Claiming that “hoaxes” interfere with its users enjoyment of their news feed, Facebook has announced a new feature whereby users can claim a post or link is a hoax, and thereby allow it to be removed or have a warning to other members whose timeline it will be on…
Today’s update to News Feed reduces the distribution of posts that people have reported as hoaxes and adds an annotation to posts that have received many of these types of reports to warn others on Facebook. We are not removing stories people report as false and we are not reviewing content and making a determination on its accuracy.
In other words, Liberals can now network and as a group send multiple complaints of a Conservative link being a “hoax” and have it censored. Liberals as well as Muslims have abused Facebook’s automated reporting to the extent that Facebook was forced to apologize in a few cases, and revamped it’s system to slow down the abuse.
They admit they aren’t reviewing the complaints so based on previous behavior they have to know it will be abused, immediately, frequently and by the typical culprits. So, in other words, stories marked “hoax” will most likely be accurate stories that Liberals simply dislike.
It would have been spring of 1984 and our College Republicans were planning a trip to Little Rock to a GOP Rally where President Reagan himself was to speak. I grabbed one of the school’s video cameras to get footage for our college station and rode along with them. The rally was in some spacious room about the size of two basketball courts. The media people (not the security, but other reporters) refused to let me sit in the media seats which allowed a close view, so I had to set up off to the side, but I got a nice profile shot of the President, even if it was some 30 to 45 yards away. Just before President Reagan came out, a giant net, full of balloons let loose a shower of red, white and blue on the people in the center of the large room. Our President emerged and we all cheered and clapped, and listened as he promoted several local Republican candidates.
Suddenly from the middle of the crowd came a loud, echoing POP! The room fell deadly silent as we worried whether it was just a balloon or something worse. The silence lasted only a few seconds before Ronald Reagan, always in control of every situation, chuckled and said, “Ha, you missed me.” The silence was replaced by peals of laughter filling the hall. The President smiled with us and as the laughter began to subside, calmly continued with his speech.
Returning to campus I found the old video camera failed to record most of what I’d shot, but I still had my memories of seeing the Great Communicator in person, even if from a distance, and treasure that to this day.
Originally posted June 10th, 2004 at JackLewis.net.
At least 50 U.S. law enforcement agencies have secretly equipped their officers with radar devices that allow them to effectively peer through the walls of houses to see whether anyone is inside, a practice raising new concerns about the extent of government surveillance.
Those agencies, including the FBI and the U.S. Marshals Service, began deploying the radar systems more than two years ago with little notice to the courts and no public disclosure of when or how they would be used. The technology raises legal and privacy issues because the U.S. Supreme Court has said officers generally cannot use high-tech sensors to tell them about the inside of a person’s house without first obtaining a search warrant.
The radars work like finely tuned motion detectors, using radio waves to zero in on movements as slight as human breathing from a distance of more than 50 feet. They can detect whether anyone is inside of a house, where they are and whether they are moving.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2001 that the Constitution generally bars police from scanning the outside of a house with a thermal camera unless they have a warrant, and specifically noted that the rule would apply to radar-based systems that were then being developed.
In 2013, the court limited police’s ability to have a drug dog sniff the outside of homes. The core of the Fourth Amendment, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, is “the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.”
Still, the radars appear to have drawn little scrutiny from state or federal courts. The federal appeals court’s decision published last month was apparently the first by an appellate court to reference the technology or its implications.
Read the full article at USAToday.com.