting to watch. The reason being claimed is China state interference. The other side is the claim that the USA doesn't have an easy access backdoor into the network, like they do with others. Is it in he best interests of our security, maybe. The better the devil you know argument is always made. 

The double standard is always that if someone else is doing something invasive, it's a threat to national security and if our own country is doing it, then it's also because of national security, protecting us. We have also seen the propensity for misuse by the state, whether that's in the Oliver Stone film "Snowden" or in terms of intellectual property theft, sexual blackmail, surveillance etc. We are all sold this lie about terrorists coming to take away our freedoms, very sophisticated networks of terrorists that live in caves or villages without internet and obviously match the Pentagon in sophistication and resources. 

Some of you may want to look into DARPA, the ARPA-NET, the origins of Google, Stanford research institute and even the lifelog / facebook coincidence. If the government wants someone censored on social media platforms, it will be done. If you think RFK Jr had 700,000 followers, do you have any idea how his social media reach will scale up on a post that's interesting? The power is immense. If you then consider vaccines are the hot topic, at a time the populations of the globe are hysterical with fear of Covid19, then if his message is warning of dangers or contrarian in general, it means everyone on earth is likely to hear about it. He has credibility as an author, lawyer, activist and mostly because he is the son and nephew of two very well liked guys on a global level. Whether you believe his views and others on certain vaccines, autism or Covid19, is another matter. But, I can see why government would want to censor him and free speech, whether he is right or wrong."

If that's confusing to you, fair enough. 🙂 

No, it’s quite clear.  You wrote:

To me the idea that the tentacles of government security agencies are not deeply involved in big tech is patently absurd.  </q>

Given that the factional interests within “government security agencies” are far from transparent, all you can do is speculate as to the nature of Intel/Big Tech collusion.

Your speculation is not proof, Chris.

Ahhh so you quoted the wrong post, now you're chopping about with others to desperately try to make a case. I don't know why you'd take exception to any of that. As for speculation, we wouldn't be discussing it if it was all public common knowledge, right? The problems you have is that you seem to have zero understanding of psychology or how to look at a sequence of events and see the bigger picture. It's often a good idea to start with the outcome and work backwards. Please forgive me for having more expertise in these areas than you, I earn a good living doing some of this stuff, I have to understand it. 

You don't even have a clue how you come across. As an outsider you seem every bit as fanatical and nutty as these Trump guys and you don't even know it. On another day you'd be at the Capitol with a Davy Crocket hat on. 

FYI the word above starred out was t r o l l. It wasn't a curse, just a dispassionate observation. I don't want you to report me for a micro-aggression or something. 🙂 

[Cliff Varnell]

6 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Ahhh so you quoted the wrong post, now you're chopping about with others to desperately try to make a case.

Excuse me? I responded directly to your conclusions that social media are run by the intelligence agencies — you can only speculate as to the nature of intelligence/big tech collusion.

Your ill-informed “automatic assumptions” are not facts.

 

6 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

I don't know why you'd take exception to any of that.

I take exception to your insistence on declaring as fact the extent to which intel influences social media.

6 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

 

As for speculation, we wouldn't be discussing it if it was all public common knowledge, right? The problems you have is that you seem to have zero understanding of psychology or how to look at a sequence of events and see the bigger picture.

The big picture your confirmation bias won’t allow you to see is the factional nature of the US intelligence community.

The subject is over your head.

 

6 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

<snip the usual ad hominem >

 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Excuse me? I responded directly to your conclusions that social media are run by the intelligence agencies — you can only speculate as to the nature of intelligence/big tech collusion.

Your ill-informed “automatic assumptions” are not facts.

 

I take exception to your insistence on declaring as fact the extent to which intel influences social media.

The big picture your confirmation bias won’t allow you to see is the factional nature of the US intelligence community.

The subject is over your head.

 

 

Ohh a fact... It might be a little bit too complicated for your closed mind but, history is written by the victors:

“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” 

You may want to think about that in the context of the JFK assassination and ponder it. Thanks to declassified papers and research we have a lot of "facts" that are no longer "facts". It's an ignorant argument from you. 

From viewing your posts, you look at the world in terms of red and blue, or right and left. It's a divide and rule narrative that is marketed to you, that you have bought into hook, line and sinker. There is only money and power today. 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 minute ago, Chris Barnard said:

Ohh a fact... It might be a little bit too complicated for your closed mind but, history is written by the victors:

“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” 

You may want to think about that in the context of the JFK assassination and ponder it. Thanks to declassified papers and research we have a lot of "facts" that are no longer "facts". It's an ignorant argument from you. 
 

What argument of mine?... Are you okay?  The above is gibberish.

1 minute ago, Chris Barnard said:

From viewing your posts, you look at the world in terms of red and blue, or right and left.

I put the finger on Averell Harriman for the JFK hit.

Harriman was a liberal Democrat.

1 minute ago, Chris Barnard said:

It's a divide and rule narrative that is marketed to you, that you have bought into hook, line and sinker. There is only money and power today. 

If you didn’t spend so much time projecting your inadequacies you might learn something.

[Kirk Gallaway]

 

Wow, I just came in here.

Well there goes the self marketing plan Chris!

In this interplay, Your mind has become a cesspool of accusatory pissy little insults. All Cliff has done is turn it on you to see. But obviously you're not even aware of it, but anybody who reads the transcript of it can see it. You owe him an apology.

You have no facts, but just your feelings. Screw your feelings! You thought if you wrote enough words, you could magically establish  that the government kicked  RFK Jr.off facebook, and you assert that Cliff is not very smart for not recognizing that, but in fact you never came close to producing any evidence. Cliff is right. So you're assuming things while producing no evidence then  insulting  Cliff that he's still asking for the evidence? And every time he asks you for the evidence , you just reel more out of control.

If you can't see this. I'd say sorry about your ambitious failure to take the forum by storm. I'd blow off that dream about making it in America, They'd just chew you up and spit you out.

Edited February 19, 2021 by Kirk Gallaway

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

What argument of mine?... Are you okay?  The above is gibberish.

I put the finger on Averell Harriman for the JFK hit.

Harriman was a liberal Democrat.

If you didn’t spend so much time projecting your inadequacies you might learn something.

Again, you're just showing you are not very smart. 
Oh, you put the finger on Averell Harriman, there I was thinking someone else had come up with that. Interesting. 
:-)

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

 

Wow, I just came in here.

Well there goes the self marketing plan Chris!

In this interplay, Your mind has become a cesspool of accusatory prissy little insults. All Cliff has done is turn it on you to see. But obviously you're not even aware of it. You owe him an apology.

You have no facts, but just your feelings. Screw your feelings! You thought if you wrote enough words, you could magically establish  that the government kicked  RFK Jr.off facebook, and you assert that Cliff is not very smart for not recognizing that, but in fact you never came close to producing any evidence. Cliff is right. So you're assuming things while producing no evidence then  insulting  Cliff that he's still asking for the evidence? And every time he asks you for the evidence , you just reel more out of control.

If you can't see this. I'd say sorry about your ambitious failure to take the forum by storm. I'd blow off that dream about making it in America, They'd just chew you up and spit you out.

I am glad the other chuckle brother has chipped in. It's at least the third time you have backed up Cliff in threads this week (that I have seen). One might think you two are in bed together. I am not the one on the forum 24 hours a day and replying in seconds. I have a life Kirk, I am not crunching carrots sat reliving the last 4 years of unedifying US politics, or glazed over staring at a monitor with empty eyes waiting for a reply, that's you two. 

As for the 'taking the forum by storm' comment, I wasn't aware this could be done. I think that really says how important it is to you as a component in your life. I was under the impression that people are here to discuss the JFK assassination and things linked to it, I wasn't aware there was some kind of competition at play. Are there prizes? 🙂

[Dennis Berube]

Do we need further proof that government an social media are in tandem censoring information Cliff? Seeing you viewed the Schiff demand for "moderation" as old news, this was today.

https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2021-02-19/exclusive-white-house-working-with-facebook-and-twitter-to-tackle-anti-vaxxers

15 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

But, I am conscious that we both are responsible for ruining threads here. 

Same here, and it is regrettable to certain degree.

 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

13 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

Do we need further proof that government an social media are in tandem censoring information Cliff? Seeing you viewed the Schiff demand for "moderation" as old news, this was today.

The Schiff letter was sent in Feb 2019.

Then what happened?

A growing number of anti-vaccine activists, emboldened by their rising social media following, have helped the movement gain strength in the United States. A report by the Center for Countering Digital Health in July 2020 found social media accounts held by anti-vaxxers have increased their following by at least 7·8 million people since 2019.</q>
 
Dennis, how do you explain the explosion of anti-vaccine social media accounts over a period of time you insist the Government was cracking down?

 

Quote

https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2021-02-19/exclusive-white-house-working-with-facebook-and-twitter-to-tackle-anti-vaxxers

Same here, and it is regrettable to certain degree.

 

 

 

[Dennis Berube]

Sorry, I thought we were discussing the cooperative censorship on this issue between government and bigtech. It's not difficult to explain Cliff. Simply, more and more people began to realize there is something wrong about what they thought they knew about vaccines; due to people like RFK Jr's social media presence.

For the good of all, I think we're done here.

[Jeff Carter]

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The Schiff letter was sent in Feb 2019.

Then what happened?

A growing number of anti-vaccine activists, emboldened by their rising social media following, have helped the movement gain strength in the United States. A report by the Center for Countering Digital Health in July 2020 found social media accounts held by anti-vaxxers have increased their following by at least 7·8 million people since 2019.</q>
 
Dennis, how do you explain the explosion of anti-vaccine social media accounts over a period of time you insist the Government was cracking down?

 

 

The "Center for Countering Digital Health" is actually known as Center for Countering Digital Hate - and is a censorship advocacy group run out of the UK and which Board of Directors is largely pulled from advisors close to the Blair wing of the Labour Party. This group advocates de-platforming and de-monetizing individuals and groups, including "conspiracy theorists", out of concern that "fringe ideas are finding an audience and becoming normalised." 

The organization's purpose is to be alarmist, and so any statistics or analysis they provide should be viewed with this in mind. Labelling views they disagree with as "hate speech", for example, is simply making an emotionalist appeal rather than offering sound analysis. Does David Icke really need to be removed from the internet? Hasn't that campaign been ongoing for twenty years or more? - i.e. before Facebook etc.

https://www.counterhate.com

[Kirk Gallaway]

On 2/17/2021 at 7:43 PM, Jeff Carter said:

This all came about as result of pressure from US Congressional committees bolstered by advocacy for this result from the influential legacy media such as the NY Times.

Again, invoking the New York Times Jeff?

Is there anything they won't do to pressure the social media companies to take away our rights?

 

But...Then I realized it's undoubtedly indelibly printed into  your youth.

 

And now it's alright, it's okay
And you may look the other way
We can try to understand

The New York Times' effect on man

 

Maybe....maybe  I was looking the other way.

I... I    think I understand now..

 

Really Jeff, I didn't see you like that. I didn't know you were quite that stylish.

 

but that's cool!

 

no...really

 

 

Hey lighten up!. Sure it's contentious sometimes, but everybody's been doing a pretty good job of keeping it under control, except of course, Chris.