fejsbuk

[Аксентије Новаковић]

Не знам ја шта ти муљаш и радиш са постовима  , али малопре тај пост уопште нисам видео на страници.
Међутим, одлично је да пост ипак стоји јер је реч о пророчком тексту камрада Давидовића кога је само Провиђење послало да упозори младеж Србије на духовну пошаст звану фејсбук.

[Dybuk]

Jea, komrad Firer je pravi uzor

uzgred, jel se Firer moze uopste zvati komradom, ili je to ipak rezervisano za komuniste?

[Аксентије Новаковић]

Камрад Давидовић је живући пророк чије пророчке речи надахњује Провиђење. 

Човек је предвидео све што ви леваци нисте ни помишљали, јер за разлику од камрада Давидовића - ви нисте вођени Провиђењем. 

За друго питање контактирај википедију, па погледај пун назив партије на коју мислиш. 

[Dybuk]

Aye, ja ne verujem u proroke, zivuce ili mrtve. Fali mi imaginacije, za razliku od druga Firera

iskreno, probala sam da procitam ono brljavljenje tj prorocke reci i nikako da shvatim sta je pisac hteo da kaze, svakako nista relevantno za sadasnji trenutak i temu kojom je mislio da se pozabavi.

[Meho Krljic]

Не знам ја шта ти муљаш и радиш са постовима  , али малопре тај пост уопште нисам видео на страници.

Nemam ja nikakve posebne administratorske ili moderatorske moći na ovom forumu, sasvim je moguće da naprosto nisi pažljivo gledao.

[Аксентије Новаковић]

Као што сам ти рекао, недостаје ти Провиђење, а не машта. 

Ако и после овога што се десило у Русији ти не схваташ пророчке речи камрада Давидовића, то је само због тога што ниси на правој 14/88 фреквенцији. 

[Dybuk]

Mozda je drug Firer crpeo inspiraciju iz japanske kulture i filma

Suicide Club

[džin tonik]

uzgred, jel se Firer moze uopste zvati komradom, ili je to ipak rezervisano za komuniste?

problem je sto hrvatski u ovom segmentu zbog dugogodisnjeg komunistickog uticaja "osakacen".
dok hrvatski pod diktatom poznavao tek druga, u njemackom imamo kamerad i genosse. oba termina prevode se kao drug, no prvi oznacava odnos spram (bliske) osobe uglavnom bez naglaskna na ideoloskom, tek, primjerice, po kolegijalnoj liniji (no izrazajnije od kollege), iako se cesto rabi i u vojnickom zargonu, medju pripadnicima iste jedinice, drugi se uglavnom rabi iskljucivo medju neo-komunistima.
znaci firer bi svakako bio moj kamerad, dok nikad ne moze biti genosse.

[Meho Krljic]

Apartment in US asks tenants to 'like' Facebook page or face action

Call it bizarre but the management at an apartment building in Salt Lake City has told tenants living in the complex to "like" its Facebook page or they will be in breach of their lease.
According to tenants of the City Park Apartments, a "Facebook addendum" showed up taped to their doors last weekend, asking them to "like" its Facebook page, www.ksl.com reported on Tuesday.
According to the contract, if tenants do not "friend" the City Park Apartments on Facebook within five days, they will be found in breach of the rental agreement.
"I don't want to be forced to be someone's friend and be threatened to break my lease because of that," tenant Jason Ring was quoted as saying.
"It's outrageous as far as I'm concerned," he added
Some of the tenants have already signed a lease agreement months ago.
The contract document also has a release allowing the apartment to post pictures of tenants and their visitors on the Facebook page.
The building currently has a 1.1-star rating on its Facebook page.
The building's managers or Facebook didn't respond to a request for comment, the report added.

[Meho Krljic]

E, pa, posle toliko decenija, od prvog Juna, internet se i zvanično u engleskom pravopisu piše malim slovom.

[Meho Krljic]

How Mark Zuckerberg Led Facebook's War to Crush Google Plus

Mark Zuckerberg is a genius.
Not in the Asperger's, autistic way depicted in the very fictional movie The Social Network, the cognitive genius of exceptional ability. That's a modern definition that reduces the original meaning.
Nor would I say he was the Steve Jobsian product genius, either. Anyone claiming as much will have to explain the crowded graveyard of forgotten Facebook product failures. Remember "Home," the Facebook-enabled home screen for Android phones, launched with much fanfare at a Facebook press event in 2013, Zuck appearing alongside the C.E.O. of the soon-to-be-disappointed smartphone-maker HTC? Or Facebook's misguided bet on HTML5 in 2012, which slowed the mobile app to a frustrating crawl? How about Facebook's first version of Search, available in English only, mostly useful for checking out your friends' single female friends, and since discontinued? The stand-alone mobile app Paper, which was a shameless rip-off of Flipboard? Some unlaunched products I can't name consumed massive resources, dying internally after Zuck changed his mind and shut them down.
If he's a product genius, then there's lots of serendipity counterbalancing his divine madness.
No. I submit he is an old-school genius, the fiery force of nature possessed by a tutelary spirit of seemingly supernatural provenance that fuels and guides him, intoxicates his circle, and compels his retinue to be great as well. The Jefferson, the Napoléon, the Alexander... the Jim Jones, the L. Ron Hubbard, the Joseph Smith. Keeper of a messianic vision that, though mercurial and stinting on specifics, presents an overwhelming and all-consuming picture of a new and different world. Have a mad vision and you're a kook. Get a crowd to believe in it as well and you're a leader. By imprinting this vision on his disciples, Zuckerberg founded the church of a new religion. All the early Facebook employees have their story of the moment when they saw the light and realized that Facebook wasn't some measly social network like MySpace but a dream of a different human experience. With all the fervor of recent converts, newly recruited followers attracted other committed, smart, and daring engineers and designers, themselves seduced by the echoes of the Zuckian vision in others.Down in the Valley Then there was the culture he created.
Many cool Valley companies have engineering-first cultures, but Facebook took it to a different level. The engineers ran the place, and so as long as you shipped code and didn't break anything (too often), you were golden. The spirit of subversive hackery guided everything. In the early days, a Georgia college kid named Chris Putnam created a virus that made your Facebook profile resemble MySpace, then the social-media incumbent. It went rampant and started deleting user data as well. Instead of siccing the F.B.I. dogs on Putnam, Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz invited him for an interview and offered him a job. He went on to become one of Facebook's more famous and rage-filled engineers. That was the uniquely piratical attitude: if you could get shit done and quickly, nobody cared much about credentials or traditional legalistic morality. The hacker ethos prevailed above all.
This culture is what kept 23-year-old kids who were making half a million a year, in a city where there was lots of fun on offer if you had the cash, tethered to a corporate campus for 14-hour days. They ate three meals a day there, sometimes slept there, and did nothing but write code, review code, or comment on new features in internal Facebook groups. On the day of the I.P.O.—Facebook's victory rally—the Ads area was full of busily working engineers at eight P.M. on a Friday. All were at that point worth real money—even fuck-you money for some—and all were writing code on the very day their paper turned to hard cash.


At Facebook, your start date was celebrated by the company the way evangelicals celebrate the day they were baptized and found Jesus, or the way new American citizens celebrate the day they took their oath in front of the flag. This event was called (really) your Faceversary, and every colleague would rush to congratulate you on Facebook (of course), just as normal people did for one another on their birthdays. Often the company or your colleagues would order you a garish surprise bouquet for your desk, with one of those huge Mylar balloons in the shape of a 2 or whatever. When someone left Facebook (usually around when the balloons said 4 or 5), everyone would treat it as a death, as if you were leaving the current plane of existence and going to another one (though it wasn't assumed this next plane would be better than the current one). The tombstone of your Facebook death was a photo posted on Facebook of your weathered and worn corporate ID. It was customary to include a weepy suicide note/self-written epitaph, and the post would garner hundreds of likes and comments inside a minute.
To the deceased, it felt like a passing, too. When you left Facebook, you left the employee-only Facebook network, which meant that all the posts from internal groups (with secret company stuff) were gone, your posts got less distribution among other Facebook employees (who were on it 24/7, of course), and your Facebook feed, which had become your only social view of the world, suddenly slowed to a near-empty crawl. Almost instantly, someone would add you to the ex-Facebook secret groups, which served as a sort of post-employment purgatory where former employees discussed the company.
Pause and consider all this for a lingering moment: the militant engineering culture, the all-consuming work identity, the apostolic sense of devotion to a great cause. The cynics will read statements from Zuckerberg or some other senior exec about creating "a more open and connected world" and think, "Oh, what sentimental drivel." The critics will read of a new product tweak or partnership and think Facebook is doing it only to make more money.
They're wrong.
Facebook is full of true believers who really, really, really are not doing it for the money, and really, really will not stop until every man, woman, and child on earth is staring into a blue-bannered window with a Facebook logo. Which, if you think about it, is much scarier than simple greed. The greedy man can always be bought at some price, and his behavior is predictable. But the true zealot? He can't be had at any price, and there's no telling what his mad visions will have him and his followers do.
That's what we're talking about with Mark Elliot Zuckerberg and the company he created.
In June 2011, Google launched an obvious Facebook copy called Google Plus. Obnoxiously wired in to other Google products like Gmail and YouTube, it was meant to join all users of Google services into one online identity, much as Facebook did for the Internet as a whole. Given you had a Google Plus sign-up button practically everywhere in your Google user experience, the possibility of its network growing exponentially was very real indeed. Also, the product itself was pretty good, in some ways better than Facebook. The photo sharing was better and more geared to serious photographers, and much of the design cleaner and more minimalist. An additional plus for Google Plus: it had no ads, as Google could subsidize it with AdWords, its paid-search gold mine. This was the classic one-hand-washing-the-other tactic of the ruthless monopolist, like Microsoft using the revenue from Windows to crush Netscape Navigator with Explorer back in the 90s. By owning search, Google would bankroll taking over social media as well.
This sudden move was somewhat surprising. For years Google had been famously dismissive of Facebook, the rarefied heights of its search monopoly making it feel untouchable. But as the one-way parade of expensive talent from Google to Facebook continued with no end in sight, Google got nervous. Companies are like countries: the populations really vote only with their feet, either coming or going. Google instituted a policy whereby any desirable Googler who got a Facebook offer would have it beaten instantly by a heaping Google counter-offer. This, of course, caused a rush of Googlers to interview at Facebook, only to use the resulting offer as a bargaining chip to improve their Google pay. But many were legitimately leaving. The Googlers at Facebook were a bit like the Greeks during the rise of the Roman Empire: they brought lots of civilization and tech culture with them, but it was clear who was going to run the world in the near future.
Google Plus was Google finally taking note of Facebook and confronting the company head-on, rather than via cloak-and-dagger recruitment shenanigans and catty disses at tech conferences. It hit Facebook like a bomb. Zuck took it as an existential threat comparable to the Soviets' placing nukes in Cuba in 1962. Google Plus was the great enemy's sally into our own hemisphere, and it gripped Zuck like nothing else. He declared "Lockdown," the first and only one during my time there. As was duly explained to the more recent employees, Lockdown was a state of war that dated to Facebook's earliest days, when no one could leave the building while the company confronted some threat, either competitive or technical.
How, might you ask, was Lockdown officially announced? We received an e-mail at 1:45 P.M. the day Google Plus launched, instructing us to gather around the Aquarium, the glass-walled cube that was Zuck's throne room. Actually, it technically instructed us to gather around the Lockdown sign. This was a neon sign bolted to the upper reaches of the Aquarium, above the cube of glass, almost like the NO VACANCY sign on a highway motel. By the time the company had gathered itself around, that sign was illuminated, tipping us off to what was coming. Zuckerberg was usually a poor speaker. His speech came at the rapid clip of someone accustomed to analyzing language for content only, and at the speed of a very agile mind that didn't have time for rhetorical flourishes. It was geek-speak, basically, the English language as spoken by people who have four screens of computer code open at once. His bearing was aloof and disconnected from his audience, and yet he maintained that intense stare that bordered on the psychopathic. It was an unnerving look that had irrevocably rattled more than one interlocutor, typically some poor employee undergoing a withering product review, and it stared out from every Fortune or Time cover he graced. It was easy to project a creepy persona onto that gaze. That unfortunate first impression, plus the mischaracterization in the film The Social Network, was probably responsible for half of the ever present suspicion and paranoia surrounding Facebook's motives. But occasionally Zuck would have a charismatic moment of lucid greatness, and it would be stunning.


The 2011 Lockdown speech didn't promise to be one of those moments. It was delivered completely impromptu from the open space next to the stretch of desks where the executive staff sat. All of Facebook's engineers, designers, and product managers gathered around him in a rapt throng; the scene brought to mind a general addressing his troops in the field.
The contest for users, he told us, would now be direct and zero-sum. Google had launched a competing product; whatever was gained by one side would be lost by the other. It was up to all of us to up our game while the world conducted live tests of Facebook versus Google's version of Facebook and decided which it liked more. He hinted vaguely at product changes we would consider in light of this new competitor. The real point, however, was to have everyone aspire to a higher bar of reliability, user experience, and site performance.
In a company whose overarching mantras were DONE IS BETTER THAN PERFECT and PERFECT IS THE ENEMY OF THE GOOD, this represented a course correction, a shift to the concern for quality that typically lost out to the drive to ship. It was the sort of nagging paternal reminder to keep your room clean that Zuck occasionally dished out after Facebook had suffered some embarrassing bug or outage.
Rounding off another beaded string of platitudes, he changed gears and erupted with a burst of rhetoric referencing one of the ancient classics he had studied at Harvard and before. "You know, one of my favorite Roman orators ended every speech with the phrase Carthago delenda est. 'Carthage must be destroyed.' For some reason I think of that now." He paused as a wave of laughter tore through the crowd.
The aforementioned orator was Cato the Elder, a noted Roman senator and inveigher against the Carthaginians, who clamored for the destruction of Rome's great challenger in what became the Third Punic War. Reputedly, he ended every speech with that phrase, no matter the topic.
Carthago delenda est. Carthage must be destroyed!
Zuckerberg's tone went from paternal lecture to martial exhortation, the drama mounting with every mention of the threat Google represented. The speech ended to a roar of cheering and applause. Everyone walked out of there ready to invade Poland if need be. It was a rousing performance. Carthage must be destroyed!In the Trenches The Facebook Analog Research Laboratory jumped into action and produced a poster with CARTHAGO DELENDA EST splashed in imperative bold type beneath a stylized Roman centurion's helmet. This improvised printshop made all manner of posters and ephemera, often distributed semi-furtively at nights and on weekends, in a fashion reminiscent of Soviet samizdat. The art itself was always exceptional, evoking both the mechanical typography of W.W. II-era propaganda posters and contemporary Internet design, complete with faux vintage logos. This was Facebook's ministry of propaganda, and it was originally started with no official permission or budget, in an unused warehouse space. In many ways, it was the finest exemplar of Facebook values: irreverent yet bracing in its martial qualities.
The Carthago posters went up immediately all over the campus and were stolen almost as fast. It was announced that the cafés would be open over the weekends, and a proposal was seriously floated to have the shuttles from Palo Alto and San Francisco run on the weekends, too. This would make Facebook a fully seven-days-a-week company; by whatever means, employees were expected to be in and on duty. In what was perceived as a kindly concession to the few employees with families, it was also announced that families were welcome to visit on weekends and eat in the cafés, allowing the children to at least see Daddy (and, yes, it was mostly Daddy) on weekend afternoons. My girlfriend and our one-year-old daughter, Zoë, came by, and we weren't the only family there, by any stretch. Common was the scene of the swamped Facebook employee with logo'd hoodie spending an hour of quality time with his wife and two kids before going back to his desk.
And what was everyone working on?
For those in the user-facing side of Facebook, it meant thinking twice on a code change amid the constant, hell-for-leather dash to ship some new product bell or whistle, so we wouldn't look like the half-assed, thrown-together, social-media Frankenstein we occasionally were.
For us in the Ads team, it was mostly corporate solidarity that made us join the weekend-working mob. At Facebook, even then and certainly later, you got along by going along, and everyone sacrificing his or her entire life for the cause was as much about self-sacrifice and team building as it was an actual measure of your productivity. This was a user battle, not a revenue one, and there was little we could do to help wage the Google Plus Punic War, other than not totally horrifying users with some aggressive new Ads product—something nobody had the nerve to do in those pre-I.P.O. days. Internal Facebook groups sprang up to dissect every element of the Google Plus product. On the day Plus launched, I noted an Ads product manager named Paul Adams in close conversation with Zuckerberg and a couple members of the high command inside a small conference room. As was well known, before he defected to Facebook, Paul had been one of the product designers for Google Plus. Now that the product had launched, presumably he was no longer restrained by a non-disclosure agreement with Google, and Facebook was having him walk the leadership through the public aspects of Google Plus.
Facebook was not fucking around. This was total war.
I decided to do some reconnaissance. En route to work one Sunday morning, I skipped the Palo Alto exit on the 101 and got off in Mountain View instead. Down Shoreline I went and into the sprawling Google campus. The multicolored Google logo was everywhere, and clunky Google-colored bikes littered the courtyards. I had visited friends here before and knew where to find the engineering buildings. I made my way there and contemplated the parking lot.
It was empty. Completely empty.
Interesting.
I got back on the 101 North and drove to Facebook.
At the California Avenue building, I had to hunt for a parking spot. The lot was full.
It was clear which company was fighting to the death.
Carthage must be destroyed!




While Zuck wouldn't burn Google to the ground, take the wives and children of Google employees as slaves, and salt the grounds of the former Google offices so nothing would grow there for generations, as some say Rome did to Carthage, it was still about as ignominious a defeat as one got in the tech world.
Not that this was clear from the first skirmishes, mind you.
In fact, the initial signs were more than alarming. Google Plus wasn't some halfhearted effort by Google to knock off a pesky upstart. The news coming out of Google, leaked via the press, or via current Google employees (former colleagues to many Facebookers, who'd come from their current mortal rival), was that all of Google's internal product teams were being re-oriented in favor of Google Plus. Even Search, then and now the most frequented destination on the Web, was being dragged into the fray and would supposedly sport social features. Search results would now vary based on your connections via Google Plus, and anything you shared—photos, posts, even chats with friends—would now be used as part of Google's ever powerful and mysterious search algorithm.
This was shocking news, even more so to Googlers. Search was the company's tabernacular product, the holy of holies, the on-line oracle of human knowledge that had replaced libraries and encyclopedias.
By all accounts (and Google information security was clearly not as good as Facebook's), this caused a considerable stir internally. In January 2012, Google co-founder Larry Page, at the companywide Q&A session known as "TGIF," addressed this new direction forcefully, quelling the internal dissent and reportedly vowing: "This is the path we're headed down—a single, unified, 'beautiful' product across everything. If you don't get that, then you should probably work somewhere else."
Gauntlet thrown down, Google products were soon ranked via one unique metric—how much did they contribute to Google's social vision?—and were either consolidated or discarded appropriately.Ne Plus Ultra? As part of the budding media seduction around this new product, Google posted eye-popping usage numbers. In September 2012, it announced that the service had 400 million registered users and 100 million active ones. Facebook hadn't even quite reached a billion users yet, and it had taken the company four years to reach the milestone—100 million users—that Google had reached in one. This caused something close to panic inside Facebook, but as we'd soon learn, the reality on the battlefield was somewhat different than what Google was letting on.
This contest had so rattled the search giant, intoxicated as they were with unfamiliar existential anxiety about the threat that Facebook posed, that they abandoned their usual sober objectivity around engineering staples like data and began faking their usage numbers to impress the outside world, and (no doubt) intimidate Facebook.
This was the classic new-product sham, the "Fake it till you make it" of the unscrupulous startupista, meant to flatter the ego and augment chances of future (real) success by projecting an image of current (imagined) success.
The numbers were originally taken seriously—after all, it wasn't absurd to think Google could drive usage quickly—but after a while even the paranoid likes of Facebook insiders (not to mention the outside world) realized Google was juicing the numbers, the way an Enron accountant would a revenue report. Usage is always somewhat in the eye of the beholder, and Google was considering anyone who had ever so much as clicked on a Google Plus button anywhere as part of their usual Google experience a "user." Given the overnight proliferation of Google Plus buttons all over Google, like mushrooms on a shady knoll, one could claim "usage" when a Google user so much as checked e-mail or uploaded a private photo. The reality was Google Plus users were rarely posting or engaging with posted content, and they certainly weren't returning repeatedly like the proverbial lab rat in the drug experiment hitting the lever for another drop of cocaine water (as they did on Facebook). When self-delusion and self-flattery enter the mind-set of a product team, and the metrics they judge themselves by, like the first plague rat coming onto a ship, the end is practically preordained. The face of Google Plus could not have been more perfect: Vic Gundotra was a former Microsoft exec who'd climbed the treacherous corporate ladder there before jumping to Google. It was he who had whispered a litany of fear into the ear of Google co-founder Larry Page, who had green-lit the project, and it was he who headed the rushed and top-down effort (unusual for Google) to ship a product within an ambitious 100 days.
A certain resinous smarminess coated Gundotra, like a thin layer of annoying motor oil on a socket wrench, never letting you get a real grip on it. And toolish he was, stumping loudly for Google Plus in countless media interviews and at Google-sponsored events. What was most insulting to a Facebooker was his studiously avoiding mentioning the social-media behemoth in public statements, as if the very raison d'être for his now towering presence at Google didn't even exist. Like some Orwellian copywriter, engineering language and perception to suit a fictional reality, Google would rarely mention the Facebook elephant in the room in any public statement, insulting any viewer by suggesting they had practically invented the notion of Internet-mediated social interaction. "Networks are for networking," intoned Gundotra, any reference to Facebook always oblique and dismissive. "Circles are for the right people," he continued, referring to Google Circles, a way of organizing social contacts, shamelessly copied from Facebook's long-ignored Lists feature.
Vic's mere visage had an almost Emmanuel Goldstein-esque quality, and many were the rips and the gibes that he suffered in internal groups, a socially mediated Two-Minute Hate, whenever someone posted a link to some pro-Google bloviation of his. This had gone beyond mere corporate rivalry to become a personal struggle to Facebookers, many of whom saw their identities wrapped up in the company, Facebook as an expression of themselves (or was it vice versa?). In April of 2014, after the Google-Facebook war had mostly run its course, Vic suddenly announced he was leaving Google. There was a "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead" note of triumph inside Facebook, as everyone breathed a sigh of relief at the passing threat.
Like a general's fall marking the rout of his army, Vic's departure was as clear a sign as any that Google had given up on social, sucking up a defeat at the hands of a company it had previously ignored, if not held in outright contempt. This was only confirmed when it was simultaneously revealed that many Google Plus product teams, such as the chat app Hangouts and the photo-sharing app Photos, would be rolled into the Android team, the mobile operating system Google owned. Google spun it as Google Plus becoming not a "product" but a "platform," a sort of general-use tool that would enhance the user experience across Google's wide array of products.
It was like a government announcing their army was not in retreat but rather advancing in reverse, and everyone at Facebook saw through the face-saving P.R. wordplay. Google Plus was over; Facebook had won. The Lockdown circling of the wagons had triumphed.The long-term conclusion was this: Facebook lived inside an unassailable redoubt of its own social network, a fortress that was completely impregnable, at least to conventional assaults via lots of money and smart people, as Google had attempted. Once everyone and his mother was on Facebook, they weren't leaving it, even when the Internet's most used site (i.e., Google Search itself) was used as inducement to join.
While Facebook clearly outpaced Google in focus and esprit de corps, the plucky upstart against the complacent incumbent, there was still the issue of revenue. Google's was still more than five times Facebook's, and the social-media giant, for however many hours of user time it managed to ingest via its blue-bannered maw, still wasn't monetizing users very well. If Facebook was ever to really hold its own against Google (not to mention revenue geysers like Apple and Amazon), it would need its own revenue geyser, like Google's AdWords or Apple's iPhone. In pursuit of that, Facebook would embark on an ambitious and ill-conceived company-spanning project of its own. Like Google Plus, that product would consume the company entirely, only to end in the smoldering ruin of abject failure. But from those ashes, plus the anxiety of a looming I.P.O., Facebook would finally find its own gold mine: monetizing mobile usage.
Adapted from Chaos Monkeys: Obscene Fortune and Random Failure in Silicon Valley, by Antonio García Martínez, to be published this month by Harper, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers; © 2016 by the author.

[Meho Krljic]

LinkedIn data breach leads to hacking of Zuckerberg's social network accounts

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has proven to be the highest-profile victim of the recent LinkedIn data breach, as his Twitter and Pinterest accounts were hacked and defaced on Sunday.
  Saudi Arabian hacker group OurMine has claimed responsibility for the defacements, and said that it used Zuckerberg's login details included in the 2012 hack of 65 million LinkedIn accounts – and that the most powerful individual in the global tech scene re-used the very low-security password 'dadada' for both accounts.
OurMine tweeted the details of the hack before its Twitter account (Wayback Machine) was suspended. 'Hey @finkd we got access to your Twitter & Instagram & Pinterest, we are just testing your security, please dm us'
Facebook has denied additional claims that Zuckerberg's Instagram account was also compromised during the attacks, with a spokesperson for the social network stating "No Facebook systems or accounts were accessed... The affected accounts have been re-secured."
The full extent of the LinkedIn breach was not apparent when the data was stolen in 2012, with LinkedIn later admitting that 100 million additional user/pass combos had been compromised. In the middle of last month a hacker calling themselves 'peace' offered up a total of 167 million login pairs for sale at 5 bitcoins (approx. $2,200)at Dark Web marketplace 'The Real Deal' – apparently this is the transaction that has led to the Zuckerberg breach.
Since the passwords were encrypted without salting (a randomising process which obscures the encryption algorithm and makes decryption far more problematic), the entire database proved crackable in a mere three days.
In February of 2015 LinkedIn agreed to pay $1.25 million to settle a class-action lawsuit from members who had been affected by the 2012 data hack – though at $50 a claimant, no-one stood to be much enriched out of the settlement.
Zuckerberg's Twitter account has been inactive since prior to the LinkedIn breach, despite over 400,000 followers, with the last post dated 18th January 2012.
The re-use of such a simple password doubtless led OurMine to try it on several other accounts and systems belonging to the Facebook multi-billionaire – the ultimate peril of creating an easily memorable password without an underlying, personalised system to make it a harder prospect for crackers. However, if cloud-side storage doesn't salt or provide adequate security in general, no amount of tips or tricks is likely to help much.

[Meho Krljic]

 Social Media App Usage Down Across the Globe

[Meho Krljic]

a i ako se desi da bude više od 140, svi koji pređu limit biće blokirani

Videćemo da li će Lilita ispuniti svoju pretnju sad kad twitter zaista podiže limit. Doduše ne na 10 hiljada karaktera kako se tad pričalo, ali će iz limita biti izuzete slike, kao i citirani tvitovi:


http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/12/12891562/twitter-tweets-140-characters-expand-photos

[Meho Krljic]

Tviter se (reklo bi se) priprema da se skupo proda:


Twitter may soon get formal bid, suitors said to include Salesforce and Google

[Meho Krljic]

No one wants to buy Twitter

The emotional roller coaster that is Twitter's future seems to have hit a new low today as Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff tells the Financial Timeshis company has "walked away" from making a bid to buy it.
If you're keeping track, that's now... pretty much everyone who's said they're not interested in buying Twitter. Neither Google nor Disney plan to bid on Twitter, despite reports saying both were interested. Recode says that Apple is likely also out of the picture. And Verizon immediately dismissed speculation that it was considering a bid.
Facebook is also said to be uninterested, according to CNBC. And while Microsoft's name has been tossed around, no one seems to think the acquisition would make any sense for an increasingly enterprise-focused company.


So it very much sounds like no one is going to make a bid on Twitter this week. Which means that the possibility of a Twitter acquisition, at least for now, appears to be over.
That's going to put even more pressure on Twitter to figure out a way to restart user growth, which has ranged from "stalled" to "slow" over the past year. Twitter's revenue has also been growing slowly, and it's unclear if its new embrace of live video — like streaming NFL games and the presidential debates — has been helping.
Twitter will update investors on its earnings again two weeks from now, on October 27th, and it's likely the company will either address or be asked about where acquisition talks go from here.

[Meho Krljic]

Twitteru baš ne ide. Prvo najava da otpuštaju 9% svojih zaposlenih a sada i ubijaju Vine....

Vine Is Dead

[Meho Krljic]

Facebook users sue over alleged racial discrimination in housing, job ads

[Meho Krljic]

6 Scientific Reasons Facebook Turns Everybody Into A Jerk

[Meho Krljic]

Tviter u agoniji 

Twitter is 'toast' and the stock is not even worth $10: Analyst

Možda će se u istoriji ovo na kraju pamtiti kao definicija mjehura. Tviter nikada nije imao ne jasnu nego ni maglovitu strategiju zarade ali mu je munjevita proliferacija među korisnicima interneta omogućila da izgleda kao next big thing ma šta u svemu tome to "thing" trebalo da bude i, evo, skoro deset godina je jahao na talasu kapitala koji je naslepo jurio next big thing. Međutim, sad niko neće da kupi firmu, visokopozicionirani egzekjutivi iskaču iz broda koji tone i... na kraju će ga verovatno pazariti neka kineska firma i pretvoriti u reklamnu platformu gde će botovi jedni drugima tvitovati genijalne i tajne tehnike za povećanje penisa.

[lilit]

bolje povećanje penisa nego sve te tviter revolucije. 

[Meho Krljic]

Normalno da ćeš to ti da kažeš, pa ti si ŽENA!!!!

[Meho Krljic]

 How tech ate the media and our minds

Let's face it: most of us are more distracted and more frazzled than ever. We are prisoners to our phones: tweeting our every thought, or snapping our every emotion, or Facebooking our every fantasy, feeling or family moment. We scroll, click and swipe our days away, better connected than at any point in humanity — but not necessarily better informed.
We've been hit with more technological innovations than we are capable of responsibly handling.   Ten short years ago: The iPhone was born, Facebook was a small social network used mostly by college students, and there was no Snapchat, Instagram or Pinterest. Most people still relied on three network evening newscasts and a local newspaper, hand delivered, to be informed about current events.  If you wanted to share a photo, you probably mailed it; if you wanted to share your opinion, you screamed it at the TV in your basement or wrote a letter to the editor, maybe by hand.
But then technology blew up — and blew (and took over) our minds. Now, every day there are:

   
• 1.2 billion web pageviews, per Chartbeat
• Billions of Google searches, per Google
• 13.8 billion hours + of video shared on YouTube, per Google
• 13M audio/video calls made on Facebook Messenger, per Facebook
• 50 billion messages sent on WhatsApp, per Facebook
• 500 million Tweets sent, per Twitter

Our brains have been literally swamped and reprogrammed. On average, we check our phones 50 times each day — with some studies suggesting it could three times that amount. We spend around 6 hours per day consuming digital media. As a result, the human attention span has fallen from 12 seconds to eight seconds since 2000, while the goldfish attention span is nine seconds. And we just mindlessly pass along information without reading or checking it. Columbia University found that nearly 60 percent of all social media posts are shared without being clicked on.
For better or worse, Google and Facebook are mostly to blame. Nearly 60% of our media-consumption time happens in mobile apps, and a majority that traffic is owned by those two companies. (See below). This paradigm has destroyed the business model for news publishers, creating perverse incentives for publishers to generate as many clicks as possible, creating a "crap trap" — the deal media companies made with the devil to dumb things down (and lose credibility) by seeking the broadest reach. But, the house always wins: Facebook and Google now eat up almost two thirds of all ads and gobbled up 90 percent of all growth in media spend — while publishers perish.

  Data: 2016 Mobile App Report, comScore Mobile Metrix, U.S., Age 18+, June 2016; Chart: Lazaro Gamio / Axios
And, at least for now, the more we know, or can see, the less we trust. Roughly 62% of U.S. adults get news on social media and 68% of people don't trust the news they see or read. Think about that: most people don't trust REAL news. The proliferation of fake news is almost certain to get worse, as we see left-leaning groups racing to adapt manipulative techniques that helped conservatives in 2016. Case in point: A 2016 BuzzFeed News analysis found that top fake election news stories generated more total engagement on Facebook than top election stories from 19 major news outlets combined.
  This has created a conundrum: There is more good information than at any point in humanity, but it's harder than ever to find and trust. Almost every trend cited here is getting worse, not better. And so much of the power to change it rests in the hands of the few, mainly Facebook but also Google, Twitter and Snapchat. Some publishers are putting the emphasis on quality content, which can help. And others are moving fast to adapt serious news and information to better fit in these exploding off-platform ecosystems. But ultimately, the burden will fall on individual consumers to exploit what should be the golden age of information by adjusting their own habits.

[Meho Krljic]

U sličnom tonu:

Social Media Are Driving Americans Insane

[Scordisk]

Vid', je'ote, ovaj mi postavio dijagnozu. Ja telefon i u klonju ponesem....

[tomat]

De se dede divno vreme kada se u klonji čitao sastav praška, omekšivača, dezodoransa,...

[Scordisk]

Jes, vala, mnogo edukativnije doba je to bilo a ne ovo sada, kenjaš i blejiš na sagiti

[Truba]

fax helzim bioaktiv

[Meho Krljic]

How technology created a global village — and put us at each other's throats

By Nicholas Carr   April 21, 2017  Welcome to the global village. It's a nasty place.
On Easter Sunday, a man in Cleveland filmed himself murdering a random 74-year-old and posted the video on Facebook. The social network took the grisly clip down within two or three hours, but not before users shared it on other websites — where people around the world can still view it.
Advertisement
Surely incidents like this aren't what Mark Zuckerberg had in mind. In 2012, as his company was preparing to go public, the Facebook founder wrote an earnest letter to would-be shareholders explaining that his company was more than just a business. It was pursuing a "social mission" to make the world a better place by encouraging self-expression and conversation. "People sharing more," the young entrepreneur wrote, "creates a more open culture and leads to a better understanding of the lives and perspectives of others."
Earlier this year, Zuckerberg penned another public letter, expressing even grander ambitions. Facebook, he announced, is expanding its mission from "connecting friends and family" to building "a global community that works for everyone." The ultimate goal is to turn the already vast social network into a sort of supranational state "spanning cultures, nations and regions."  Get Arguable with Jeff Jacoby in your inbox:
Our conservative columnist offers a weekly take on everything from politics to pet peeves.But the murder in Cleveland, and any similar incidents that inevitably follow, reveal the hollowness of Silicon Valley's promise that digital networks would bring us together in a more harmonious world.
Whether he knows it or not, Zuckerberg is part of a long tradition in Western thought. Ever since the building of the telegraph system in the 19th century, people have believed that advances in communication technology would promote social harmony. The more we learned about each other, the more we would recognize that we're all one. In an 1899 article celebrating the laying of transatlantic Western Union cables, a New York Times columnist expressed the popular assumption well: "Nothing so fosters and promotes a mutual understanding and a community of sentiment and interests as cheap, speedy, and convenient communication."
The great networks of the 20th century — radio, telephone, TV — reinforced this sunny notion. Spanning borders and erasing distances, they shrank the planet. Guglielmo Marconi declared in 1912 that his invention of radio would "make war impossible, because it will make war ridiculous." AT&T's top engineer, J.J. Carty, predicted in a 1923 interview that the telephone system would "join all the peoples of the earth in one brotherhood." In his 1962 book "The Gutenberg Galaxy," the media theorist Marshall McLuhan gave us the memorable term "global village" to describe the world's "new electronic interdependence." Most people took the phrase optimistically, as a prophecy of inevitable social progress. What, after all, could be nicer than a village?
Advertisement
If our assumption that communication brings people together were true, we should today be seeing a planetary outbreak of peace, love, and understanding. Thanks to the Internet and cellular networks, humanity is more connected than ever. Of the world's 7 billion people, 6 billion have access to a mobile phone — a billion and a half more, the United Nations reports, than have access to a working toilet. Nearly 2 billion are on Facebook, more than a billion upload and download YouTube videos, and billions more converse through messaging apps like WhatsApp and WeChat. With smartphone in hand, everyone becomes a media hub, transmitting and receiving ceaselessly.
Yet we live in a fractious time, defined not by concord but by conflict. Xenophobia is on the rise. Political and social fissures are widening. From the White House down, public discourse is characterized by vitriol and insult. We probably shouldn't be surprised.
For years now, psychological and sociological studies have been casting doubt on the idea that communication dissolves differences. The research suggests that the opposite is true: free-flowing information makes personal and cultural differences more salient, turning people against one another instead of bringing them together. "Familiarity breeds contempt" is one of the gloomiest of proverbs. It is also, the evidence indicates, one of the truest.
In a series of experiments reported in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in 2007, Harvard psychologist Michael Norton and two colleagues found that, contrary to our instincts, the more we learn about someone else, the more we tend to dislike that person. "Although people believe that knowing leads to liking," the researchers wrote, "knowing more means liking less." Worse yet, they found evidence of "dissimilarity cascades." As we get additional information about others, we place greater stress on the ways those people differ from us than on the ways they resemble us, and this inclination to emphasize dissimilarities over similarities strengthens as the amount of information accumulates. On average, we like strangers best when we know the least about them.
An earlier study, published in 1976, revealed a similar pattern in communities. Three professors from the University of California at San Diego studied a condominium development near Los Angeles, charting relationships among neighbors. They discovered that as people live more closely together, the likelihood that they'll become friends goes up, but the likelihood that they'll become enemies goes up even more. The scholars traced the phenomenon to what they called "environmental spoiling." The nearer we get to others, the harder it becomes to avoid evidence of their irritating habits. Proximity makes differences stand out.
The effect intensifies in the virtual world, where everyone is in everyone else's business. Social networks like Facebook and messaging apps like Snapchat encourage constant self-disclosure. Because status is measured quantitatively online, in numbers of followers, friends, and likes, people are rewarded for broadcasting endless details about their lives and thoughts through messages and photographs. To shut up, even briefly, is to disappear. One study found that people share four times as much information about themselves when they converse through computers as when they talk in person.
Being exposed to this superabundance of personal information can create an oppressive sense of "digital crowding," a group of British scholars wrote in a 2011 paper, and that in turn can breed stress and provoke antisocial reactions. "With the advent of social media," they concluded, "it is inevitable that we will end up knowing more about people, and also more likely that we end up disliking them because of it."
If social media brings out the misanthrope in us, it can also unleash darker impulses. In a 2014 article in Personality and Individual Differences, three Canadian psychologists reported on research that found that people with sadistic tendencies tend to be among the most active commenters in online forums. Like other sadists, so-called trolls are motivated by the anticipation of pleasure, the study revealed; they take joy in inflicting psychic pain on others. Although it's not clear whether the Internet breeds cruelty or just encourages it, the findings "add to accumulating evidence linking excessive technology use to antisociality," the researchers wrote. "Sadists just want to have fun . . . and the Internet is their playground!"
Despite his occasional utopian rhetoric, Marshall McLuhan himself harbored few illusions about life in a global village. He saw villages as inherently tribal, marked by mistrust and friction and prone to viciousness and violence. "When people get close together, they get more and more savage and impatient with each other," he said in a 1977 television interview. "The global village is a place of very arduous interfaces and very abrasive situations." That's a pretty good description of where we find ourselves today.
Still, the yearning to see communications technology as a remedy for social ills remains strong, as Zuckerberg's February missive underscores. Despite Facebook's well-publicized recent struggle to control hate speech, propaganda, and fake news, Zuckerberg seems more confident than ever that a "global community" can be constructed out of software. The centerpiece of his new project is a computerized "social infrastructure" that will use artificial-intelligence routines to manage information flows in a way that makes everyone happy. The system will promote universal self-expression while at the same time shielding individuals from "objectionable content."
The problem with such geeky grandiosity goes beyond its denial of human nature. It reinforces the idea, long prevalent in American culture, that technological progress is sufficient to ensure social progress. If we get the engineering right, our better angels will triumph. It's a pleasant thought, but it's a fantasy. Progress toward a more amicable world will require not technological magic but concrete, painstaking, and altogether human measures: negotiation and compromise, a renewed emphasis on civics and reasoned debate, a citizenry able to appreciate contrary perspectives. At a personal level, we may need less self-expression and more self-examination.
Technology is an amplifier. It magnifies our best traits, and it magnifies our worst.
What it doesn't do is make us better people. That's a job we can't offload on machines.Nicholas Carr is the author of "Utopia Is Creepy," "The Shallows," and other books.

[Meho Krljic]

Amerika na kolenima, Rusija je kontroliše preko Tvitera!!!!


...ili bih tako nekako ja smislio naslov da je ovo vest u Kuriru/ Blicu/ Informeru/ Alou... Ali nije, ovo je Time.



Inside Russia's Social Media War on America

On March 2, a disturbing report hit the desks of U.S. counterintelligence officials in Washington. For months, American spy hunters had scrambled to uncover details of Russia's influence operation against the 2016 presidential election. In offices in both D.C. and suburban Virginia, they had created massive wall charts to track the different players in Russia's multipronged scheme. But the report in early March was something new.
It described how Russia had already moved on from the rudimentary email hacks against politicians it had used in 2016. Now the Russians were running a more sophisticated hack on Twitter. The report said the Russians had sent expertly tailored messages carrying malware to more than 10,000 Twitter users in the Defense Department. Depending on the interests of the targets, the messages offered links to stories on recent sporting events or the Oscars, which had taken place the previous weekend. When clicked, the links took users to a Russian-controlled server that downloaded a program allowing Moscow's hackers to take control of the victim's phone or computer--and Twitter account.
As they scrambled to contain the damage from the hack and regain control of any compromised devices, the spy hunters realized they faced a new kind of threat. In 2016, Russia had used thousands of covert human agents and robot computer programs to spread disinformation referencing the stolen campaign emails of Hillary Clinton, amplifying their effect. Now counterintelligence officials wondered: What chaos could Moscow unleash with thousands of Twitter handles that spoke in real time with the authority of the armed forces of the United States? At any given moment, perhaps during a natural disaster or a terrorist attack, Pentagon Twitter accounts might send out false information. As each tweet corroborated another, and covert Russian agents amplified the messages even further afield, the result could be panic and confusion.


For many Americans, Russian hacking remains a story about the 2016 election. But there is another story taking shape. Marrying a hundred years of expertise in influence operations to the new world of social media, Russia may finally have gained the ability it long sought but never fully achieved in the Cold War: to alter the course of events in the U.S. by manipulating public opinion. The vast openness and anonymity of social media has cleared a dangerous new route for antidemocratic forces. "Using these technologies, it is possible to undermine democratic government, and it's becoming easier every day," says Rand Waltzman of the Rand Corp., who ran a major Pentagon research program to understand the propaganda threats posed by social media technology.
Current and former officials at the FBI, at the CIA and in Congress now believe the 2016 Russian operation was just the most visible battle in an ongoing information war against global democracy. And they've become more vocal about their concern. "If there has ever been a clarion call for vigilance and action against a threat to the very foundation of our democratic political system, this episode is it," former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified before Congress on May 8.
If that sounds alarming, it helps to understand the battlescape of this new information war. As they tweet and like and upvote their way through social media, Americans generate a vast trove of data on what they think and how they respond to ideas and arguments--literally thousands of expressions of belief every second on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit and Google. All of those digitized convictions are collected and stored, and much of that data is available commercially to anyone with sufficient computing power to take advantage of it.
That's where the algorithms come in. American researchers have found they can use mathematical formulas to segment huge populations into thousands of subgroups according to defining characteristics like religion and political beliefs or taste in TV shows and music. Other algorithms can determine those groups' hot-button issues and identify "followers" among them, pinpointing those most susceptible to suggestion. Propagandists can then manually craft messages to influence them, deploying covert provocateurs, either humans or automated computer programs known as bots, in hopes of altering their behavior.
That is what Moscow is doing, more than a dozen senior intelligence officials and others investigating Russia's influence operations tell TIME. The Russians "target you and see what you like, what you click on, and see if you're sympathetic or not sympathetic," says a senior intelligence official. Whether and how much they have actually been able to change Americans' behavior is hard to say. But as they have investigated the Russian 2016 operation, intelligence and other officials have found that Moscow has developed sophisticated tactics.
In one case last year, senior intelligence officials tell TIME, a Russian soldier based in Ukraine successfully infiltrated a U.S. social media group by pretending to be a 42-year-old American housewife and weighing in on political debates with specially tailored messages. In another case, officials say, Russia created a fake Facebook account to spread stories on political issues like refugee resettlement to targeted reporters they believed were susceptible to influence.
As Russia expands its cyberpropaganda efforts, the U.S. and its allies are only just beginning to figure out how to fight back. One problem: the fear of Russian influence operations can be more damaging than the operations themselves. Eager to appear more powerful than they are, the Russians would consider it a success if you questioned the truth of your news sources, knowing that Moscow might be lurking in your Facebook or Twitter feed. But figuring out if they are is hard. Uncovering "signals that indicate a particular handle is a state-sponsored account is really, really difficult," says Jared Cohen, CEO of Jigsaw, a subsidiary of Google's parent company, Alphabet, which tackles global security challenges.
Like many a good spy tale, the story of how the U.S. learned its democracy could be hacked started with loose lips. In May 2016, a Russian military intelligence officer bragged to a colleague that his organization, known as the GRU, was getting ready to pay Clinton back for what President Vladimir Putin believed was an influence operation she had run against him five years earlier as Secretary of State. The GRU, he said, was going to cause chaos in the upcoming U.S. election.
What the officer didn't know, senior intelligence officials tell TIME, was that U.S. spies were listening. They wrote up the conversation and sent it back to analysts at headquarters, who turned it from raw intelligence into an official report and circulated it. But if the officer's boast seems like a red flag now, at the time U.S. officials didn't know what to make of it. "We didn't really understand the context of it until much later," says the senior intelligence official. Investigators now realize that the officer's boast was the first indication U.S. spies had from their sources that Russia wasn't just hacking email accounts to collect intelligence but was also considering interfering in the vote. Like much of America, many in the U.S. government hadn't imagined the kind of influence operation that Russia was preparing to unleash on the 2016 election. Fewer still realized it had been five years in the making.
In 2011, protests in more than 70 cities across Russia had threatened Putin's control of the Kremlin. The uprising was organized on social media by a popular blogger named Alexei Navalny, who used his blog as well as Twitter and Facebook to get crowds in the streets. Putin's forces broke out their own social media technique to strike back. When bloggers tried to organize nationwide protests on Twitter using #Triumfalnaya, pro-Kremlin botnets bombarded the hashtag with anti-protester messages and nonsense tweets, making it impossible for Putin's opponents to coalesce.
Putin publicly accused then Secretary of State Clinton of running a massive influence operation against his country, saying she had sent "a signal" to protesters and that the State Department had actively worked to fuel the protests. The State Department said it had just funded pro-democracy organizations. Former officials say any such operations--in Russia or elsewhere--would require a special intelligence finding by the President and that Barack Obama was not likely to have issued one.
After his re-election the following year, Putin dispatched his newly installed head of military intelligence, Igor Sergun, to begin repurposing cyberweapons previously used for psychological operations in war zones for use in electioneering. Russian intelligence agencies funded "troll farms," botnet spamming operations and fake news outlets as part of an expanding focus on psychological operations in cyberspace.


It turns out Putin had outside help. One particularly talented Russian programmer who had worked with social media researchers in the U.S. for 10 years had returned to Moscow and brought with him a trove of algorithms that could be used in influence operations. He was promptly hired by those working for Russian intelligence services, senior intelligence officials tell TIME. "The engineer who built them the algorithms is U.S.-trained," says the senior intelligence official.
Soon, Putin was aiming his new weapons at the U.S. Following Moscow's April 2014 invasion of Ukraine, the U.S. considered sanctions that would block the export of drilling and fracking technologies to Russia, putting out of reach some $8.2 trillion in oil reserves that could not be tapped without U.S. technology. As they watched Moscow's intelligence operations in the U.S., American spy hunters saw Russian agents applying their new social media tactics on key aides to members of Congress. Moscow's agents broadcast material on social media and watched how targets responded in an attempt to find those who might support their cause, the senior intelligence official tells TIME. "The Russians started using it on the Hill with staffers," the official says, "to see who is more susceptible to continue this program [and] to see who would be more favorable to what they want to do."
On Aug. 7, 2016, the infamous pharmaceutical executive Martin Shkreli declared that Hillary Clinton had Parkinson's. That story went viral in late August, then took on a life of its own after Clinton fainted from pneumonia and dehydration at a Sept. 11 event in New York City. Elsewhere people invented stories saying Pope Francis had endorsed Trump and Clinton had murdered a DNC staffer. Just before Election Day, a story took off alleging that Clinton and her aides ran a pedophile ring in the basement of a D.C. pizza parlor.
Congressional investigators are looking at how Russia helped stories like these spread to specific audiences. Counterintelligence officials, meanwhile, have picked up evidence that Russia tried to target particular influencers during the election season who they reasoned would help spread the damaging stories. These officials have seen evidence of Russia using its algorithmic techniques to target the social media accounts of particular reporters, senior intelligence officials tell TIME. "It's not necessarily the journal or the newspaper or the TV show," says the senior intelligence official. "It's the specific reporter that they find who might be a little bit slanted toward believing things, and they'll hit him" with a flood of fake news stories.
Russia plays in every social media space. The intelligence officials have found that Moscow's agents bought ads on Facebook to target specific populations with propaganda. "They buy the ads, where it says sponsored by--they do that just as much as anybody else does," says the senior intelligence official. (A Facebook official says the company has no evidence of that occurring.) The ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mark Warner of Virginia, has said he is looking into why, for example, four of the top five Google search results the day the U.S. released a report on the 2016 operation were links to Russia's TV propaganda arm, RT. (Google says it saw no meddling in this case.) Researchers at the University of Southern California, meanwhile, found that nearly 20% of political tweets in 2016 between Sept. 16 and Oct. 21 were generated by bots of unknown origin; investigators are trying to figure out how many were Russian.
As they dig into the viralizing of such stories, congressional investigations are probing not just Russia's role but whether Moscow had help from the Trump campaign. Sources familiar with the investigations say they are probing two Trump-linked organizations: Cambridge Analytica, a data-analytics company hired by the campaign that is partly owned by deep-pocketed Trump backer Robert Mercer; and Breitbart News, the right-wing website formerly run by Trump's top political adviser Stephen Bannon.
The congressional investigators are looking at ties between those companies and right-wing web personalities based in Eastern Europe who the U.S. believes are Russian fronts, a source familiar with the investigations tells TIME. "Nobody can prove it yet," the source says. In March, McClatchy newspapers reported that FBI counterintelligence investigators were probing whether far-right sites like Breitbart News and Infowars had coordinated with Russian botnets to blitz social media with anti-Clinton stories, mixing fact and fiction when Trump was doing poorly in the campaign.
There are plenty of people who are skeptical of such a conspiracy, if one existed. Cambridge Analytica touts its ability to use algorithms to microtarget voters, but veteran political operatives have found them ineffective political influencers. Ted Cruz first used their methods during the primary, and his staff ended up concluding they had wasted their money. Mercer, Bannon, Breitbart News and the White House did not answer questions about the congressional probes. A spokesperson for Cambridge Analytica says the company has no ties to Russia or individuals acting as fronts for Moscow and that it is unaware of the probe.
Democratic operatives searching for explanations for Clinton's loss after the election investigated social media trends in the three states that tipped the vote for Trump: Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. In each they found what they believe is evidence that key swing voters were being drawn to fake news stories and anti-Clinton stories online. Google searches for the fake pedophilia story circulating under the hashtag #pizzagate, for example, were disproportionately higher in swing districts and not in districts likely to vote for Trump.
The Democratic operatives created a package of background materials on what they had found, suggesting the search behavior might indicate that someone had successfully altered the behavior in key voting districts in key states. They circulated it to fellow party members who are up for a vote in 2018.


Even as investigators try to piece together what happened in 2016, they are worrying about what comes next. Russia claims to be able to alter events using cyberpropaganda and is doing what it can to tout its power. In February 2016, a Putin adviser named Andrey Krutskikh compared Russia's information-warfare strategies to the Soviet Union's obtaining a nuclear weapon in the 1940s, David Ignatius of the Washington Post reported. "We are at the verge of having something in the information arena which will allow us to talk to the Americans as equals," Krutskikh said.


But if Russia is clearly moving forward, it's less clear how active the U.S. has been. Documents released by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden and published by the Intercept suggested that the British were pursuing social media propaganda and had shared their tactics with the U.S. Chris Inglis, the former No. 2 at the National Security Agency, says the U.S. has not pursued this capability. "The Russians are 10 years ahead of us in being willing to make use of" social media to influence public opinion, he says.
There are signs that the U.S. may be playing in this field, however. From 2010 to 2012, the U.S. Agency for International Development established and ran a "Cuban Twitter" network designed to undermine communist control on the island. At the same time, according to the Associated Press, which discovered the program, the U.S. government hired a contractor to profile Cuban cell phone users, categorizing them as "pro-revolution," "apolitical" or "antirevolutionary."
Much of what is publicly known about the mechanics and techniques of social media propaganda comes from a program at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) that the Rand researcher, Waltzman, ran to study how propagandists might manipulate social media in the future. In the Cold War, operatives might distribute disinformation-laden newspapers to targeted political groups or insinuate an agent provocateur into a group of influential intellectuals. By harnessing computing power to segment and target literally millions of people in real time online, Waltzman concluded, you could potentially change behavior "on the scale of democratic governments."
In the U.S., public scrutiny of such programs is usually enough to shut them down. In 2014, news articles appeared about the DARPA program and the "Cuban Twitter" project. It was only a year after Snowden had revealed widespread monitoring programs by the government. The DARPA program, already under a cloud, was allowed to expire quietly when its funding ran out in 2015.
In the wake of Russia's 2016 election hack, the question is how to research social media propaganda without violating civil liberties. The need is all the more urgent because the technology continues to advance. While today humans are still required to tailor and distribute messages to specially targeted "susceptibles," in the future crafting and transmitting emotionally powerful messages will be automated.
The U.S. government is constrained in what kind of research it can fund by various laws protecting citizens from domestic propaganda, government electioneering and intrusions on their privacy. Waltzman has started a group called Information Professionals Association with several former information operations officers from the U.S. military to develop defenses against social media influence operations.
Social media companies are beginning to realize that they need to take action. Facebook issued a report in April 2017 acknowledging that much disinformation had been spread on its pages and saying it had expanded its security. Google says it has seen no evidence of Russian manipulation of its search results but has updated its algorithms just in case. Twitter claims it has diminished cyberpropaganda by tweaking its algorithms to block cleverly designed bots. "Our algorithms currently work to detect when Twitter accounts are attempting to manipulate Twitter's Trends through inorganic activity, and then automatically adjust," the company said in a statement.
In the meantime, America's best option to protect upcoming votes may be to make it harder for Russia and other bad actors to hide their election-related information operations. When it comes to defeating Russian influence operations, the answer is "transparency, transparency, transparency," says Rhode Island Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. He has written legislation that would curb the massive, anonymous campaign contributions known as dark money and the widespread use of shell corporations that he says make Russian cyberpropaganda harder to trace and expose.
But much damage has already been done. "The ultimate impact of [the 2016 Russian operation] is we're never going to look at another election without wondering, you know, Is this happening, can we see it happening?" says Jigsaw's Jared Cohen. By raising doubts about the validity of the 2016 vote and the vulnerability of future elections, Russia has achieved its most important objective: undermining the credibility of American democracy.
For now, investigators have added the names of specific trolls and botnets to their wall charts in the offices of intelligence and law-enforcement agencies. They say the best way to compete with the Russian model is by having a better message. "It requires critical thinkers and people who have a more powerful vision" than the cynical Russian view, says former NSA deputy Inglis. And what message is powerful enough to take on the firehose of falsehoods that Russia is deploying in targeted, effective ways across a range of new media? One good place to start: telling the truth.
--With reporting by PRATHEEK REBALA/WASHINGTON
Correction: The original version of this story misstated Jared Cohen's title. He is CEO, not president.

[Aco Popara Zver]

Bem ti život, čak i piše da praktično svako ovo može da radi, ali Rusi....

[Dybuk]

Amerika na kolenima, Rusija je kontroliše preko Tvitera!!!!


...ili bih tako nekako ja smislio naslov da je ovo vest u Kuriru/ Blicu/ Informeru/ Alou... Ali nije, ovo je Time.

Zato i nisi *novinar* kurira/blica/informera/aloa!!!

Nemas štofa, kakav ti je ovo klikbejt, molim te?? Da probam ja:

Amerika na kolenima... A EVO I ZAŠTO!!!

Nego ja sam došla ovde da okačim vest koja nema direktne veze sa Z-bergovom politikom i tekovinama f-buka, ali KAD PROČITATE ŠOKIRAĆETE SE !!! (stvarno)

Prva smrtna kazna izrečena zbog objave na Fejsbuku

[džin tonik]

shokiran sam. kako je mogao biti toliko naivan; ne samo da je niz vodu pustio ovozemaljski zivot, vec i ono bitno! vrh autodestrukcije - fejsbuk. sve mu je to amerika dala...

[ridiculus]

Jel kažnjen zbog toga šta je objavio, ili gde je objavio?

Možda se u našim krajevima Fejsbuk ne shvata sasvim ozbiljno, ali islam sve shvata ozbiljno.

[džin tonik]

sad kad kazes... meni rodbina preko fb-a redovno cestita bozic i uskrs. i jos su zivi, hm.

[Meho Krljic]

German police raid 36 homes over hateful postings on social media

[camerashqiptarica]

takoe! pišaj po fespučarima

[Meho Krljic]

Regulisanje govora mržnje je komplikovano (za robote):

Facebook's Secret Censorship Rules Protect White Men from Hate Speech But Not Black Children

[Meho Krljic]

Ovo nema direktne veze s fejsbukom al ne znam ni na koji bih topik stavio pa neka ga ovde... Da se vidi da Bighed iz serije Silikon Veli nije tek slučajno izmišljen lik 

Inside the world of Silicon Valley's 'coasters' — the millionaire engineers who get paid gobs of money and barely work

[Meho Krljic]

Facebook has mapped populations in 23 countries as it explores satellites to expand internet

[Meho Krljic]

A Startling Anecdote About Online Ad Spending From Restoration Hardware

[Meho Krljic]

[Meho Krljic]

Microsoft, Facebook, Complete Enormous Undersea Cable

[Meho Krljic]

Russia Threatens to Shut Facebook Over Local Data Storage Laws


Srećom, ostaje im VK.

[Meho Krljic]

Capitalism without consequences

[Meho Krljic]

Radical Leftists Built Their Own Reddit After It Banned Them


Pa da vidimo koliko će im TO pomoći

[Meho Krljic]

How Facebook Outs Sex Workers

[Meho Krljic]

How Silicon Valley Divided Society and Made Everyone Raging Mad

[scallop]

Stalno se pitam kakva je razlika između FB i ovog našeg drljavog foruma. Na obe strane naizgled mnogo učesnika, 2-5% se ponašaju kao "perjanice", do 10% bi da "ćeraju kera", a ostali su negde drugde. A, bre, na FB Skrobonja ima mnogo više "prijatelja" (2142), nego ZS zvaničnih članova (1802).

[Meho Krljic]

Neke od očiglednih razlika su:

1. Znak Sagite ne prikuplja naše privatne podatke da bih ih prosledio advertajzerima.

2. Ne poostoji "lajkovanje" na Znaku Sagite, što znači da se izražavanje slaganja ili neslaganja ne može svesti na klik i zahteva kakvu-takvu verbalnu ekspresiju.