Social credit in America - Politics invades personal finance

The topics here are social credit and personal finance. This is off those precise topics, more on the issue of privacy. Of course if the present topic eventually has any validity, years hence, they will need to invade your privacy in order to calculate your social credit score and mess with your personal finance options, should they believe it’s what you deserve. But for now:

Nobody posting here, least of all myself, supports child abuse. But apparently Apple has arrogated unto itself the role of child protector, in pursuit of which goal they will invade your iPhone.

Sure, everyone agrees protection of kids is of paramount importance. But what about later when they invade your iPhone on a pretext about which there is not universal agreement? On matters, for example, relating to your personal finance options.

Apple to scan U.S. iPhones

My own solution to this privacy invasion:

There are no images, and there is no personal information financial or otherwise, stored on my land line. Also Apple does not have access, and they never will. :wink:

2 Likes

But all your voice calls are probably recorded in a secret room somewhere. And your voice calls contain personal information, financial and otherwise :grin: :sweat_smile: :nauseated_face:

Many of them were wrong, sure, or at least unsupported by the (pre-pandemic largely unbiased) consensus scientific opinion.

But I doubt you have proof of the natural origin of covid, and without that, why would you claim it wasn’t man made? China isn’t exactly forthcoming, so how can anyone know?

And what does a fake story about a laptop have to do with it even?

Why do you think it was fake? Maybe you’ve been reading too much Facebook curated misinformation.

It was not a fake story, just an inconvenient one. Note that neither Biden denied that it was indeed Hunter’s, just as you would expect for a laptop full of personal, intimate pictures of Hunter and his various illegal escapades. Further forensic analysis confirmed this.

3 Likes

A very Covid-like disease was seen in 2012, but it didn’t spread. There also appears to have been a Covid-like disease in Wuhan in Q4 2019, maybe even Q3. It just didn’t transmit well enough to draw notice. Computer modelling shows the odds are it would die out. It probably made the species jump several times but didn’t transmit well enough between humans to do much. What blew up in Wuhan is almost certainly the first variant, not the base version.

The story doesn’t add up. And the Daily Fail isn’t a source.

2 Likes

Except they arent. They’re scanning photos being uploaded to their cloud file storage service. If you are a criminal, I would’nt have been uploading photographic evidence of my crimes to a third-party cloud service to being with…

Scanning messages is another issue, and I think should be rolled into wiretap laws.

2 Likes

Sure maybe, like SARS-1, but they looked at all the animals around and didn’t find any contaminated ones at that market. Or maybe, if that’s how it went you’d think the outbreak would have happened near the supposed bat reservoir half way across China and not on the doorstep of the lab doing gain of function covid research on humanized mice. And a putative bat virus wouldn’t use human amino acid codings for the furin site insert that none of the family of that type of coronaviruses have but makes lab work a lot easier…

But if you’re so sure it was natural, get on the horn to the US intelligence agencies, because right now they must have the wrong idea. Even CNN admits it…

CNN reported last month that senior Biden administration officials overseeing the 90-day review now believe the theory that the virus accidentally escaped from a lab in Wuhan is at least as credible as the possibility that it emerged naturally in the wild – a dramatic shift from a year ago, when Democrats publicly downplayed the so-called lab leak theory.

But why am I bothering you with all this pesky disinformation? Don’t worry, Facebook will be safe and waiting if you want to read something more sanitized.

4 Likes

You’re assuming it was the market. Just because we have many of the “original” (not original, that was actually the first variant) associated with the market doesn’t mean it’s the market. I don’t even find the market a likely vector–even the Wuhan strain wouldn’t have spread very well from an infected bat and the original almost certainly did even worse. I think a much more likely route is from people going into bat caves. The 2012 outbreak definitely was from a bat cave.

And nobody’s going to find the Wuhan version in an animal because that was a variant that emerged in a human.

Of course the intel guys are going to examine everything they can. However, even your article says they don’t expect to find anything they don’t already know.

I’m certainly not getting my news from Facebook other than observations by others in groups I’m part of. (For example, some reports of abnormal behavior by a mountain lion in an area I sometimes go.)

1 Like

There clearly are not a great many Alvin Toffler buffs on this thread. :grinning:

My statement related to the future. Your response was regarding the present. 'Nuff said.

1 Like

Except if they get consent from user in the first place. A ton of cloud service providers will have T&C that surrender your rights to privacy basically to use their services. If you gave consent that way, I’m not sure if it falls under wiretapping laws which involve you not knowing that you’re being recorded.

1 Like

And you trust Facebook to be the arbiter of truth? Phil Rizzuto, grab your microphone.

You mean people who say they arent getting vaccinated but do? That would be a lie.

Stating the reasons why you are not getting vaccinated is inherently not lying. You giving certain information more weight than others, and other people disagreeing with how you’ve weighted your information, is not lying. It’s disagreeing.

It’s gotten really, really stupid lately, how if I disagree with you, I have to convince you that what I think is true or else be dismissed as a liar. If you are so sure you are right, you should easily be able to convince me. Unless you are lying, of course…

3 Likes

Small correction

It’s gotten really, really stupid lately, how if I disagree with you, you’re a racist, deplorable, and violent domestic extremist.

4 Likes

The problem comes down to whether those reasons are truthful.

For example, saying that you won’t get vaccinated because the vaccine contains microchips is not true, even if you believe it to be so. Facebook isn’t looking at intent, but accuracy.

There is an organized group of people actively spreading disinformation about Covid. Certain aspects of that disinformation will get your posts zapped and perhaps even your account banned. There are also a lot of people who have fallen for the lies and spread them.

1 Like

and they set themselves up as the only true arbiter of accuracy. what if we did that on this discussion board? And decided that all your posts were false so they should be eliminated. Instead, you are allowed to post here and present whatever evidence you have. If it is not convincing then people will not be convinced. That is the way to truth and not propaganda as Facebook wants to present.

3 Likes

But on the other hand, you’ve offered no proof that it doesnt, either.

This is all about beliefs. And beliefs have no true or false. They believe what they believe is true just as much as you believe what you believe is true. If you dont like what someone believes, it’s on you to convince them otherwise, no matter how right you think you are. It’s very self-righteous and hypocritical to insist people are lying about what they believe and need to instead agree with what you believe.

1 Like

The idea that it does is ludicrous. Microchips aren’t small enough to fit through the needle and there would be no point, anyway–a microchip is absolutely useless without a power source. (Yes, there are those chips used for pet identification–they’re a lot larger than a normal injection needle, they’re placed just under the skin, the power comes from the reader. The range is an inch or two. Useless for tracking.)

Believing something doesn’t make it true. And it’s still not about what one believes, but what one does. Facebook has taken the policy of suppressing claims that kill people. You can believe what you want but when you preach a death cult they say you can’t use their soapbox for preaching. The First Amendment is very much a bring-your-own-soapbox thing.

That’s still your subjective opinion.

What part of beliefs not having a true or false did you not understand?

Again, your subjective opinion. “What I think is more valid than what you think” is the root attitude of every evil society in the history of the world. And no one has ever won a dispute by pounding their fists and screaming that the other person is just wrong - unless doing so if followed by deadly weapons to eliminate anyone who continues to disagree.

Again, if you think someone is wrong and want them to change their mind, it’s on you to convince them. Otherwise, you need to agree to disagree. You cant just demand that they change their mind, and expect any result other than for them to dig in.

4 Likes

The basic problem here is that you seem to consider belief to be as good as facts.

Facebook is only removing things which have been demonstrated to be false. We aren’t pounding our fists, it’s just presentations of facts are ignored.

Oh please.

Question: When does “misinformation” stop being misinformation on social media? Answer: When Democratic government authorities give permission.

Witness Facebook’s decision to stop censoring some claims about the origin of Covid-19 the same day President Biden said his Administration will investigate whether a Chinese lab may have been involved.

3 Likes

No. I’m saying that the facts dont matter when people believe opposing things. If they believe something is fact (or maybe even just a possibility), then intentionally hiding that something is nothing more than trying to hide the truth.

If you want others to agree with you about the facts, you need to convince them you are right. Not yell that they’re wrong.