Covid-19 Discussion

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Status
Not open for further replies.
ChipChop said:
Where the hell is all this money coming from?
Click to expand...

Us.

My concern about the free spending that's going on, seemigly unchecked, is that it is wide open to corruption.

A real cynic might suggest that so much money to foreign companies for foreign produced kit might involve back handers.

Since our industry is in so much need of a leg up, Shapps promoting domestic production for these things would be more reasonable. And with it increased home employment.
That way our return for the kick backs would be greater. It would be difficult to stop the rich getting richer from such projects anyway.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

The PLANDEMIC IS CONFIRMED!!!!
ITS NO LONGER A CONSPIRACY THEORY, ITS FACTS‼️
This has been a known "live training and simulation exercise" all along and here is the evidence.
Its in black and white on the WHO website so please go have a look for yourselves.
Almost 200 countries signed up for this and they didn't care who they killed in the process..

Major documentary confirmation of something many of us have come to know for certain in recent times: the entire COVID-19 world-shutdown is part of a live training and simulation exercise run by the unscrupulous WHO and United Nations, as documented in their Global Preparedness Monitoring Board's annual 2019 report and their International Health Regulations treaty of 2005—which 194/or 196 countries signed off on—which pretty much establishes a Global Government (of the WHO & United Nations, & the high-level international GMPB) along with their sponsors, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, & other unnamed donors.
 
markjay said:
Just listened to this:

www.bbc.co.uk

BBC Radio 4 - How to Cure Viral Misinformation

The story of one misleading post - and how we can all stop the spread of bad information.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

30 minutes, very good, explains how social media can't really fight fake facts and misinformation (not that it would change anything though :( )

I expect certain members will say that it can't be trusted because it does not fit with their view of the world this is what the establishment wants us to believe and the BBC are biased.
Click to expand...

Interestingly, the BBC Fact-checking team gave the following tips to help recognise fake information:

- Excessive use of Capitals

- Use of exclamation marks

- Spelling mistakes or grammatical errors (in documents claiming to be from official sources)

Hmmmmmm..... we got 2 out of 3 so far.
 
ChipChop said:
A form of "moderation in advance" has already been legislated for in the EU's digital copyright legislation so it is soon to become a reality. The UK once free come 2021 will not follow these EU rules.
Click to expand...

I really recommend that you listen to the Radio 4 program I linked above.

The BBC Fact-checking team followed one particular piece of Coronavirus misinformation that has been spreading around the Internet since February.

While tracing its roots, they found that the message received a significant boost from one Facebook post in March. They contacted the person who posted it, an 84 years old chao called Peter, who said he simply posted information he got from somewhere else (he refused to say who forwarded it to him), and that he did it in good faith thinking it was true. He said he knows now that the information wasn't true and said he is happy to admit he made a mistake and apologise.

But here's the interesting part... he said that someone complained to Facebook about his post, and Facebook contacted him demanding that the false information is removed or his account will be blocked. So he removed the post.

That was back in March, when his original post was already shared around 10,000 times. Since them - and in spite the fact that the original post was removed some months ago - his post was shared over 300 000 times, nearing 400,000.

The BBC team explained that once people started to share the post, Facebook couldn't stop the snowball rolling. They labeled Peter a 'super-spreaders' due to how his post went viral.

So when you say that Social Media will need to moderate and censor content... the technology to do that simply doesn't exist yet.
 
markjay said:
Interestingly, the BBC Fact-checking team gave the following tips to help recognise fake information:

- Excessive use of Capitals

- Use of exclamation marks

- Spelling mistakes or grammatical errors (in documents claiming to be from official sources)

Hmmmmmm..... we got 2 out of 3 so far.
Click to expand...

Using those "Recognition Flags" almost ALL of my Posts on this Forum would be Flagged as "Fake Information"! :rolleyes: 😏🤔
 
markjay said:
Interestingly, the BBC Fact-checking team gave the following tips to help recognise fake information:

- Excessive use of Capitals

- Use of exclamation marks

- Spelling mistakes or grammatical errors (in documents claiming to be from official sources)

Hmmmmmm..... we got 2 out of 3 so far.
Click to expand...
What's interesting to me about that article is that the misinformation spreads so quickly by those who just pass on the same 'facts' without checking or commenting themselves, I'm not sure if this is laziness, mischievous or lack of understanding which leads to no personal input.
The other trait that I note from such sources is a tendency to twist information to suit their agenda, the more subtle ones are deliberately complicated or state assumptions as facts and build up a conspiracy from there.
It's a basic trait of a liar to overcomplicate their responses when they are lying in an attempt to obscure the lie with surplus information.
I often read such opinion and am left not knowing what they are on about.
 
markjay said:
I really recommend that you listen to the Radio 4 program I linked above.

The BBC Fact-checking team followed one particular piece of Coronavirus misinformation that has been spreading around the Internet since February.

While tracing its roots, they found that the message received a significant boost from one Facebook post in March. They contacted the person who posted it, an 84 years old chao called Peter, who said he simply posted information he got from somewhere else (he refused to say who forwarded it to him), and that he did it in good faith thinking it was true. He said he knows now that the information wasn't true and said he is happy to admit he made a mistake and apologise.

But here's the interesting part... he said that someone complained to Facebook about his post, and Facebook contacted him demanding that the false information is removed or his account will be blocked. So he removed the post.

That was back in March, when his original post was already shared around 10,000 times. Since them - and in spite the fact that the original post was removed some months ago - his post was shared over 300 000 times, nearing 400,000.

The BBC team explained that once people started to share the post, Facebook couldn't stop the snowball rolling. They labeled Peter a 'super-spreaders' due to how his post went viral.

So when you say that Social Media will need to moderate and censor content... the technology to do that simply doesn't exist yet.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the recommendation Mj however i do not watch or listen to BBC content. I have no licence. If there is a web page with this story then i can look at that.

Maybe you could explain exactly what piece of misinformation the BBC in conjunction with Facebook, both organisations with the highest standards o_O, were debunking. Then i can comment.

Or maybe the piece of misinformation was covered by Metabunk.org another debunking organisation.

As an aside did you know if you have a Ring doorbell (owned by Amazon) Facebook will farm data from that device. In effect Facebook will know and retain records of when and how you are answering your smart doorbell. What is the purpose of these actions by a private foreign owned company?

www.bbc.co.uk

Ring doorbell 'gives Facebook and Google user data'

The Ring app sends a range of personal information to marketing companies, a study suggests.
www.bbc.co.uk

(It is a BBC story so no need to fact check that one.)
 
Last edited:
ChipChop said:
...As an aside did you know if you have a Ring doorbell (owned by Amazon) Facebook will farm data from that device. In effect Facebook will know and retain records of when and how you are answering your smart doorbell. What is the purpose of these actions by a private foreign owned company?

www.bbc.co.uk

Ring doorbell 'gives Facebook and Google user data'

The Ring app sends a range of personal information to marketing companies, a study suggests.
www.bbc.co.uk

(It is a BBC story so no need to fact check that one.)
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone should be above being fact-checked. The BBC were actually only quoting another source, so the only fact that needs checking with regards the BBC's article, is that the source they quoted is real, and they pass that test. I must admit never heard of the EFF before, but according to their website they are doing good work:

'The Electronic Frontier Foundation was founded in July of 1990 in response to a basic threat to speech and privacy.'

If the EFF exposed illegal data collection by the big Internet giants, then good on them and I hope that the relevant authorities in the various countries affected use their powers to ensure that these companies comply with all current date protection and privacy legislation, or are penalised if they don't.

And I suspect that the reason that the BBC chose to give prominence to information provided by a rather obscure source at this particular time, is the potential (if anecdotal) relevance to the current ongoing antitrust hearing in the US:

www.bbc.co.uk

Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Google face claims of 'harmful' power

The executives of the four US tech giants defend their records at a five-hour hearing in Congress.
www.bbc.co.uk

But what has any of this got to do with Coronavirus?
 
markjay said:
I don't think anyone should be above being fact-checked. The BBC were actually only quoting another source, so the only fact that needs checking with regards the BBC's article, is that the source they quoted is real, and they pass that test. I must admit never heard of the EFF before, but according to their website they are doing good work:

'The Electronic Frontier Foundation was founded in July of 1990 in response to a basic threat to speech and privacy.'

If the EFF exposed illegal data collection by the big Internet giants, then good on them and I hope that the relevant authorities in the various countries affected use their powers to ensure that these companies comply with all current date protection and privacy legislation, or are penalised if they don't.

And I suspect that the reason that the BBC chose to give prominence to information provided by a rather obscure source at this particular time, is the potential (if anecdotal) relevance to the current ongoing antitrust hearing in the US:

www.bbc.co.uk

Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Google face claims of 'harmful' power

The executives of the four US tech giants defend their records at a five-hour hearing in Congress.
www.bbc.co.uk

But what has any of this got to do with Coronavirus?
Click to expand...
It really is a question of if you can trust private companies like the BBC and Facebook/ Google to "fact check" or actually tell the truth.

You can make your own decisions on their ability to do this based on the past actions of these companies. Like Facebook/ Google and the Amazon Ring doorbell data mining scandal.

Does'nt look good for them imho.
 
ChipChop said:
Thanks for the recommendation Mj however i do not watch or listen to BBC content. I have no licence. If there is a web page with this story then i can look at that.

Maybe you could explain exactly what piece of misinformation the BBC in conjunction with Facebook, both organisations with the highest standards o_O, were debunking. Then i can comment.
Click to expand...

It was one of these viral posts that start with "This is from a friend of mine whose uncle works in the hospital in Wuhan..." type of thing, providing 'information' regarding how Coronavirus can be diagnosed and how it can be prevented etc.
 
ChipChop said:
As an aside did you know if you have a Ring doorbell (owned by Amazon) Facebook will farm data from that device. In effect Facebook will know and retain records of when and how you are answering your smart doorbell. What is the purpose of these actions by a private foreign owned company?

www.bbc.co.uk

Ring doorbell 'gives Facebook and Google user data'

The Ring app sends a range of personal information to marketing companies, a study suggests.
www.bbc.co.uk

(It is a BBC story so no need to fact check that one.)
Click to expand...
I’m not sure but I’m struggling to understand what a baddie would do with screen resolution. I can understand how it might be used for optimising app design though.
 
Bobby Dazzler said:
I’m not sure but I’m struggling to understand what a baddie would do with screen resolution. I can understand how it might be used for optimising app design though.
Click to expand...

Well if I had one all that would be interesting would be the fact that Amazon had delivered Multiple Times since 19 March 2020! 🤔 😏

But then, Amazon would have known that when I ordered the Stuff! o_O
 
ChipChop said:
Covert means not mentioned in the Ring products privacy policy or terms & conditions. Failing to protect end user privacy.
Click to expand...

And if it's not 'covert' instead it's buried in the small print on page 25 of the EULA, does this make a huge difference?

Our personal data (and other non-personal data) is the currency that we pay for the 'free' services we use. It's that simple.

There's regulation in place to deal with this, it needs to be enforced.

Not sure the 'scandal' you are referring to is essentially any different to Alexa or Echo or Waze or Mercedes Me etc etc etc.
 
markjay said:
And if it's not 'covert' instead it's buried in the small print on page 25 of the EULA, does this make a huge difference?

Our personal data (and other non-personal data) is the currency that we pay for the 'free' services we use. It's that simple.

There's regulation in place to deal with this, it needs to be enforced.

Not sure the 'scandal' you are referring to is essentially any different to Alexa or Echo or Waze or Mercedes Me etc etc etc.
Click to expand...
In the case of the Amazon Ring doorbell the data mining was covert. Hidden, not part of the T's & C's. You cannot normalise that. It is deception.

The currency we use to aquire these products is pounds sterling and any other hidden/ opaque commodity such as data yielded as part of product use needs to be stated explicity in the end user agreement/ t's & c's so consumers can make informed decisions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom